Microsoft Word - Environmental benefits of recycling 2010 update.doc

Table 68 Ranking of end-of-life options within each scenario for food and garden waste

Case Composting

Incineration

with energy

recovery

Landfill

Anaerobic

digestion

1[OR] +++ +

2[GW1] + +++

2[GW2] + +++

3[FW1] +++ +

3[FW2] +++ +

3[FW3]* + * +++

4[FW1] ++ ++ + +++

4[FW2] ++ ++ + +++

5[OR] +++ +++ +

6[OR] ++ ++ + +++

7[OR] +++ +

4[FW1] + ++ ++ +++

4[FW2] + ++ ++ +++

1[OR] ++++

3[FW1] ++++

3[FW2] +++ +

3[FW3]* +++ * +

4[FW1] + +++ ++ ++

4[FW2] + +++ ++ ++

5[OR] + +++ ++

3[FW1] +++ +

3[FW2] +++ +

3[FW3]* +++ * +

Only study n°3 includes this indicator

Water

consumption

(m^3 )

• (^) Composting scenario assuming total anaerobic degradation
  Climate change
  (kg CO 2  eq)
  Only study n°4 includes this indicator
  Depletion of
  natural
  resources
  (kg Sb eq)
  Studies n°2,  6  and  7  do not include this indicator
  Energy demand
  (MJ)
  +++ best option
  ++ intermediary option

• worst option
  option not assessed

3.5.3 Detailed comparison between the various treatment options

Climate change

The diagrams below indicate the relative difference of composting or incineration with energy recovery and the
rest of the treatment options.

One point regarding anaerobic digestion should be explained. The configuration of anaerobic digestion in all three
studies that include it shows quite high methane recovery efficiencies (methane capture is above 90-95%) and
conversion to energy. These numbers reveal the assumption that the anaerobic digestion plant is state-of-the-art,
which influences the results greatly and renders the comparisons to other treatment plants relatively unfair.

Moreover, it should be noted that study no 3 contains two cases of home composting. The first case assumes
fully aerobic conditions (case 3[FW2]), while the second assumes fully anaerobic conditions (case 3[FW3]). These