Microsoft Word - Environmental benefits of recycling 2010 update.doc

Table 47 Ranking of end-of-life options within each scenario for biopolymers

Case Composting Recycling

Incineration

with energy

recovery

Incineration

without

energy

recovery

Landfill Anaerobic^

digestion

1[MB] + ++ +++

1[OCT] + ++ +++

2[PLA] +++ ++ +

2[MB] ++ +++ + ++

2[BIO] ++ + +++

3[PLA1]  1 +++  1 +++

3[PLA1]

2

+ +++

2

++

4[MUB1] +++ ++ +

4[MUB2] +++ ++ +

5[PLA] +++ + ++

6[PLA] + +++

6[CE] + +++

7[MAS]  1 + ++  1 ++ +++

1[MB] + +++ ++

1[OCT] + +++ ++

2[PLA] + +++ ++

2[MB] + +++ ++ +

2[BIO] + +++ ++

2[PLA] + +++ ++

2[MB] + +++ ++ +

2[BIO] + +++ ++

3[PLA1]  1 + +++  1 ++

3[PLA1]

2

+ +++

2

++

5[PLA] +++ + +

7[MAS]

1

+++

1

+++ ++

Water

consumption

(m^3 )

Depletion of

natural

resources

(kg Sb eq)

Studies n°3, 4, 5,  6  and  7  do not include this indicator

Studies n°1,  4  and  6  do not include this indicator

Climate change

(kg CO2 eq)

No study includes this indicator

Energy demand

(MJ)

(^1) Feedstock recycling scenario
(^2) Chemical recycling scenario

+++ best option

++ intermediary option

+ worst option

option not assessed

3.4.3 Detailed comparison between the various treatment options

This chapter focuses on the comparison of the various treatment options indicator by indicator. The alternatives
serving as a reference for comparison are composting and incineration with energy recovery.

For each indicator, the differences resulting from the comparison of the various end-of-life options compared to
composting and to incineration with energy recovery are first presented in tables (values rounded up to the
nearest ten in the tables). The results are then grouped by range of 25% difference on the following graphs in
order to highlight the main tendencies.