Premium
Application of a Life Cycle Model for European Union Policy‐Driven Waste Management Decision Making in Emerging Economies
Author(s) -
Stanisavljevic Nemanja,
Levis James W.,
Barlaz Morton A.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
journal of industrial ecology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.377
H-Index - 102
eISSN - 1530-9290
pISSN - 1088-1980
DOI - 10.1111/jiec.12564
Subject(s) - life cycle assessment , european union , waste management , industrial ecology , environmental science , environmental economics , fossil fuel , municipal solid waste , greenhouse gas , energy recovery , circular economy , electricity , business , natural resource economics , sustainability , engineering , production (economics) , energy (signal processing) , economics , ecology , statistics , mathematics , electrical engineering , biology , macroeconomics , economic policy
Summary Solid waste life cycle modeling has predominantly focused on developed countries, but there are significant opportunities to assist developing and transition economies to minimize the environmental impact of solid waste management (SWM). Serbia is representative of a transition country and most (92%) of its waste is landfilled. As a Candidate European Union (EU) country, Serbia is expected to implement SWM strategies that meet EU directives. The Solid Waste Life‐Cycle Optimization Framework (SWOLF) was used to evaluate scenarios that meet EU goals by 2030. Scenarios included combinations of landfills, anaerobic digestion, composting, material recovery facilities (MRFs), waste‐to‐energy (WTE) combustion, and the use of refuse‐derived fuel in cement kilns. Each scenario was evaluated with and without separate collection of recyclables. Modeled impacts included cost, climate change, cumulative fossil energy demand, acidification, eutrophication, photochemical oxidation, total eco‐toxicity, and total human toxicity. Trade‐offs among the scenarios were evaluated because no scenario performed best in every category. In general, SWM strategies that incorporated processes that recover energy and recyclable materials performed well across categories, whereas scenarios that did not include energy recovery performed poorly. Emissions offsets attributable to energy recovery and reduced energy requirements associated with remanufacturing of recovered recyclables had the strongest influence on the results. The scenarios rankings were robust under parametric sensitivity analysis, except when the marginal electricity fuel source changed from coal to natural gas. Model results showed that the use of existing infrastructure, energy recovery, and efficient recovery of recyclables from mixed waste can reduce environmental emissions at relatively low cost.