Department of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark.
Waste Manag Res. 2009 Nov;27(8):763-72. doi: 10.1177/0734242X09345868. Epub 2009 Sep 11.
Major greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions related to plastic waste recycling were evaluated with respect to three management alternatives: recycling of clean, single-type plastic, recycling of mixed/contaminated plastic, and use of plastic waste as fuel in industrial processes. Source-separated plastic waste was received at a material recovery facility (MRF) and processed for granulation and subsequent downstream use. In the three alternatives, plastic was assumed to be substituting virgin plastic in new products, wood in low-strength products (outdoor furniture, fences, etc.), and coal or fuel oil in the case of energy utilization. GHG accounting was organized in terms of indirect upstream emissions (e.g. provision of energy, fuels, and materials), direct emissions at the MRF (e.g. fuel combustion), and indirect downstream emissions (e.g. avoided emissions from production of virgin plastic, wood, or coal/oil). Combined, upstream and direct emissions were estimated to be roughly between 5 and 600 kg CO(2)-eq. tonne( -1) of plastic waste depending on treatment at the MRF and CO(2) emissions from electricity production. Potential downstream savings arising from substitution of virgin plastic, wood, and energy fuels were estimated to be around 60- 1600 kg CO(2)-eq. tonne( -1) of plastic waste depending on substitution ratios and CO(2) emissions from electricity production. Based on the reviewed data, it was concluded that substitution of virgin plastic should be preferred. If this is not viable due to a mixture of different plastic types and/or contamination, the plastic should be used for energy utilization. Recycling of plastic waste for substitution of other materials such as wood provided no savings with respect to global warming.
主要温室气体(GHG)排放与塑料废物回收有关,针对三种管理方案进行了评估:清洁、单一类型塑料的回收、混合/污染塑料的回收以及将塑料废物用作工业过程中的燃料。源头分离的塑料废物被送到材料回收设施(MRF)进行造粒和随后的下游利用。在这三种方案中,假设塑料替代了新产品中的原生塑料、低强度产品(户外家具、围栏等)中的木材以及能源利用中的煤炭或燃料油。温室气体核算按间接上游排放(例如能源、燃料和材料的供应)、MRF 中的直接排放(例如燃料燃烧)以及间接下游排放(例如避免生产原生塑料、木材或煤炭/石油的排放)进行组织。上游和直接排放的总和估计在 5 到 600 公斤 CO(2)-eq. 吨(-1)的塑料废物之间,具体取决于 MRF 的处理方式和电力生产的 CO(2)排放量。由于替代原生塑料、木材和能源燃料而产生的潜在下游节约估计在 60-1600 公斤 CO(2)-eq. 吨(-1)的塑料废物之间,具体取决于替代比和电力生产的 CO(2)排放量。根据审查的数据,得出的结论是应优先考虑替代原生塑料。如果由于不同类型的塑料和/或污染的混合物而无法实现这一点,则应将塑料用于能源利用。回收塑料废物以替代木材等其他材料不会减少全球变暖的影响。