The Potential for Waste Management in Brazil

Mailing address Postbus 5076 6802 EB ARNHEM Netherlands T +31(0)26 7513800 F +31(0)26 7513818

Street address Westervoortsedijk 50 6827 AT ARNHEM Netherlands www.mwhglobal.nl

KVK Haaglanden 27 18 43 23 ING Bank Delft 65 93 74 331 IBAN NL 63 ING B 0659 374331/BIC INGBNL2A MWH is ISO 9001:2008 and VCA* certified

The potential for Waste

Management in Brazil to

Minimize GHG emissions and

Maximize Re-use of Materials

Final version

Client Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment

Authors Drs. M.A.M. Corsten (Utrecht University)

Prof. Dr. E. Worrell (Utrecht University)

Drs. J.C.M. van Dael (MWH BV)

Project number M12B0068

Document \m12b0068r01 final.doc

Date July 11, 2012

2

Authors MWH B.V. and Utrecht University Date July 11, 2012, Final version

3


Contents

Executive summary 5

1 Introduction 13

2 The current situation of MSW management in Brazil 15

3 Methodology 17

3.1 System boundaries 17 3.2 Energy calculations 18 3.3 Emission calculations 18 3.4 Allocation of energy and emission savings 21

4 Brazilian data - Current and 2030 reference scenario 23 4.1 Waste generation 23

4.2 Composition 23 4.3 Recycling and disposal 24

5 Scenarios 25

5.1 Waste Law 25

5.2 Recycling+ 26

6 Results 27 6.1 Waste hierarchy 27

6.2 Impact on GHG-emissions 28 6.3 Impact on energy savings 30

7 Conclusions and recommendations 33 7.1 Impact of implementing Recycling+ on Brazilian waste management 33

7.2 Recommended further research 34

Appendix 1: References

Appendix 2: Quantitative outcome of scenariosReferences

Appendix 2: Quantitative outcome

4


5


Executive summary

Introduction

The reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that are necessary to avoid negative impacts of climate

change in addition to the future limitations in the availability of selected resources stress the need for

increased energy and material efficiency. Waste management can play a key role in achieving

greenhouse gas emission reductions and increases in material efficiency. Currently in many devel-

oping countries, the focus of waste management is on waste disposal in landfills and dumps, which

creates significant emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG). Especially in emerging economies like

Brazil, the growing population and economic activity will result in a significant increase in the genera-

tion of waste in the coming decades. The growing impact of the current waste management practic-

es in these countries stresses the need for a change in how waste is handled.

This study assesses the potentials for reducing energy and GHG emissions for Brazil for different

waste management scenarios using the iWaste model. Various state-of-the-art waste treatment

techniques that are currently used in countries like the Netherlands are taken into account in this

study. Brazil is selected as the focus country, being an example of what can be achieved in terms of

waste management in emerging economies. The in this study identified energy and GHG emission

reduction potentials are presented at the RIO+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Devel-

opment in June 2012.

Methodoloy iWaste-model

A schematic representation of the system boundaries used in this study is shown in Figure S1. In

this study the calculation of energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and savings for the processing of

various materials starts at the level of waste generation and ends at the level of secondary material

production. Processes such as collection, transportation, sorting and separation that may occur dur-

ing all phases from the generation of waste until its final processing (e.g. recycling, incineration, use

as refuse derived fuel (RDF)) or disposal (i.e. landfill) are included within the boundaries of this

study. The model also takes into account losses that occur during the various steps of waste pro-

cessing. The avoided energy consumption and CO2 emissions are attributed as energy- and CO2

savings to the specific processing option of the material.

6


Figure S1. Schematic representation of the system boundaries used in this study on waste management in Brazil.

Note: between most of the processing steps a transport step is included, which is not depicted.

Data on waste stream volumes and composition are specific for the Brazilian situation. The disposal

of waste in landfills is currently common practice in MSW management in Brazil. The other pro-

cessing options included in the iWaste model are recycling, incineration in a waste-to-energy incin-

erator, and use of waste as refuse derived fuel (e.g. in industrial processes). Waste disposal and

processing is modeled in terms of the volume of materials in the waste stream, energy consumption

and related CO2 emissions. Subsequently, for each of the materials in the waste streams, the contri-

bution to total energy consumption and CO2 emissions of waste management in Brazil is calculated.

The model distinguishes the materials that comprise the majority of waste generated in Brazil as

shown in Table S1.

Table S1: Materials and products included in the iWaste model for Brazil.

Materials and products in MSW

Paper and cardboard Steel PET

Glass Aluminum Cardboard drinking packages

Textiles Polyethylene (PE) Wood

Organic wastes Polypropylene (PP) Mineral materials

Scenarios

To assess the potential for waste management to reduce energy consumption and CO2 emissions in

Brazil two scenarios were evaluated in this study: Waste Law and Recycling+. These scenarios are

derived from the 2030 reference scenario, as the targets in the National Waste Plan that is currently

being developed, are set for 2031.

For the projection of waste generation data to 2030, the MSW treatment Reference Scenario for

Brazil was used as defined by the World Bank (2010). This Reference Scenario uses the waste gen-

eration data from Abrelpe as a starting point and estimates the growth in waste generation based on

forecasts of population growth and future rates of waste generation per capita.

7


It assumes that current conditions will persist, as it will take time before the various initiatives that are

currently developed will be implemented. The amount of waste collected is projected to grow to 85

Mt per year in 2030 (World Bank, 2010). Taking into account a collection efficiency of 89%, waste

generation will grow to 95.5 Mt per year in 2030. This means an increase of about 57% compared to

2010.

The Waste Law scenario is based on the Brazilian Waste Law and the targets set by the National

Waste Plan, which is currently under development in Brazil. Though National Waste Plan targets are

not final yet, the ambitious targets known at the time of this study were used in this scenario. The

targets set by the National Waste Plan include the reduction of dry recyclable waste (36% by 2031)

and organic waste (53% by 2031) disposed at landfills. Other targets include the recovery of landfill

gas. In 2031, about 250 MWh/year of landfill gas should be recovered from landfills. This represents

83% of the total 300 MWh/year of gas production in landfills referred to by the National Waste Plan.

In the Recycling+ scenario, the focus is on recycling materials from MSW and anaerobic digestion of

the organic fraction. According to the waste management hierarchy, the materials that are not recy-

cled will be incinerated to recover energy. In addition, in the Recycling+ scenario no untreated mu-

nicipal solid waste is landfilled as the minimum processing option is incineration. Similar to the

Waste Law scenario, the Recycling+ scenario requires the separate collection of MSW in a wet and

dry fraction. The Recycling+ scenario assumes that 80% of the separately collected wet fraction is

processed in an anaerobic digester. In addition to compost anaerobic digestion also produces biogas

that can be used for electricity generation. The efficiency of electricity generation from biogas is as-

sumed to be 35%. The separately collected dry fraction is processed in a material recovery facility

(MRF) that separates various fractions for recycling.

Results

The results of this exploratory analysis for Brazil offer more insight into the potential reductions in

GHG emissions and energy consumption for different waste management scenarios. It shows what

results might be achieved with sustainable waste management using currently available technology.

However, actual results will depend on investments and implementation of waste collection systems,

waste treatment facilities and the sanitation of inadequate landfill sites.

Waste hierarchy

The share of the various processing options (i.e. recycling, landfill, incineration with energy recovery)

of the various materials in MSW for all three scenarios, i.e. the reference scenario, the Waste Law

scenario and the Recycling+ scenario, is shown in Figure S2. In the Waste Law scenario, there is a

shift towards recycling materials, though more than half of the generated waste is still landfilled. In

the Recycling+ scenario more than 70% of all generated waste is recovered for recycling. Also, land-

filling is replaced by incineration with energy recovery.

8


Figure S2: Share of recycling per material, waste-to-energy and landfill for the three scenarios.

Impact on GHG-emissions

Figure S3 shows the impact on GHG emissions for the three different scenarios and shows the con-

tribution of the various materials in MSW.

9


Figure S3: GHG-emissions for 2010 situation and the three scenarios for 2030 in Brazil.

In table S2 the GHG-emissions in the two more ambitious scenarios are compared to the Baseline

2030 scenario for the three materials from MSW that have the largest impact on GHG emissions.

Table S2: Changes in GHG-emissions for three waste components compared with Baseline 2030 (in Mt CO2eq/yr).

Differences in GHG-emissions

(Mt CO2eq/yw)

Material Baseline 2030 –> Waste Law Baseline 2030 –> Recycling+

Organic waste - 29.8 - 36.6

Paper and cardboard - 12.2 - 16.7

PE - 7.6 - 18.6

10


Impact on energy savings

Figure S4 shows the energy balances for the different scenarios with the contribution of the various

materials in MSW.

Figure S4: Energy balance for the current situation and the three different scenarios.

Table S3 shows potential reductions in energy consumption in the two more ambitious scenarios in

comparison to the Baseline 2030 scenario for the three major materials that have the largest energy

saving potential.

Table S3: Changes in energy consumption for three waste components compared with Baseline 2030 (in PJ/yr).

Energy savings

(PJ/yr)

Material Baseline 2030 –> Waste Law Baseline 2030 –> Recycling+

PE - 99.1 - 594.0

Paper and cardboard - 39.3 - 98.8

Organic waste - 19.7 - 69.4

Recommendations

To make major steps in reducing and preventing GHG emissions future waste management choices

should affect the recycling of organic waste (responsible for 76% of GHG-emissions) and paper and

cardboard (responsible for 19%).

11


The presented (draft) targets in the Waste Law scenario result in reducing/preventing GHG emis-

sions because of landfill gas recovery and a higher rate of recycling organic waste and dry recycla-

bles. In addition to the giant change in applying landfill gas recovery techniques and other measures

to create sanitary landfill sites, other big transformations required for this scenario include the change

to two bin collection (with all associated logistic issues related to distributing bins and implementing

collection systems) and setting up an infrastructure of recycling facilities.

To realize the maximum on GHG avoidance and on energy savings high-quality recycling and high

efficiency energy recovery should be applied. This means a transition to the Recycling+ scenario.

This transition affects waste collection and waste treatment. Materials like paper and cardboard,

plastics PP, PE and PET have the highest recycling rates if contamination with organic waste is as

low as possible. Separate collection, for example in a two bin system, provides a good quality of the-

se dry recyclables. In a MRF (Material Recovery Facility) the dry recyclable materials are separated

in a mechanical way combined with handpicking. MRF techniques are available in countries like

Germany and UK.

To optimize the treatment of the organic fraction (kitchen and garden waste) digestion with gas and

heat recovery is recommended. The digestate can be composted and the compost can be used as

fertilizer. The qualitative (legislative) demands of fertilizer determine the extends of contamination of

the separate collected organic waste. Digestion and composting techniques are available in the

Netherlands.

In the Recycling+ scenario the infrastructure has to be expanded with high efficiency incineration

plants and the output of the recycling facilities has to increase. The change to another collection sys-

tem and to using recycling facilities creates new employment opportunities. Because of the sanitation

of landfills required by the Waste Law and the choice for ‘no waste to landfill’ in the Recycling+ sce-

nario, the current ‘wastepick’ problem will turn to a ‘labor-issue’. Both waste collection and waste

treatment can play a role in providing work opportunities to waste pickers.

Three elements of Dutch and/or European knowledge and experience can contribute to the shift from

the current situation to a situation with traits from the Waste Law / Recycling+ scenarios. These ele-

ments are:

Developing and executing waste management policy;

Implementation of waste collection systems (bins, trucks, logistics);

Engineering and planning waste treatment plants:

Landfill gas recovery;

Two bin separate collection;

Digestion of organic waste;

MRF.

Examples of Dutch waste management companies are shown on the websites of two Dutch waste

associations. (www.wastematters.eu and www.nvrd.nl).

http://www.wastematters.eu/

http://www.nvrd.nl/

12


13


1 Introduction

The reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that are necessary to avoid negative impacts of climate

change in addition to the future limitations in the availability of selected resources stress the need for

increased energy and material efficiency. Waste management can play a key role in achieving

greenhouse gas emission reductions and increases in material efficiency. Currently in many devel-

oping countries, the focus of waste management is on waste disposal in landfills and dumps, which

creates significant emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG). Especially in emerging economies like

Brazil, the growing population and economic activity will result in a significant increase in the genera-

tion of waste in the coming decades. The growing impact of the current waste management practic-

es in these countries stresses the need for a change in how waste is handled.

This study assesses the potentials for reducing energy and GHG emissions for Brazil for different

waste management scenarios using the iWaste model. Various state-of-the-art waste treatment

techniques that are currently used in countries like the Netherlands are taken into account in this

study. Brazil is selected as the focus country, being an example of what can be achieved in terms of

waste management in emerging economies. The in this study identified energy and GHG emission

reduction potentials are presented at the RIO+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Devel-

opment in June 2012.

iWaste model

This study builds on the experience of a similar study for the Netherlands: Saving Materials (Corsten

et al., 2010). This study examined to what extent a reduction of energy consumption and CO2 emis-

sions can be achieved through recycling of selected waste streams in the supply chain versus waste

incineration with energy recovery. For this study, the iWaste model was developed that simulates

generated and processed waste streams. This model builds on the life cycle of materials and prod-

ucts in selected waste streams, starting at the level of waste generation and ending with final pro-

cessing in the form of recycling or incineration. The model includes all phases involved in the pro-

cess: generation, collection, transportation, separation, and use as refuse derived fuel (RDF). This

allows evaluating various options in an integrated way, while accounting for the characteristics of

recycling and alternative waste processing options.

The iWaste model is a simulation tool, which means that different parameters can be varied and

different scenarios tested. The results are being compared with the reference situation in 2008. The

current model focuses exclusively on energy consumption (fuel and electricity) and CO2 emissions.

In the underlying study, the iWaste model has been adapted for Brazil. It includes data to simulate

waste disposal in Brazil in 2010 (current situation) and projections for 2030 (reference scenario).

Two different scenarios are tested and compared with the reference scenario.

Reading guide

Following this introduction, chapter 2 some insight in current waste management practices in Brazil.

Chapter 3 introduces the methodology of the iWaste-model. Chapter 4 describes the model as-

sumptions and projections for 2030.

14


The alternative scenarios are described in chapter 5 and the results are shown in chapter 6. Finally,

chapter 7 gives recommendations.

Acknowledgements

This study is financially supported by the Dutch government (Ministry of Infrastructure and the Envi-

ronment) . The authors would like to thank Abrelpe, NVRD and Agentschap NL for their contributions

to this study.

15


2 The current situation of MSW management in Brazil

Currently, little data is available on the current generation, composition, and processing of MSW in

Brazil. One of the sources that keeps track and gives insight into the volumes of waste generated in

urban areas and the recycling of materials in Brazil is the annual survey by Abrelpe. The 2010 sur-

vey (Abrelpe, 2010) reports the generation of 61 Mt urban MSW in that year, which is an increase of

6.8% compared to 2009. This includes waste from domestic activities in urban households, from

sweeping and cleaning of public areas and public roads, and from other urban cleaning services.

Another source that reports the generation of urban MSW is the National Survey of Basic Sanitation

(IBGE, 2000). This survey reports that in 2000 about 80 Mt of urban waste was collected, which is

significantly higher than the volumereported by Abrelpe (2010). According to a study of the World

Bank (2010) the data from Abrelpe is more reliable as these are based on surveys and studies un-

dertaken by both the Ministry of Cities and the Ministry of Environment.

The MSW generated in Brazil consists largely of organic material. Other materials that consitute a

significant share in MSW are plastics (mainly PE, PP, PET), and paper and cardboard. Various stud-

ies show figures for the overall composition of MSW in Brazil (Bianchini and Filho, 2006; Monteiro et

al., 2008), but detailed data on the composition of total generated MSW in Brazil is not available.

However, an analysis of about 500 containers of MSW from the city of Rio de Janeiro offers , a more

detailed insight into the composition of urban MSW is (Table 1) (Ribeiro, 2010).

Table 1. MSW composition in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (Ribeiro, 2010).

Material Share of MSW (%)

Organic material 54.9%

Paper 11.7%

Cardboard 3%

Drinking packages (tetra pak) 1.4%

Hard plastic 3.9%

Plastic film 15%

Glass 2.8%

Ferrous metals 1.3%

Nonferrous metals 0.4%

Stone-like material 0.8%

Textiles 1.8%

Wood 0.3%

Other 1.2%

About 89% of the generated MSW is currently collected, which indicates a slight increase in the cov-

erage of collection services compared to 2009, as the growth in MSW collection is higher than the

growth in the generation of MSW. According to Abrelpe (2010) a small majority of the collected MSW

is disposed in sanitary landfills (57.6%). Sanitary landfills have measures installed to minimize envi-

ronmental impacts (i.e. leakage of leachate, contamination of groundwater and surrounding soil).

16


The remaining 42.4% of MSW is disposed of inadequately, including controlled landfills (24.3%) and

dumps (18.1%). Neither have measures installed that are necessary to protect the environment. A

majority (61%) of Brazilian municipalities still dispose of their waste in an improper manner.

Only 57.6% of the Brazilian municipalities have initiatives for the separate collection of materials.

These initiatives are mainly seen in the larger cities and are concentrated in the south and south-

eastern regions of Brazil (Abrelpe, 2010). The type and volume of separately collected material is not

well recorded in the literature. What is known is that the overall recycling rate of materials from Bra-

zilian MSW is relatively low, estimated at about 4-11% of total MSW (Abrelpe, 2012; Fergutz et al.,

2011). Nevertheless, the recycling rates for specific materials, as shown in various studies, are rela-

tively high. For instance, aluminum can recycling is reported to be about 96%, and recycling rates for

paper, glass and PET plastic are reported to be around 50% (Abrelpe, 2010; Fergutz et al., 2011;

Bianchini and Filho, 2006). These recycling rates do, however, not only include materials from MSW,

but also (mainly) include the recycling of waste from the industrial sector (except for aluminum cans).

Furthermore, recycling rates are not always calculated as the percentage of the material discarded

as waste that is being recycled. For example, the recovery rate of paper in Brazil is obtained by di-

viding the recovery of recyclable paper by the total quantity of recycled paper consumption in the

same period (Abrelpe, 2010).

According to Abrelpe (2010), the waste management sector generated almost 300,000 direct jobs in

2010, 57% of which was created in the private sector and 43% in the public sector. However, a large

informal sector that collects materials from waste for recycling exists in Brazil . The National Move-

ment of Recyclable Materials Waste Pickers (MNCR) estimated that more than 500,000 people in

Brazil collect and market solid waste in large cities for their survival (Fergutz et al., 2011). Only a

small percentage of these waste pickers (5% according to Fergutz et al., 2011) have a contract and

work under relatively good conditions. The activities of the majority of waste pickers in Brazil are

considered illegal. Despite their illegal status, waste pickers in Brazil are said to provide up to 90% of

the materials that supply the recycling industry, though this is estimated to account for less than 10%

of recyclable materials generated in households and for 3% of solid waste deposited in dumps. The

work of these waste pickers helps the environment and contributes to cleaner cities. In addition, es-

timates show that the amount of waste disposed at landfills is reduced by 20% by waste pickers,

thereby extending the lifetime of landfills (Fergutz et al., 2011).

The lack of formal collection programs is currently one of the largest obstacles for the growth of re-

cycling in Brazil. One of the main reasons for not implementing separate collection systems indicated

by municipalities are the costs, as these are generally at least 30% higher than for curbside collec-

tion. Landfill is the cheapest and therefore the preferred disposal option. Furthermore, the absence

of a recycling culture and the presence of the large informal sector inhibit the growth in recycling of

MSW (Bianchini and Filho, 2006).

17


3 Methodology

The iWaste model is used to evaluate a number of alternative scenarios for the management of

waste streams and its effect on the energy balance and CO2 emissions. The iWaste model was de-

veloped in 2009 to analyze the situation in the Netherlands (Corsten et al., 2010), but has been

adapted for Brazil in this study. It includes data to simulate waste disposal in Brazil in 2010 (current

situation) and projections for 2030 (reference scenario). Parameters can be varied to test different

scenarios, which can be compared with the reference scenario. The model focuses exclusively on

energy consumption (fuel and electricity) and CO2 emissions and does not include the financial costs

of various processes and treatment options.

3.1 System boundaries

A schematic representation of the system boundaries used in this study is shown in Figure 1. In this

study the calculation of energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and savings for the processing of vari-

ous materials starts at the level of waste generation and ends at the level of secondary material pro-

duction. Processes such as collection, transportation, sorting and separation that may occur during

the various stages from the generation of waste up to its final processing (e.g. recycling, incinera-

tion, use as refuse derived fuel (RDF)) or disposal (i.e., landfill) are included within the boundaries of

this study. The model also takes into account losses that occur during the various steps of waste

processing. The avoided energy consumption and CO2 emissions are attributed as energy- and CO2

savings to the specific processing option of the material.

Figure 1. Schematic representation of the system boundaries used in this study on waste management in Brazil. Note:

between most of the processing steps a transport step is included, which is not depicted.

Data included on waste stream volumes and composition are specific for the Brazilian situation. The

disposal of waste in landfills is currently common practice in MSW management in Brazil.

18


The other processing options included in the iWaste model are recycling, incineration in a waste-to-

energy incinerator, and use of waste as refuse derived fuel (e.g. in industrial processes). Waste dis-

posal and processing is modeled in terms of the volume of materials in the waste stream, energy

consumption and related CO2 emissions. Subsequently, for each of the materials in the waste

streams, the contribution to total energy consumption and CO2 emissions of waste management in

Brazil is calculated. The model distinguishes the materials that comprise the majority of waste gen-

erated in Brazil as shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Materials and products included in the iWaste model for Brazil.

Materials and products in MSW

Paper and board Steel PET

Glass Aluminum Cardboard drinking packages

Textiles Polyethylene (PE) Wood

Organic wastes Polypropylene (PP) Mineral materials

3.2 Energy calculations

The energy consumption for the production of a material is included in the Gross Energy Require-

ment (GER). This GER-value indicates the energy content of a product and is linked to the technolo-

gies and specific conditions used to manufacture the product. In this study, the GER is used to cal-

culate the avoided energy consumption and CO2 emissions resulting from replacement of a product

or raw material by recycling and reuse of materials recovered from the waste streams. The second

order GER-value is used, which corrects for the energy needed to produce and transport primary

energy carriers (Worrell et al., 1994). To determine the energy effects of waste processing, the anal-

ysis focuses on raw materials and intermediate goods.

3.3 Emission calculations

In the current situation, almost all MSW generated in Brazil is landfilled and only a small fraction is

recycled or processed in another way. The calculation of emissions from landfilled waste is de-

scribed below. The CO2 emissions resulting from other waste processing options are calculated

based on the energy consumption of the process converted to CO2 emissions using the CO2 emis-

sion factors for different fuels (IEA, 2011). Following IPCC guidelines, the net CO2 emissions from

biomass are considered to be equal to zero.

This study takes into account both direct and indirect CO2 emissions from waste processing. Direct

emissions are produced by using fossil fuels and raw materials within the system boundaries. Emis-

sions from landfilled waste are also considered direct emissions. The indirect emissions include

emissions from electricity generation, where the generation occurs outside the system boundaries,

but the electricity is consumed within the system boundaries. The sum of direct and indirect emis-

sions constitutes the total environmental impact of waste processing.

19


The CO2 emissions from electricity consumed for the production of primary and secondary material

are calculated using the average Brazilian efficiency and fuel mix for electricity generation. The effi-

ciency of electricity generation in Brazil is 1.3 kWhp/kWhe (average efficiency 77%) (IEA, 2010) with

a CO2 emission factor of 75 gCO2/kWhe (IEA, 2011). For heat it is assumed that it is produced in a

gas-fired boiler with an efficiency of 90%.

The CO2 emissions from incinerating waste are calculated based on the volume of the various mate-

rials incinerated and their CO2 emission factors. When waste is used as refuse derived fuel, it is as-

sumed to be used in the cement industry. The fossil fuel that is replaced is calculated based on the

caloric value of the waste. The avoided emissions are calculated using the average emission factor

of cement kilns in the Brazil (97 kgCO2/GJ) (CCAP, 2008).

3.3.1 Landfill gas emissions Landfill can be defined as the managed disposal of waste on land. It can be distinguished from

dumping waste, which is characterized by the absence of control of disposal and a lack of manage-

ment of the dump site (Smith et al., 2001). Landfills differ in their characteristics, including size,

depth, and environmental management (e.g. landfill gas recovery, leachate management).

In landfills and dumps anaerobic conditions are created when the decaying wastes consume all oxy-

gen in the waste mass. Under anaerobic conditions the waste continues to degrade and produces

significant amounts of landfill gas. Landfill gas consists basically for 50 percent of methane (CH4)

and 50 percent of carbon dioxide (CO2), as well as small amounts of hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen,

and hydrogen sulphite. The anaerobic decomposition of waste typically takes place over a period of

30 to 50 years during which methane is generated. These methane emissions are the main concern

for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from landfills as methane has 21 times the global warming

potential of CO2. The production of CO2 from burning or aerobic decomposition of biomass is, unlike

methane, considered biogenic, as carbon in CO2 is sequestered when the biomass regenerates

(IPCC, 2006; Thompson and Tanapat, 2005).

The recovery of landfill gas reduces GHG emissions and creates an alternative energy source that

can replace fossil fuels (see below). In industrialized countries, landfill gas recovery is increasingly

implemented as a measure to reduce CH4 emissions from landfills (IPCC, 2006). Although this type

of emission reduction is also increasing in developing countries, for example, through the Clean De-

velopment Mechanism (CDM), CH4 emissions from municipal solid waste disposal still represents a

significant part of emissions in most developing countries where landfilling is common practice.

Since almost all MSW in Brazil is disposed in landfills or dumps, emissions from this practice cannot

be ignored in appraising the impact of Brazil’s waste management on the environment.

Calculating methane emissions from landfills

In this study the IPCC methodology is used to estimate the CH4 emissions from solid waste dispos-

al. The production of CH4 and CO2 from solid waste takes place during a few decades, as the de-

gradable organic carbon (DOC) in waste decays slowly. If conditions are constant, the rate of CH4

production depends solely on the amount and type of carbon remaining in the waste. As a result, the

CH4 emissions from deposited waste are highest in the first years after deposition and gradually

decline as the degradable carbon is consumed.

20


In this study, the default IPCC methodology (IPCC, 1997) is used, which leaves out the time factor

and assumes that the CH4 emissions from landfills and dumps take place in the same year the

waste is disposed of. The use of this methodology can be validated, as over a time period of 100

years, which is a typical timescale for greenhouse gas studies, most of the methane from landfilled

waste will have been released. The CH4 emissions are estimated on the basis of volumes and com-

position of waste disposed in landfills and dumps and the management practices at these sites. The

calculations use the IPCC 2006 default values for various parameters (e.g., DOC, DOCf, F) (IPCC,

2006).

With regard to the methane correction factor (MCF), which accounts for the fact that unmanaged

waste disposal sites produce less CH4 from a certain amount of waste than anaerobic managed

landfills, and the methane oxidation factor (OX), which reflects the amount of CH4 from disposed

waste that is oxidized in the soil or when material covers the waste, this study assumes that only the

sanitary landfills in Brazil can be considered managed (anaerobic). This means they include at least

some cover material, mechanical compacting, or leveling of waste. At sanitary landfills in Brazil, after

weighing and deposition of the waste, it is compacted and leveled and at the end of the working day

the waste must be covered with a layer of earth which on average should be 0.2 m thick (World

Bank, 2010). According to a study by Abrelpe (2010) 57.6% of Brazilian waste is disposed of in sani-

tary landfills. The controlled landfills (24.3%) and open dumps (18.1%) are considered unmanaged

(25% up to 5 m deep and 75% over 5 m deep (Oliviera et al., 2003)).

Methane recovered at landfills

The methane content of landfill gas can be recovered and flared, or used as energy source for elec-

tricity generation. By flaring or combustion of the methane from landfill gas, the methane is convert-

ed to carbon dioxide, which has a significantly smaller impact on global warming. The calculation of

emissions from landfills should therefore take into account the methane that is recovered by landfill

gas recovery.

In Brazil, the recovery of methane produced by anaerobic decomposing of solid waste at landfills is

not a common practice. This is because until recently (2010) there was no regional or national legis-

lation that required the capture and burning of methane from landfills because of safety or environ-

mental reasons. In addition, the landfills that have a passive or open landfill gas flaring system in

Brazil generally do not control landfill gas collection efficiency, flaring efficiency, or the number of

chimneys actually lit (Magalhaes et al., 2010). Only after the creation of carbon markets (e.g. CDM)

the first landfill gas recovery projects were introduced. Yet, Brazil has 5565 municipalities and the

total number of CDM projects is about 31 (UNFCCC, 2012) and thus represents only a small fraction

of the landfills in Brazil.

Little data is available on current methane recovery from landfills in Brazil. According to a study of

Magalhaes et al. (2010), using the results from the National System of Sanitation Data (SNIS), more

than 50% of landfills in Brazil has no methane collection. The authors of that study emphasize, how-

ever, that this value is conservative and may not reflect the existence of passive landfill gas capture

systems commonly used in landfills around the country. Following the analysis of 226 landfills in

Brazil, Magalhaes et al. (2010) recommend that if no more detailed data is available on methane

recovery, a methane recovery value of 0.4% should be adopted.

21


Because information on the volume of methane recovered and the electricity produced from landfill

gas is lacking, the value of 0.4% recommended by Magalhaes et al. (2010) is used to calculate net

methane emissions from landfills and dumps in Brazil.

3.4 Allocation of energy and emission savings

Waste processing is energetically a complex process in which choices for allocation of energy- and

environmental benefits have to be determined to assign energy- and CO2 savings from recycling.

The approach taken in this study for recycling and reuse is that the energy consumption and (relat-

ed) CO2 emissions are avoided, which otherwise would have been consumed and generated in the

production of the product from primary materials. However, the calculations take only one lifecycle

into account, though some materials can be recycled multiple times without loss of quality.

For recycling, a distinction is made between high- and low(er)-quality recycling. It is assumed that

high-quality recycling results in replacing (part of) the primary product or material by reused or recy-

cled materials. Alternatively, the recycled material may replace another material, which is considered

low-quality recycling. In the latter case, the GER-values of the replaced materials are assumed. This

type of recycling is generally referred to as downcycling, as the use of the material or product is often

of a lower quality and functionality than when the original primary material is replaced. The defini-

tions used in this study for high- and low-quality recycling and the material it substitutes are present-

ed in Table 3.

The processing of materials in a waste incinerator converts them to energy. In waste incinerators

with energy recovery, waste-to-energy plants, the generation of electricity from waste is assumed to

replace electricity generation by conventional power plants. In addition, the generation of electricity

from landfill gas recovered from landfills and from biogas produced during anaerobic digestion of

organic waste, will also replace conventional power generation. The use of waste for power genera-

tion is assumed to only affect the marginal power plants. In Brazil, this refers to electricity generated

from natural gas-fired power plants with an average efficiency of 42% (ABB, 2011).

Table 3: Definition of high- and low-quality recycling for the materials and products included in iWaste for Brazil.

Material High-quality recycling Substituted material Low(er)-quality recycling Substituted material

Paper and cardboard De-inked paper Paper produced from

wood

Not de-inked paper Paper produced form

wood

Textiles Reuse of textiles New textiles with substitu-

tion factor of 0.5

- -

Steel Recovery before incinera-

tion and used in the basic

oxygen furnace

Primary steel Recovery after incinera-

tion a and used in basic

oxygen furnace

Primary steel

Aluminum Production of secondary

aluminum

Primary aluminum - -

Plastics: PE, PP, PS, PVC Plastics: PE, PP, PS, PVC Primary plastics Production of roadside

posts

Hardwood roadside posts

(wood/plastic ratio 0.43)

PET Bottle-to-bottle (1/3) and

bottle-to-fiber (2/3)

1/3 primary PET bottles,

2/3 PET fibers

Production of roadside

posts

Hardwood roadside posts

(wood/plastic ratio 0.43)

22


Material High-quality recycling Substituted material Low(er)-quality recycling Substituted material

Organic wastes Anaerobic digestion Fertilizer and energy Composting Fertilizer

Cardboard drinking

packages

Recycling of paper and

aluminum/plastic fraction

as RDF

Paper produced from

wood

- -

Stone-like materials Production of recycled

granules (from only

concrete rubble)

Gravel/sand and cement in

concrete

Production of recycled

granules

Gravel/sand

a This results in an average increase in oxide formation of 16% (Lopez-Delgado et al. , 2003; Tayibi et al., 2007)

23


4 Brazilian data - Current and 2030 reference scenario

4.1 Waste generation

According to a study by Abrelpe (2010), the urban generation of waste in Brazil totaled 61 Mt in

2010. Although the waste generated in rural areas is not included in this figure, it is assumed that

focusing on urban waste only will cover the majority of MSW generated in the country, since about

83% of the Brazilian population currently lives in urban areas and generally less waste is generated

in rural areas due to different eating and buying habits (World Bank, 2012; Abrelpe, 2010).

For the projection of waste generation data to 2030, the MSW treatment Reference Scenario for

Brazil was used as defined by the World Bank (2010). This Reference Scenario uses the waste gen-

eration data from Abrelpe as a starting point and estimates the growth in waste generation based on

forecasts in population growth and future rates of waste generation per capita. It assumes that cur-

rent conditions will persist as it will take time before the various initiatives, that are currently devel-

oped, will be implemented. The amount of waste collected is projected to grow to 85 Mt per year in

2030 (World Bank, 2010). Taking into account a collection efficiency of 89%, waste generation will

grow to 95.5 Mt per year in 2030. This means an increase of about 57% compared to 2010.

4.2 Composition

Various studies report figures for the overall composition of MSW in Brazil (Bianchini and Filho,

2006; Monteiro et al., 2008), however, detailed information on waste composition is not readily avail-

able. Therefore, the result of an analysis of 500 containers in Rio de Janeiro (see Table 1) was used

to disaggregate the generated urban waste into different materials (Ribeiro, 2010). The composition

of these containers corresponds reasonably well with the overall composition reported by Bianchini

and Filho (2006). The material composition assumed in this study is presented in Table 4.

Table 4: Composition of generated MSW in Brazil assumed in this study.

Material Share of MSW (%) Quantity of generated urban MSW (kt)

2010 2030

Organic material 54.9 33410 52437

Paper and cardboard 14.7 5798 a 9100 a

Polyethylene 16.9 b 10284 16140

Polypropylene 1.9b 1172 1839

PET 1.5 907 1423

Glass 2.8 1729 2713

Textiles 1.8 1065 1672

Steel 1.3 803 1261

Aluminum 0.4 c 256 401

Drinking packages (tetra pak) 1.4 858 1347

24


Material Share of MSW (%) Quantity of generated urban MSW (kt)

2010 2030

Stone-like material 0.8 475 745

Wood 0.3 207 325

Other 1.3 773 1213

a This value corresponds with air dry paper and is corrected for the moisture content of paper and cardboard in integral collected MSH (40%)

(Ribeiro, 2010).

b Assumes the plastic films to consist of polyethylene and the hard plastics to consist of polyethylene (50%) and polypropylene (50%).

c Assumes all non-ferrous metals to consist of aluminum.

4.3 Recycling and disposal

Only a small share of MSW is collected separately or sorted by waste pickers for recycling, and the

overall recycling rate of materials from MSW is currently 4-11% in Brazil (Abrelpe, 2012; Fergutz et

al., 2011). Though overall recycling rates for materials from MSW are low, reported recycling rates

for specific materials are relatively high (e.g. around 50% for paper, glass, PET plastic) (Abrelpe,

2010; Fergutz et al., 2011; Bianchini and Filho, 2006). These values, however, also take into account

the recycling of waste from the industrial sector (except for aluminum cans). Since no data is availa-

ble on the recycling of specific materials from MSW, recycling rates are estimated based on availa-

ble information and shown in Table 5.

Table 5: Estimated recycling of materials from MSW in the reference scenario.

Material Recycling rate Source Quantity recycled from MSW (kt)

(%) 2010 2030

Aluminum 63% Based on the share of aluminum in MSW (0.4%) and the

recycling of 160 kton aluminum cans in 2007.

160 253

Paper and card-

board

23% Based on Abrelpe (2010), assuming 50% of recycled paper

from MSW and 50% from other sources (e.g. offices)

1134 a 2093

Glass 23% Based on Abrelpe (2010), assuming 50% of recycled glass from

MSW and 50% from other sources.

398 624

Plastics (excl. PET) 20% Fergutz et al., 2011 2291 3596

PET 56% Abrelpe, 2010 508 797

Textiles 30% 320 502

a This value corresponds with air dry paper and is corrected for the moisture content of paper and cardboard in integral collected MSW (40%)

(Ribeiro, 2010)

The estimated recycling rates for aluminum, paper and cardboard, glass, plastics (incl. PET), and

textiles from MSW totaled around 5 Mt per year in 2010, which represents about 9% of generated

MSW. The rest of the generated waste (about 91%) is landfilled with 57.6% disposed in sanitary

landfills and 42.4% in controlled landfills and dumps.

25


5 Scenarios

To assess the potential energy and CO2 emission reductions from better waste management in Bra-

zil, two scenarios were developed in this study: Waste Law and Recycling+. These scenarios are

based on the 2030 reference scenario as the targets in the National Waste Plan, that is currently

being developed, are set for 2031.

5.1 Waste Law

The Waste Law scenario is based on the Brazilian Waste Law and the targets set by the National

Waste Plan, which is currently under development in Brazil. Though National Waste Plan targets are

not final yet, the ambitious targets known at the time of this study were used in this scenario.

The Brazilian Waste Law introduces the waste management hierarchy, which classifies waste man-

agement strategies according to their desirability. The waste management hierarchy consists of re-

duction, reuse, recycling, energy recovery, and final disposal. This classifies the current landfilling

practice as the last option. In addition, the Law commands the closure of all open dumps by 2014,

which means that waste can only be disposed in sanitary landfills. Regarding separate collection, the

Waste Law states that municipalities must have separate collection in at least two fractions (wet and

dry). Currently, only 57.6% of municipalities have separate collection activities.

The targets set by the National Waste Plan include the reduction of dry recyclable waste (36% by

2031) and organic waste (53% by 2031) disposed at landfills. Other targets include the recovery of

landfill gas. In 2031, about 250 MWh/year of landfill gas should be recovered from landfills. This

represents 83% of the total 300 MWh/year of gas production in landfills referred to by the National

Waste Plan.

In this study, the Waste Law and targets set by the National Waste Plan are interpreted as follows:

Municipal solid waste is collected in a wet (organic) and dry (recyclables and non-recyclables)

fraction;

Of the wet fraction, 53% is composted; the remaining 47% is landfilled in sanitary landfills;

Of the dry fraction, 36% of paper and cardboard, glass, steel, and plastics (except PET) are sort-

ed for recycling. For aluminum and PET plastics the sorting and recycling was already higher

than 36% in the baseline (63% and 56% respectively) and is therefore kept constant for the

Waste Law scenario (63% for aluminum, 56% for PET). Furthermore, the recycling of textiles re-

mains at 30%. The remaining dry waste is assumed to be landfilled in sanitary landfills;

At landfills, 83% of landfill gas is recovered and used to generate electricity. The assumed effi-

ciency of electricity from landfill gas is 30%.

26


5.2 Recycling+

In the Recycling+ scenario, the focus is on recycling materials from MSW and anaerobic digestion of

the organic fraction. According to the waste management hierarchy, the materials that are not recy-

cled will be incinerated to recover energy. In addition, in the Recycling+ scenario no untreated mu-

nicipal solid waste is landfilled asthe minimum processing option is incineration.

Similar to the Waste Law scenario, the Recycling+ scenario requires the separate collection of MSW

in a wet and dry fraction. The Recycling+ scenario assumes that 80% of the separately collected wet

fraction is processed in an anaerobic digester. In addition to compost anaerobic digestion also pro-

duces biogas that can be used for electricity generation. The efficiency of electricity generation from

biogas is assumed at 35%. The separately collected dry fraction is processed in a material recovery

facility (MRF) that separates various fractions for recycling. Table 6 shows the material fractions and

separation efficiencies of the MRF assumed in this study. In addition to the material fractions sepa-

rated by the MRF, glass (23%) and textiles (50%) are collected separately for recycling.

Table 6: Separation efficiency of material fractions separated by MRF.

Process step Efficiency a

(%)

Material purity from MRF and recycling losses

Separation of ferrous metal 85 Ferrous material from MRF has 90% purity.

Separation of non-ferrous metal 75

Separation dense plastic 85 Material efficiency for the production of recycled flakes is assumed to be 75% b.

Separation plastic film 75 Material efficiency for the production of recycled flakes is assumed to be 75% b.

Separation of paper and cardboard 40 Rejects from recycling total 11.5% c

Separation of drinking package (tetra

pak)

85 Drink cartons from MRF have 90% purity d

a HTP, 2012

b Based on Shen et al. (2010)

c Based on Laurijssen et al. (2010)

d Only paper fraction (78%) of drinking packages is recycled, aluminum/plastic fraction is used as RDF

The materials that are not recycled are incinerated in a waste-to-energy plant. Also, rejects from the

recycling processes are assumed to be incinerated with energy recovery or used as RDF. In the

Recycling+ scenario the technology assumed for the waste-to-energy plant is the state-of-the-art

technology currently used by the Waste and Energy Company (AEB) in Amsterdam. It operates at a

net electrical efficiency from waste of 28% (AEB, 2006), which is relatively high compared to the

European average of 16-18% (Reimann, 2009). The thermal efficiency is assumed to be 9%, where

the heat is delivered to various companies and homes in the vicinity.

27


6 Results

The results of this exploratory analysis for Brazil lead to insights into the potential reductions in GHG

emissions and energy consumption for different waste management scenarios. It shows what results

might be achieved with sustainable waste management using currently available technology. How-

ever, actual results will depend on investments and implementation of waste collection systems,

waste treatment facilities and the sanitation of inadequate landfill sites.

6.1 Waste hierarchy

The share of the various processing options (i.e. recycling, landfill, incineration with energy recovery)

of the various materials in MSW in the reference scenario, the Waste Law scenario and the Recy-

cling+ scenario is shown in Figure 2. In the Waste Law scenario, there is a shift towards recycling

materials, though more than half of the generated waste is still landfilled. In the Recycling+ scenario

more than 70% of materials in the waste are recovered for recycling. Also, landfilling is replaced by

incineration with energy recovery. This is in agreement with the waste management hierarchy, which

classifies landfill of waste as the last option, after energy recovery.

Figure 2: Share of recycling per material, waste-to-energy and landfill for the three scenarios.

28


6.2 Impact on GHG-emissions

Figure 3 shows the impact on GHG emissions for the three different scenarios and shows the contri-

bution of the various materials in MSW.

Figure 3: GHG-emissions for 2010-situation and the three scenarios in Brazil.

Baseline

If current waste management practices continue, net GHG emissions will grow to 25.6 Mt

CO2eq/year in 2030. This is largely due to the large share of organic waste (55%) and paper and

cardboard (15%) in generated MSW and the significant amounts of methane produced from these

materials when landfilled.

The avoided emissions (shown as negative emissions in the Figure) are mainly the result of plastic

recycling. Currently, only a small share of plastics in waste is recycled in Brazil. Recycling plastics

consumes less energy and has therefore a lower impact on GHG emissions than the production of

virgin plastics. Since recycled plastics are assumed to substitute virgin plastics, GHG emissions are

avoided from plastic recycling. The remaining plastic is landfilled, but does not produce GHG emis-

sions. Other materials in MSW make only a small contribution to the GHG emissions balance, be-

cause they only constitute only a minor share in waste composition or because no methane emis-

sions are produced when landfilled.

29


Waste Law

In the Waste Law scenario, the management of waste avoids 54 MT CO2eq/year compared to the

reference scenario. In this scenario more dry waste is recycled and more than half of all organic

waste is composted instead of landfilled. In addition, at landfills 83% of produced landfill gas is re-

covered and used for electricity production, which is assumed to reduce conventional power genera-

tion. This results in a significant reduction of GHG emissions from landfills and more avoided emis-

sions due to recycling. The impact of the targets set by the Waste Law are biggest for organic waste,

paper and cardboard, and PE plastic, because of their large share in MSW.

Recycling+

The focus on recycling materials results in the avoidance of 82 Mt CO2eq/year in the Recycling+

scenario compared to the reference scenario. The material recovery facility (MRF) sorts a large

share of materials from the waste for recycling. In addition, the minimum processing option in this

scenario is incineration with energy recovery and waste is no longer landfilled directly. Therefore, the

methane emissions from landfill that contribute significantly to the GHG emissions in the reference

scenario are not produced in the Recycling+ scenario. The materials that have the largest contribu-

tion to GHG emission reduction in the Recycling+ scenario compared to the reference scenario are

organic waste (anaerobic digestion), paper and cardboard (recycling and incineration in waste-to-

energy plant), and plastics (recycling). For plastics, PE has the largest impact on emissions, which is

the result of its large share in total waste plastics (83%). The major difference with the Waste Law

scenario lies in the use of high efficiency incineration or RDF for all waste that is not recycled in the

Recycling + scenario compared to landfilling in the Waste Law scenario.

In table 7 the GHG-emissions in the two more ambitious scenarios are compared to the Baseline

2030 scenario for the three materials from MSW that have the largest impact on GHG emissions.

The table shows the savings that can be made.

Table 7: GHG-emission savings compared to Baseline 2030 for organic waste, paper and cardboard, and PE plastics

(in Mt C02eq/yr).

GHG-emissions

(Mt CO2eq/yr)

Material Waste Law versus Baseline 2030 Recycling+ versus Baseline 2030

Organic waste 30 37

Paper and cardboard 12 17

PE 8 19

30


6.3 Impact on energy savings

Figure 4 shows the energy balances for the different scenarios with the contribution of the various

materials in MSW.

Figure 4: Energy balance for the current situation and the three different 2030 scenarios.

Baseline 2030

In the reference scenario for 2030, about 300 PJ per year is saved by current waste management

practices. In terms of energy, landfilled waste does not contribute to any savings, but only consumes

some energy for transport. The amount of energy saved can be completely attributed to the recycling

of materials. This is due to the lower energy consumption in the recycling process of most materials,

compared to the energy consumed in the production of primary material. In Brazil, especially the

recycling of plastics has a large share in the total amount of energy saved of current waste man-

agement practices.

Waste Law

In the Waste Law scenario, about 500 PJ per year is saved by material recycling and electricity pro-

duction from recovered landfill gas. The current targets set for the Waste Law focus on more recy-

cling of both dry materials (36%) and organic waste (53%), which will avoid energy from primary

material production. Additional energy savings result from electricity production from landfill gas that

is recovered from waste that is still being landfilled.

31


Recycling+

High recycling rates combined with incineration of residual waste in a waste-to-energy plant will re-

cover a large share of materials and energy from MSW. Energy savings of 1250 PJ per year are

identified for the Recycling+ scenario. The largest potential energy savings are the result of the recy-

cling of plastics, paper and cardboard, and textiles. In addition, the production of electricity from bio-

gas avoids electricity generation from conventional power plants. From the materials that cannot be

recycled, energy is recovered in a high efficiency waste-to-energy plant.

Table 8 shows potential reductions in energy consumption in the two more ambitious scenarios in

comparison to the Baseline 2030 scenario for the three major materials that have the largest energy

saving potential.

Table 8: Energy savings compared to Baseline 2030 for PE, paper and cardboard and organic waste (in PJ/yr).

Energy savings

(PJ/yr)

Material Waste Law versus Baseline 2030 Recycling+ versus Baseline 2030

PE 99 594

Paper and cardboard 39 99

Organic waste 20 69

32


33


7 Conclusions and recommendations

7.1 Impact of implementing Recycling+ on Brazilian waste management

To realize major steps in reducing and preventing GHG emissions future waste management choic-

es should focus on the recycling of organic waste (responsible for 76% of GHG-emissions) and pa-

per and cardboard (responsible for 19%). Besides these two materials textile and the plastics PET,

PP and PE play significant role in achieving energy savings if Recycling+ scenario is implemented.

About 10% of generated waste is not collected currently. Collection efficiency should be improved to

be able to realize the potential savings shown in this study.

The presented (draft) targets of the Waste Law scenario result in reducing/preventing GHG emis-

sions because of landfill gas recovery and a higher rate of recycling organic waste and dry recycla-

bles. In addition to the giant change in applying landfill gas recovery techniques and other measures

to create sanitary landfill sites, other big changes required in this scenario include the change to two

bin collection (with all associated logistic issues related to distributing bins and implement collection

systems) and setting up an infrastructure of recycling facilities.

To realize the maximum on GHG avoidance and on energy savings high-quality recycling and high

efficiency energy recovery should be applied. This means a transition to the Recycling+ scenario.

This transition affects waste collection and waste treatment. Materials like paper and cardboard,

plastics PP, PE and PET have the highest recycling rates if contamination with organic waste is as

low as possible. Separate collection, for example in a two bin system, provides a good quality of the-

se dry recyclables. In a MRF (Material Recovery Facility) the dry recyclable materials are separated

in a mechanical way combined with handpicking. MRF techniques are available in countries like

Germany and UK.

To optimize the treatment of the organic fraction (kitchen and garden waste) digestion with gas and

heat recovery is recommended. The digestate can be composted and the compost can be used as

fertilizer. The qualitative (legislative) demands of fertilizer determine the extends of contamination of

the separate collected organic waste. Digestion and composting techniques are available in the

Netherlands.

To maximize the re-use of textile the separate collection of textile. has to be organized. The separate

collection guarantees the highest re-use rates because of the minor chance of contamination. Collec-

tion and sorting infrastructure has to be set up.

In the Recycling+ scenario the waste infrastructure has to be expanded with high efficiency incinera-

tion plants and the output of the recycling facilities has to increase. The change to another collection

system and to using recycling facilities creates new employment opportunities. Because of the sani-

tation of landfills required by the Waste Law and the choice for ‘no waste to landfill’ in the Recycling+

scenario, the current ‘wastepick’ problem will turn into a ‘labor-problem’.

34


Both separate waste collection (textile) and waste treatment (handpicking in MRF) can play a role in

provide work opportunities to waste pickers.

Three elements of Dutch and/or European knowledge and experience can contribute to the shift from

the current situation to a situation with traits from the Waste Law / Recycling+ scenarios. These ele-

ments are:

Developing and executing waste management policy;

Implementation of waste collection systems (bins, trucks, logistics);

Engineering and planning waste treatment plants:

Landfill gas recovery;

Two bin separate collection;

Digestion of organic waste;

MRF.

Examples of Dutch waste management companies are shown on the websites of two Dutch waste

associations. (www.wastematters.eu and www.nvrd.nl)

7.2 Recommended further research

This study was conducted on a macro level (Brazil). For more detailed results that are of direct

use for local waste management decisions the model could be implemented on a more local lev-

el. Of course, the outcome on this level also depends on the availability and quality of the waste

data;

Further research and more detailed analysis of selected waste and material flows are necessary;

When choices on waste management are made (on national, regional and/or local level) the sce-

narios can be defined in more detail. The more detailed the input for the model, the more detailed

the outcome. With specific scenarios the contribution of iWaste to waste management quickly

becomes evident;

There are possibilities of a transition of labor forces from waste picking to jobs in waste collection

and waste treatment. Structural work can be offered in the waste industry. Implications, costs,

and benefits have to be investigated. This potential is of another order than the potential reduc-

tions in GHG-emissions but is nonetheless also very important.

http://www.wastematters.eu/

http://www.nvrd.nl/

Appendixes


Appendix 2: Quantitative outcome of scenarios


References

ABB, 2011. Trends in global energy efficiency 2011. Country reports – Brazil. February, 2011. Afval Energie Bedrijf (AEB). Value from waste – Waste fired power plant, the new standard for re-covery of sustainable energy, metals and building materials from urban waste. Waste and Energy Company, City of Amsterdam; 2006. Angulo, S.C., Miranda, L.F.R., John, V., 2002. Construction and demolition waste, its variability and recycling in Brazil. Sustainable Buildings 2002 [available at: http://www.reciclagem.pcc.usp.br/ftp/SB_2002_angulo%20et%20al.pdf] Aprelpe, 2010. Panorama Aprelpe, 2012. Personal communication Bianchini, A., Filho, C.S., 2006. Waste management in developing countries: Present conditions and foreseen paths – a Brazilian overview. Abrelpe, Brazil Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP), 2008. Sector-based Approaches Case Study: Brazil Cement.

ICF International.

Corsten, M., Worrell, E., van Duin, A., Rouw, M., 2010. Saving materials – The potential contribution of sustainable waste management and recycling to greenhouse gas emission reduction in the Neth-erlands, Utrecht University, the Netherlands. Fergutz, O., Dias, S., Mitlin, D., 2011. Developing urban waste management in Brazil with waste picker organizations. Environment and Urbanization 23, pp.597-608. Gomes, C.F.S., Nunes, K.R.A., Xavier, L.H., Cardoso, R., Valle, R., 2008. Multicriteria decision mak-ing applied to waste recycling in Brazil. Omega 36, pp. 395-404. IBGE, 2000. National Survey of Basic Sanitation – Urban cleaning and garbage disposal 2000. Insti-tuto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica. IEA, 2010. Energy Balances 2010. International Energy Agency, Paris, France. IEA, 2011. CO2 emissions from fuel combustion – highlights. International Energy Agency, Paris, France.

IPCC, 1997. Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Intergovern-mental Panel on Climate Change, United Nations Environment Programme, Organization for Eco-nomic Co-Operation and Development, International Energy Agency. Paris, France. IPCC 2006, 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Prepared by the Na-tional Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Eggleston H.S., Buendia L., Miwa K., Ngara T. and Tanabe K. (eds). Published: IGES, Japan.

IVAM, 2008. Environmental analysis of anaerobic digestion of organic waste. Commissioned by the Association for Waste Companies, Amsterdam, Netherlands. John, V.M., Angulo, S.C., Miranda, L.F.R., Agopyan, V., Vasconcellos, F., 2004. Strategies for inno-vation in construction demolition waste management in Brazil. In CIB World Building Congress, Toronto, Canada [available at: http://www.reciclagem.pcc.usp.br/ftp/strategies_john%20et%20al.PDF ]. Laurijssen, J., Marsidi, M., Westenbroek, A., Worrell, E., Faaij, A., 2010. Paper and biomass for en-ergy? The impact of paper recycling on energy and CO2 emissions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 41(12),pp.1208-1218. Lopez-Delgado A, Pena C, Lopez V, Lopez FA. Quality of ferrous scrap from MSW incinerators: A case study of Spain. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2003;40:39-51. Magalhaes, G., Alves, J., Santo Filho, F., Kelson, M., 2010. Understanding methane emissions from passive systems in landfills in Brazil: a contribution for reducing the uncertainties concerning the amount of methane recovered (R) in greenhouse gas emission inventories from waste management and for better estimating the parameter Adjustment factor (AD) in landfill gas collection and destruc-tion/recovering projects under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Manchini, S.D., Nogueira, A.R., Kagohara, D.A., Schwartzman, J.A.S., De Mattos, T., Rosa, A.H., 2007. Influence from the type of waste collection (mixed or segregated) on recycling post-consumer polyolefins films. Polimeros 18 (4), pp.289-296. Monteiro, J H P, Mansur, G.L., Battipede, L., Segala, K., Reed, D.. 2008. Manual on Municipal Solid Waste Integrated Management in Latin American and Caribbean Cities. International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Montevideo. Nunes, K.R.A., Mahler, C.F., Valle, R., 2007. Recycling centers for construction and demolition wastes in Brazil: A study case for Rio de Janeiro. Proceedings Eleventh International Waste Man-agement and Landfill Symposium, 1-5 October 2007, Sardinia, Italy. Oliviera, L.B., Rosa, L.P., 2003. Brazilian waste potential: energy, environmental, social and econom-ic benefits. Energy Policy 31, pp.1481-1491. PRN (2009c) Factsheet omrekening aandeel oud papier en – karton in het huishoudelijk restafval naar gewicht op het moment van afdanken en in luchtdroge toestand, Stichting Papier Recycling Nederland, April 2010. Reimann D. CEWEP Energy Report II (Status 2004-2007) - Results of specific data for energy, R1 plant efficiency factor, and net calorific value (NCV) of 231 European Waste-to-energy plants. Con-federation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants, Brussels; 2009. Ribeiro, S.G., 2010. Waste management in Brazil. Presentation at the WTERT 2010 bi-annual meet-ing at Columbia University, New York City, October 7-8, 2010. Shen, L., Worrell, E., Patel, M., 2010. Open-loop recycling: A LCA case study of PET bottle-to-fibre recycling. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55(1),pp.34-52. Smith, A., Brown, K., Ogilvie, S., Rushton, K., Bates, J., 2001. Waste management options and cli-mate change. European Commission. Tayibi H, Pena C, Lopez FA, Lopez-Delgado A. Management of MSW in Spain and recovery of packaging steel scrap. Waste Management 2007; 27(11):1655-1665.

http://www.reciclagem.pcc.usp.br/ftp/strategies_john%20et%20al.PDF

Thompson, S., and S. Tanapat, 2005. Modeling waste management options for greenhouse gas reduction. Journal of Environmental Informatics 6(1), pp.16-24. UNFCCC, 2012. Website: http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/projsearch.html [accessed May 2012]. World Bank, 2010. Brazil low carbon case study, technical synthesis report – Waste. World Bank, 2012. Website: http://data.worldbank.org/country/brazil [accessed May 2012]. Worrell E, van Heijningen RJJ, de Castro JFM,. Hazewinkel JHO, de Beer JG, Faaij APC, Vringer K. New gross energy-requirement figures for materials production. Energy 1994;19(6):627-640.

http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/projsearch.html

http://data.worldbank.org/country/brazil

Appendix 2: Quantitative outcome of scenarios

Quantitative outcome of the iWaste model

Results scenarios MSW Brazil

Share

Quantity MSW

generated

Quantity MSW

collected Recycling

Quantity

recycled

Quantity

landfilled

Quantity MSW

to AVI high eff

Energy balance

processing GHG emissions

% kton kton % kton kton kton TJ primary kton CO2eq

2010Paper and board 14,7% 5798 5159 23% 1334 4465 0 -30952 4896

Glass 2,8% 1729 1538 23% 398 1331 0 -213 -80

Organic waste 54,9% 33410 29727 0 33410 0 6126 19774

Textiles 1,8% 1065 948 30% 320 746 0 -23382 -36

Steel 1,3% 803 715 0 803 0 151 11

Aluminum 0,4% 256 227 63% 161 95 0 -27617 -634

PE (hard) 1,9% 1172 1043 20% 234 937 0

PE (film) 15,0% 9112 8107 20% 1822 7290 0

PP 1,9% 1172 1043 20% 234 937 0 -9121 -706

PET 1,5% 907 807 56% 508 399 0 -29585 -2115

Tetrapak 1,4% 858 764 0 858 0 153 1044

Wood 0,3% 207 184 0 207 0 36 346

Stone-like material 0,8% 475 422 0 475 0 89 7

Other 1,3% 773 688 0 773 0

Total 60868 54158 -196695 16328

Total per kton of waste generated -3,2 0,268

2030Paper and board 14,7% 9100 7142 23% 2093 7007 0 -48579 7685

Glass 2,8% 2713 2414 23% 624 2089 0 -334 -125

Organic waste 54,9% 52437 46657 0 52437 0 9615 31035

Textiles 1,8% 1672 1488 30% 502 1170 0 -36698 -56

Steel 1,3% 1261 1122 0 1261 0 237 18

Aluminum 0,4% 401 357 63% 253 148 0 -43345 -1047

PE (hard) 1,9% 1839 1636 20% 368 1471 0

PE (film) 15,0% 14301 12725 20% 2860 11441 0

PP 1,9% 1839 1636 20% 368 1471 0 -14315 -1108

PET 1,5% 1423 1267 56% 797 626 0 -46433 -3320

Tetrapak 1,4% 1347 1199 0 1347 0 240 1638

Wood 0,3% 325 289 0 325 0 57 543


Other 1,3% 1213 1080 0 1213 0

Total 95532 85000 8,2% 95531 -308710 25576

Total per kton of waste generated -3,2 0,268

Waste LawPaper and board 14,7% 9100 7142 36% 3276 5824 0 -87835 -4537

Glass 2,8% 2713 2414 36% 977 1736 0 -811 -218

Organic waste 54,9% 52437 46657 53% 27792 24646 0 -10069 1245

Textiles 1,8% 1672 1488 30% 502 1170 0 -37123 -600

Steel 1,3% 1261 1122 36% 454 807 0 -8221 -832

Aluminum 0,4% 401 357 63% 253 148 0 -43107 -1020

PE (hard) 1,9% 1839 1636 36% 662 1177 0

PE (film) 15,0% 14301 12725 36% 5148 9153 0

PP 1,9% 1839 1636 36% 662 1177 0 -25268 -1983

PET 1,5% 1423 1267 56% 797 626 0 -45833 -3294

Tetrapak 1,4% 1347 1199 0 1347 0 -1849 87

Wood 0,3% 325 289 0 325 0 -690 25


Other 1,3% 1213 1080 0 1213 0

Total 95532 85000 42,4% -488702 -28446

Total per kton of waste generated -5,1 -0,298

Recycling+Paper and board 14,7% 9100 7142 40% 3640 0 5460 -147381 -9027

Glass 2,8% 2713 2414 23% 624 0 2089 -334 -125

Organic waste 54,9% 52437 46657 80% 41950 0 10487 -59800 -5526

Textiles 1,8% 1672 1488 50% 836 0 836 -81529 -1266

Steel 1,3% 1261 1122 77% 965 0 296 -18334 -1788

Aluminum 0,4% 401 357 75% 301 0 100 -51719 -1356

PE (hard) 1,9% 1839 1636 85% 1563 0 276

PE (film) 15,0% 14301 12725 75% 10726 0 3575

PP 1,9% 1839 1636 85% 1563 0 276 -83525 -3889

PET 1,5% 1423 1267 85% 1210 0 214 -80353 -4620

Tetrapak 1,4% 1347 1199 77% 1030 0 317 -6269 -628

Wood 0,3% 325 289 0 0 325 -3705 -209


Other 1,3% 1213 1080 0 0 1213

Total 95532 85000 67,4% -1255767 -56713

Total per kton of waste generated -13,1 -0,594

Dutch results (Saving Materials)

Baseline 2008 - Per kton of waste generated 8290 -9,8 -0,280

Dutch Recycling+ scenario - total per kton of waste generated -12,8 -0,6

Model output

-6178-82381

-129295 -9696

-17344-228351

-28303-723273

Date post:	30-Oct-2014
Category:	Documents
Upload:	edsonjansenjunior
View:	85 times
Download:	1 times

The Potential for Waste Management in Brazil

Documents