This a contribution by my good friend David Newman - thanks a lot David this is realy interesting
Last week the government institute for the environment in Italy, called ISPRA, published its annual Waste Report, using data from 2008.
There are some really interesting developments I wanted to share with your readers.
Firstly, for the first time in living memory, the amount of total MSW produced has decreased. Only a small total decline, some 0,2%, but in per capita terms a significant 2%. This is actually the third year that per capita waste production declines, while being the first year that this reduction has had an impact on the overall national figures.
The decline is evidently due to a reduction in consumption, that's a no-brainer. But we should take into account the last three years' per capita decline and part of the reason for this may lie in the prevention and reduction policies being enacted in some regions.
Secondly, while the amount of waste produced declines, the amount collected separately for material recovery increases again; an overall level of 30,6% of all Italian MSW in now collected separately and sent to reovery. This is indeed a substantial result; regions in northern Italy have attained levels over 50%, including densely populated industral regions like Lombardy, Piemonte, Veneto. Once again the south of Italy shows how under-developed it is, with overall recovery levels of 15% circa. In between sit the central regions like Tuscany, Marche, Umbria, Abruzzo.
Note the great strides ahead made by the Region of Sardegna where overall recycling levels have achieved nearly 40%.
Thirdly, where the recovery levels are highest is where the regions have enacted policies of separate collection of organic household waste. The 2008 figures show an increase in organic waste collection on 2007 of over 14%, to circa 3.340.000 tons. Organic waste now accounts for 34% of all the recycled waste collected, the largest single fraction, and with paper and cardboard, over 60% of all recovered waste.
This means that Italy is rapidly heading towards the goals of the Landfill Directive in terms of reducing organic waste to landfill.
Indeed the other good news in that the number of landfills has declined again, while the number of composting plants increased to 229.
Landfills still account for 44% of all our MSW disposal (about 32.000.000 tons) though in continuous decline; composting separate waste 7%; MBT 22% (a small reduction on 2007) and incineration still at 11%. The rest is recycled.
The report contains a load of informaion regarding the economics of the waste industry in Italy, as well as a comparison with EU countries.
You can obtain this very detailed and well presented report in Italian from the website www.atiaiswa.it in the next few days or from the ISPRA website now www.isprambiente.it
5.06.2010
4.17.2010
A very good ISWA Beacon Conference in Perugia
I just came back from perugia, Italy where I attended an excelent ISWA Beacon Conference on Biowaste Management organized by ISWA Italia. Congratulations to ISWA Italia and of course to my good friends David Newman and Enzo Favoino for their timeless efforts and the results achieved.
The conference structure and content were of a very high level and I have to say I was surprised by the steps that have been already done in certain EU countries regarding biowaste management. The program can be found at https://www.iswa.org/fileadmin/user_upload/_temp_/ISWA_Beacon_BTW_programme_01.pdf
Conference attendants and speakers supported with several strong arguments the neccessity of a biowaste directive, something which I think is required more than ever. Allow me to mention the lectures of Enzo Favoino, Florian Amlinger, Cestmir Hirdinka, Francesc Giro, Ricardo Rolandi and Eric Lombardi as the most valuable for me.
During the conference I made some new friends and I am sure I am going to meet them again and share ideas and concepts. Eric, Florian and Cestmir I am keen to see you again.
The conference structure and content were of a very high level and I have to say I was surprised by the steps that have been already done in certain EU countries regarding biowaste management. The program can be found at https://www.iswa.org/fileadmin/user_upload/_temp_/ISWA_Beacon_BTW_programme_01.pdf
Conference attendants and speakers supported with several strong arguments the neccessity of a biowaste directive, something which I think is required more than ever. Allow me to mention the lectures of Enzo Favoino, Florian Amlinger, Cestmir Hirdinka, Francesc Giro, Ricardo Rolandi and Eric Lombardi as the most valuable for me.
During the conference I made some new friends and I am sure I am going to meet them again and share ideas and concepts. Eric, Florian and Cestmir I am keen to see you again.
Composting green waste saves as much CO2 as energy recovery ?
This is from "Science for Environmental Policy", issue 191, 15 April 2010
"Recycling green waste as compost could match the environmental benefits of converting it into renewable energy, in terms of CO2 savings, according to new German research. It suggests that the two forms of waste management should be seen as complementary and both should receive subsidies.
Green waste is biodegradable waste, usually from gardens and parks, and includes grass, hedge trimmings, leaves and tree trunks. It can be used to produce energy in biomass power stations and receives a renewable energy subsidy in Germany. It can also be recycled as compost, which reduces the extraction of peat – an important sink for CO2. However, composting does not receive financial support in Germany. The EU is currently developing policy to encourage composting and develop standards for composting across the EU1.
The research compared the environmental benefits of energy recovery from green waste and of recycling green waste using 81 samples. It analysed the CO2 balance of each system by estimating the release and savings of CO2 at the different stages of the process chain. For energy recovery this included the transport, shredding, incineration and the CO2 saved from the renewable energy produced. For recycling this included stages such as transport, composting and CO2 saved by replacing peat. Four different types of green waste were considered that differed in their amount of wood, herbaceous/grassy material and soil.
The results demonstrated that waste with a high percentage of wood produced the most CO2 savings for both composting and energy recovery whilst those with only herbaceous and soil components produced the least savings. The CO2 savings from energy recovery varied from 126 to 1040kg of CO2 saved per tonne of green waste, depending on the type of waste and its composition. The CO2 savings from recycling varied from 259 to 1193kg of CO2 per tonne of green waste, again depending on the type of waste. This indicates that the environmental gains, in terms of CO2 savings, were similar for both energy recovery and recycling of green waste.
Notably, green waste with a high percentage of herbaceous/grassy content and soil content had twice the CO2 savings from recycling as from energy recovery. This is probably because this type of waste has low heating values, due to high water and ash content, and is therefore better for composting purposes.
The researchers suggested that energy recovery and recycling of green waste should be judged as complementary systems. It is unlikely that one method on its own will achieve the desired reduction in CO2 levels and a combination is more likely to lead to a significant decrease in greenhouse gas emissions. As such they recommend that recycling of green waste be awarded equivalent financial support as the use of green waste to produce renewable energy.
1. See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/compost/index.htm
Source: Kranert, M., Gottschall, R., Bruns, C. & Hafner, G. (2010). Energy or compost from green waste? A CO2-based assessment. Waste Management. 30: 697-701.
Contact: martin.kranert@iswa.uni-stuttgart.de "
"Recycling green waste as compost could match the environmental benefits of converting it into renewable energy, in terms of CO2 savings, according to new German research. It suggests that the two forms of waste management should be seen as complementary and both should receive subsidies.
Green waste is biodegradable waste, usually from gardens and parks, and includes grass, hedge trimmings, leaves and tree trunks. It can be used to produce energy in biomass power stations and receives a renewable energy subsidy in Germany. It can also be recycled as compost, which reduces the extraction of peat – an important sink for CO2. However, composting does not receive financial support in Germany. The EU is currently developing policy to encourage composting and develop standards for composting across the EU1.
The research compared the environmental benefits of energy recovery from green waste and of recycling green waste using 81 samples. It analysed the CO2 balance of each system by estimating the release and savings of CO2 at the different stages of the process chain. For energy recovery this included the transport, shredding, incineration and the CO2 saved from the renewable energy produced. For recycling this included stages such as transport, composting and CO2 saved by replacing peat. Four different types of green waste were considered that differed in their amount of wood, herbaceous/grassy material and soil.
The results demonstrated that waste with a high percentage of wood produced the most CO2 savings for both composting and energy recovery whilst those with only herbaceous and soil components produced the least savings. The CO2 savings from energy recovery varied from 126 to 1040kg of CO2 saved per tonne of green waste, depending on the type of waste and its composition. The CO2 savings from recycling varied from 259 to 1193kg of CO2 per tonne of green waste, again depending on the type of waste. This indicates that the environmental gains, in terms of CO2 savings, were similar for both energy recovery and recycling of green waste.
Notably, green waste with a high percentage of herbaceous/grassy content and soil content had twice the CO2 savings from recycling as from energy recovery. This is probably because this type of waste has low heating values, due to high water and ash content, and is therefore better for composting purposes.
The researchers suggested that energy recovery and recycling of green waste should be judged as complementary systems. It is unlikely that one method on its own will achieve the desired reduction in CO2 levels and a combination is more likely to lead to a significant decrease in greenhouse gas emissions. As such they recommend that recycling of green waste be awarded equivalent financial support as the use of green waste to produce renewable energy.
1. See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/compost/index.htm
Source: Kranert, M., Gottschall, R., Bruns, C. & Hafner, G. (2010). Energy or compost from green waste? A CO2-based assessment. Waste Management. 30: 697-701.
Contact: martin.kranert@iswa.uni-stuttgart.de "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)