Presentación David Newman

2,114 views
2,189 views

Published on

Algunos datos sobre la industria de desechos a nivel mundial

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,114
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1,581
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • How much waste per capita?
  • Presentación David Newman

    1. 1. David Newman President ISWA Waste; biowaste; strategies
    2. 2. Some data on the global waste industry • • • • • 4 billion tonnes total waste produced 2012 Of which 1,9 billion tonnes household 6,5 billion customers US$ 420 billion turnover 40 million employees –half informal 2
    3. 3. What type of waste ?  Organics – in developing countries 70%+  Packaging  Industrial  E-Waste  Medical  Slaughter house waste  Construction  Plastics everywhere 3
    4. 4. What do we do with the waste ? • 70 % landfilled or open dumps • 10 % incinerated • 20 % recycled including composting • This produces circa 1 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalents (methane) rising to 3 billion tonnes in 2030 mainly from landfills. 4
    5. 5. Consequences  Public and urban health, epidemics  Loss of resources  Emissions  Missed employment opportunities  Destruction of natural resources and urban habitats  Eco dumping  Illegal trade  Ocean litter 5
    6. 6. 6
    7. 7. Data from 7
    8. 8. Many worlds, worlds apart Let’s look at the advanced economies waste management  Scandinavia  Austria  Germany  Holland  Japan  Korea  USA in parts 8
    9. 9. Definitions of top level waste management systems • 100 % collection coverage • No open or illegal dumping • Recycling + composting above 50% of MSW • Waste to Energy more than 10%- no public opposition • Incentives for renewable energy • Taxes on disposal • EPR schemes in place for many streams • Informal sector zero o illegal 9
    10. 10. 10
    11. 11. Japan, Incinerator at Morinomya 11
    12. 12. Second World Countries, struggling to catch up  Southern Italy  Greece  Turkey  Brazil  South Africa  North Africa  Chile ????? 12
    13. 13. Definition of immature waste management systems • Collection systems not 100% • Recycling levels below 20% • Landfill use above 80%, some illegal dumping • No or low incineration- strong public opposition • No or low incentives to renewable energy • No or few EPR schemes • No or very low disposal taxes • Informal sector recycling present 13
    14. 14. Athens Landfill 14
    15. 15. Sao Paolo Landfill 15
    16. 16. The question is essentially one of MONEY How do we finance a mature waste management system ? 16
    17. 17. WB solid waste loans & grants – solid waste system upgrades often bundled with other initiatives Very few loans/grants are 100% focused on solid waste operations Most solid waste projects have been bundled with other infrastructure upgrades Loans Grants Overview of the World Bank Group 17
    18. 18. Taking out Chinese cities because of central government rules, to date it appears as if 263 of the world’s 500 largest cities have virtually NO access to private capital Credit Worthiness – A new financing priority 18
    19. 19. Let’s focus on organics 19
    20. 20. MSW composition in CILE Organics are 53% of your MSW ! www.compost.it
    21. 21. Organics are….. Everywhere  Sewage sludges  Food production waste  Agricultural waste  Industrial organics (bioetanolo waste)  Forestry
    22. 22. Organics …. are bad for you  Rot  Smell  Contaminate other waste streams  Produce leachate  Produce methane (think Greenhouse Gasses)  Burn producing dioxins and soot
    23. 23. Organics…. are good for you They decompose and can produce  methane captured for energy  soil fertilisers when composted  biopolymers  food stuffs for animals
    24. 24. How to make this happen ?  Strategic forward planning  Regulatory framework  Economics  Technologies  Collection systems
    25. 25. Biowaste Contextual remarks: More than just waste management  Biodegradables represent the vast majority of MSW (above all in S and SE Europe)  Major contributor to GHGs from inappropriate management of MSW (4 to 11% of total GHGs come from landfills)  Proper management often driven by strategies to reduce impacts of disposal – Landfill diversion targets (EU Landfill Directive)  Extended benefits: soils, farmlands, the environment – Climate Change (UNFCCC) – Desertification (UNCCD) – Biodiversity, fertility, resilience, prevention of floods, erosion (EU Soil Thematic Strategy)
    26. 26. “About 75% of the soils in the Mediterranean Area has a low content of organic matter 26
    27. 27. Current status for biowaste collection in Europe 27 Source: European Compost Network, updated by authors
    28. 28. Main legislative drivers: the European Regulatory Framework European WFD (2008/98/EC) requires Member States to: – take measures to encourage separate collection of biowaste for composting and AD. – by 2020 recycle 50% of all waste from households European Landfill Directive (99/31/EC) requires Member states to: – Pre-treat all waste before landfilling (disposal) – by 2016 divert 65% of biowaste from landfill Italian WFL (DLGS 252/06) requires Municipalities/District-Areas to: – by 2012 reduce disposal to 35% of total MSW (total sep. coll. min 65%) – SS Biowaste with reusable bins and/or compostable bags; – Increases landfill-cost by 20€/ton for district not complying to recycling target www.compost.it
    29. 29. Composting sector growth linked to separate collection of biowaste www.compost.it
    30. 30. Separate collection of MSW- Italy 2011, 30 mln tons www.compost.it
    31. 31. Separate collection of biowaste in Italy 2011 4.2 million tons in 2010, 4.5+ in 2011, 5.0 in 2012 www.compost.it
    32. 32. Biowaste production and collection: key-data Italy Foodwaste (FW)  Yard and Gardenwaste (GW) 20-30% of MSW Bulk density: 0,6-0,8 kg/liter  High moisture SSO: 70 – 130 kg/inhab/yr. 2-4kg/m2/yr.  Bulk density: 0,15 – 0,35 kg/l    Medium to low moisture  Seasonality (weather, rain) SSO: 20– 70 kg/inhab/yr. (preventable by homecomposting) www.compost.it
    33. 33. Best practise approach – Italy/Spain/UK  Foodwaste collected separately from garden waste – – – – –  Cooked food and meat&fish allowed High frequency (2 to 4 times/week) Clean and comfortable (bags&caddies) FW bins taylored to HH size (from bin to wheely-bin) Vehicles (open lorries) Gardenwaste at – Municipal Collection Centers – Door to Door at low frequency (1/month; on demand; seasonality) – Homecomposting  Residual waste: collected with low FW content – Low frequency (1/week up to 1 /month) – PAYT fees www.compost.it
    34. 34. Intensive Source Separation of Biowaste:  Buildings up to 6 households Compostable bags  vented kitchen-caddy 35 liter HDPE bucket Buildings with Flats/apartments www.compost.it
    35. 35. Biobags are a key-factor for success: Paper, MaterBi, etc IF compostable according to OK for sep. collection of foodwaste “About 75% of the EN 13432 in the Mediterranean Area has soils standard Plastic-bags (PE) NO use for sep. collection of a low content of are non-compostable organic matter foodwaste Oxo-degradable plastics Not suitable for composting processes NO use for sep. collection foodwaste  Enhance citizens in managing wet, putrescible FW  Biobags must comply with EU Standard (EN13432)  Bags must be certified 35 of
    36. 36. Source Separation of Biowaste: size bins correctly www.compost.it
    37. 37. Quality of Source Separation Foodwaste: quota of non-compostables delivered at gate 45,00 40,00 35,00 30,00 25,00 82% 35% 20,00 15,00 10,00 5,00 0,00 Source: CIC – Consorzio Italiano Compostatori/ Italian Composting Association www.compost.it
    38. 38. Source Separation of Foodwaste: purity vs use of compostable bags Materiale NC rilevato da analisi merceologica in funzione della % di sacchetti biodegradabili 20,0 MNC verso Totale% SacchettiPlastica 18,0 Non-compostables (%) merceologi 16,0 Bio Appositi 14,0 BIO Shopper 12,0 10,0 Espo. (MNC verso Totale% SacchettiPlastica) 8,0 6,0 4,0 2,0 y = 8,5766e-0,0201x R2 = 0,5343 0,0 0,00 10,00 20,00 30,00 40,00 50,00 60,00 70,00 80,00 90,00 100,00 % compostable bags www.compost.it
    39. 39. What does all this cost ?  Source separate collection of biowaste costs c. € 50/ton  Treatment of biowaste in composting plant costs c. € 70/ton  Overall waste and urban cleaning in Italy costs € 170/capita  Landfill now costs €80 - €100 / ton and climbing  Real cost of landfill is reflected in emissions over 30 year period and end of life closure and maintenance  Sydney landfill, with $10/ton carbon tax costs $340/ton !! 40
    40. 40. Results from Italy  Composting from 0 to 5 million tons 1993-2013  Composting plants 10 to 280 1993-2013  Biogas plants by 2013 – 20  Compost produced 1,400,000 tons  40 million Italians source separate organic waste
    41. 41. Conclusion  It is vital to establish the long term strategy, EU  Involve stakeholders  Plan to make it pay through taxes  Feed in tariffs for energy  Allow technologies to develop  Develop collection schemes to ensure quality  Create market for products
    42. 42. Gracias  newman@compost.it  newman@iswa.org  www.compost.it  www.iswa.org 43

    ×