|
|
“Towards a more direct policy feedback in circular economy monitoring via a societal needs perspective”. Alaerts L, Van Acker K, Rousseau S, De Jaeger S, Moraga G, Dewulf J, De Meester S, Van Passel S, Compernolle T, Bachus K, Vrancken K, Eyckmans J, Resources, conservation and recycling 149, 363 (2019). http://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2019.06.004
Abstract: The increasing focus on circular economy at the level of governments and policy requires the development of appropriate indicators to effectively monitor the progress towards the circular economy. Currently two very different types of indicator areas are under development: (i) monitoring frameworks based on macro indicators that summarize the progress at (supra)national level, and (ii) micro indicators tailored towards assessing circularity at the level of products. It is not possible to obtain sufficiently direct feedback about the impact of policy interventions by either macro or micro indicators alone. In this paper, a conceptual approach is developed that aims to bridge the gap between the micro and macro level with meso level indicators, and thus ultimately deliver more direct feedback for policymakers, via the insertion of an extra level of meso indicators in between the macro and the micro level. These indicators have been extracted from a dedicated workshop that involved policy, sector and societal stakeholders. The aim of these indicators is to report on progress towards circular economy objectives based on the fulfillment of societal needs. In this way the consumption perspective is given a central position, and the role of circular business models is acknowledged. Following the development of the concept, the next steps towards tailored, flexible and agile monitoring frameworks for circular economy at (supra)national and regional level are outlined. The paper concludes with an illustrative example of the framework applied to the mobility system.
Keywords: A1 Journal article; Economics; Engineering Management (ENM); Sustainable Energy, Air and Water Technology (DuEL)
Impact Factor: 3.313
Times cited: 1
DOI: 10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2019.06.004
|
|
|
|
“Development and application of a predictive modelling approach for household packaging waste flows in sorting facilities”. Kleinhans K, Hallemans M, Huysveld S, Thomassen G, Ragaert K, Van Geem KM, Roosen M, Mys N, Dewulf J, De Meester S, Waste Management 120, 290 (2021). http://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.11.056
Abstract: Household packaging waste sorting facilities consist of complex networks of processes to separate diverse waste streams. These facilities are a key first step to re-enter materials into the recycling chain. However, so far there are no general methods to predict the performance of such sorting facilities, i.e.
how efficiently the heterogeneous packaging waste is sorted into fractions with value for further recycling. In this paper, a model of the material flow in a sorting facility is presented, which allows changing the incoming waste composition, split factors on the sorting units as well as the setup of the sorting facility. The performance of the sorting facility is judged based on the purity of the output material (grade) and the recovery of the input material. A validation of the model was performed via a case study on Belgian post-consumer packaging waste with a selection of typical waste items that can be found in this stream. Moreover, the model was used to predict the possible sorting qualities of future Belgian postconsumer packaging waste after an extension of the allowed waste packaging items in the waste stream. Finally, a sensitivity analysis was performed on the split factors, which are a key data source in the model. Overall, the developed model is flexible and able to predict the performance of packaging waste sorting facilities as well as support waste management and design for recycling decisions, including future
design of packaging, to ensure proper sorting and separation.
Keywords: A1 Journal Article; Engineering Management (ENM) ;
DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2020.11.056
|
|
|
|
“Techno-economic assessment of mechanical recycling of challenging post-consumer plastic packaging waste”. Larraín M, Van Passel S, Thomassen G, Van Gorp B, Nhu TT, Huysveld S, Van Geem KM, De Meester S, Billen P, Resources Conservation And Recycling 170, 105607 (2021). http://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2021.105607
Abstract: Increasing plastic recycling rates is crucial to tackle plastic pollution and reduce consumption of fossil resources. Recycling routes for post-consumer plastic fractions that are technologically and economically feasible remain a challenge. Profitable value chains for recycling mixed film and tray-like plastics have hardly been implemented today, in sharp contrast to recycling of relatively pure fractions such as polyethylene terephthalate and high-density polyethylene bottles. This study examines the economic feasibility of implementing mechanical recycling for plastic waste such as polypropylene, polystyrene, polyethylene films and mixed polyolefins. In most European countries these plastic fractions are usually incinerated or landfilled whilst in fact technologies exist to mechanically recycle them into regranulates or regrinds. Results show that the economic incentives for the recycling of plastic packaging depend predominantly on the product price and product yield. At current price levels, the most profitable plastic fraction to be recycled is PS rigids, with an internal rate of return of 14%, whereas the least profitable feed is a mixed polyolefin fraction with a negative internal rate of return in a scenario with steadily rising oil prices. Moreover, these values would be substantially reduced if oil prices, and therefore plastic product prices decrease. Considering a discount rate of 15% for a 15-year period, mechanical recycling is not profitable if no policy changes would be imposed by governments. Clearly low oil prices may jeopardize the mechanical recycling industry, inducing the need for policies that would increase the demand of recycled products such as imposing minimal recycled content targets.
Keywords: A1 Journal article; Economics; Engineering sciences. Technology; Engineering Management (ENM); Intelligence in PRocesses, Advanced Catalysts and Solvents (iPRACS)
Impact Factor: 3.313
DOI: 10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2021.105607
|
|
|
|
“Improving the resource footprint evaluation of products recovered from wastewater : a discussion on appropriate allocation in the context of circular economy”. Sfez S, De Meester S, Vlaeminck SE, Dewulf J, Resources, conservation and recycling 148, 132 (2019). http://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2019.03.029
Abstract: Shifting from a linear to a circular economy has consequences on how the sustainability of products is assessed. This is the case for products recovered from resources such as sewage sludge. The “zero-burden” assumption is commonly used in Life Cycle Assessment and considers that waste streams are burden-free, which becomes debatable when comparing waste-based with virgin material-based products in the context of the growing circular economy. If waste streams are considered as resources rather than waste, upstream burdens should be partly allocated to all products to allow a fair comparison with their virgin material-based equivalents. In this paper, five allocation approaches are applied to allocate the resource use of upstream processes (consumer goods production) to products recovered from the processing of sewage sludge in the Netherlands, which produces biogas, (phosphorus-based) chemicals and building materials. Except for the approach which allocates 100% of the impact from resource recovery processes to the preceding consumer goods, the allocation approaches show a resource use 27 to 80% higher than with the “zero-burden” assumption. In this particular case, using these allocation approaches is likely to find little support from recyclers. The producers of household products, recyclers and policy makers should find a consensus to consider the shift from a linear to a circular economy in sustainability assessment studies while avoiding discouraging the implementation of recovery technologies. This paper suggests starting the discussion with the approach which allocates the impacts from upstream processes degressively to the downstream products as it best translates the industrial ecology principles.
Keywords: A1 Journal article; Engineering sciences. Technology; Sustainable Energy, Air and Water Technology (DuEL)
DOI: 10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2019.03.029
|
|
