From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The three chasing arrows of the international recycling logo
Municipal waste recycling rate (%), 2015
Recycling is the process of converting waste materials into new materials and objects. The recovery of energy from waste materials
is often included in this concept. The recyclability of a material
depends on its ability to reacquire the properties it had in its virgin
or original state. It is an alternative to "conventional" waste disposal that can save material and help lower greenhouse gas
emissions. Recycling can prevent the waste of potentially useful
materials and reduce the consumption of fresh raw materials, thereby
reducing: energy usage, air pollution (from incineration), and water pollution (from landfilling).
Recycling is a key component of modern waste reduction and is the third component of the "Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle" waste hierarchy.
Thus, recycling aims at environmental sustainability by substituting
raw material inputs into and redirecting waste outputs out of the
economic system. There are some ISO standards related to recycling such as ISO 15270:2008 for plastics waste and ISO 14001:2015 for environmental management control of recycling practice.
Recyclable materials include many kinds of glass, paper, cardboard, metal, plastic, tires, textiles, batteries, and electronics. The composting or other reuse of biodegradable waste—such as food or garden waste—is also a form of recycling.
Materials to be recycled are either delivered to a household recycling
center or picked up from curbside bins, then sorted, cleaned, and
reprocessed into new materials destined for manufacturing new products.
In the strictest sense, recycling of a material would produce a
fresh supply of the same material—for example, used office paper would
be converted into new office paper or used polystyrene
foam into new polystyrene. This is accomplished when recycling certain
types of materials, such as metal cans, which can become a can again and
again, indefinitely, without losing purity in the product.
However, this is often difficult or too expensive (compared with
producing the same product from raw materials or other sources), so
"recycling" of many products or materials involves their reuse in producing different materials (for example, paperboard) instead. Another form of recycling is the salvage of certain materials from complex products, either due to their intrinsic value (such as lead from car batteries, or gold from printed circuit boards), or due to their hazardous nature (e.g., removal and reuse of mercury from thermometers and thermostats).
History
Origins
Recycling has been a common practice for most of human history, with recorded advocates as far back as Plato in the fourth century BC.
During periods when resources were scarce and hard to come by,
archaeological studies of ancient waste dumps show less household waste
(such as ash, broken tools, and pottery)—implying more waste was being
recycled in the absence of new material.
In pre-industrial times, there is evidence of scrap bronze and other metals being collected in Europe and melted down for continuous reuse. Paper recycling was first recorded in 1031 when Japanese shops sold repulped paper. In Britain dust and ash from wood and coal fires was collected by "dustmen" and downcycled
as a base material used in brick making. The main driver for these
types of recycling was the economic advantage of obtaining recycled
feedstock instead of acquiring virgin material, as well as a lack of
public waste removal in ever more densely populated areas. In 1813, Benjamin Law developed the process of turning rags into "shoddy" and "mungo" wool in Batley, Yorkshire. This material combined recycled fibers with virgin wool. The West Yorkshire shoddy industry in towns such as Batley and Dewsbury lasted from the early 19th century to at least 1914.
Industrialization spurred demand for affordable materials; aside from rags, ferrous scrap
metals were coveted as they were cheaper to acquire than virgin ore.
Railroads both purchased and sold scrap metal in the 19th century, and
the growing steel and automobile industries purchased scrap in the early
20th century. Many secondary goods were collected, processed and sold
by peddlers who scoured dumps and city streets for discarded machinery,
pots, pans, and other sources of metal. By World War I,
thousands of such peddlers roamed the streets of American cities,
taking advantage of market forces to recycle post-consumer materials
back into industrial production.
Beverage bottles were recycled with a refundable deposit at some
drink manufacturers in Great Britain and Ireland around 1800, notably Schweppes. An official recycling system with refundable deposits
was established in Sweden for bottles in 1884 and aluminum beverage
cans in 1982; the law led to a recycling rate for beverage containers of
84–99 percent depending on type, and a glass bottle can be refilled
over 20 times on average.
Wartime
New chemical industries created in the late 19th century both invented new materials (e.g. Bakelite in 1907) and promised to transform valueless into valuable materials. Proverbially, you could not make a silk purse of a sow's ear—until
the US firm Arthur D. Little published in 1921 "On the Making of Silk
Purses from Sows' Ears", its research proving that when "chemistry puts
on overalls and gets down to business [...] new values appear. New and
better paths are opened to reach the goals desired."
Recycling (or "salvage", as it was then usually known) was a major issue for governments throughout World War II.
Financial constraints and significant material shortages due to war
efforts made it necessary for countries to reuse goods and recycle
materials. These resource shortages caused by the world wars, and other such world-changing occurrences, greatly encouraged recycling. The struggles of war claimed much of the material resources available, leaving little for the civilian population.
It became necessary for most homes to recycle their waste, as recycling
offered an extra source of materials allowing people to make the most
of what was available to them. Recycling household materials meant more
resources for war efforts and a better chance of victory. Massive government promotion campaigns, such as the National Salvage Campaign in Britain and the Salvage for Victory campaign in the United States, were carried out on the home front in every combative nation, urging citizens to donate metal, paper, rags, and rubber as a matter of patriotism.
Post-World War II
A considerable investment in recycling occurred in the 1970s, due to rising energy costs.
Recycling aluminium uses only 5% of the energy required by virgin
production; glass, paper and other metals have less dramatic but
significant energy savings when recycled feedstock is used.
Although consumer electronics such as the television have been
popular since the 1920s, recycling of them was almost unheard of until
early 1991.
The first electronic waste recycling scheme was implemented in
Switzerland, beginning with collection of old refrigerators but
gradually expanding to cover all devices.
After these schemes were set up, many countries did not have the
capacity to deal with the sheer quantity of e-waste they generated or
its hazardous nature. They began to export the problem to developing
countries without enforced environmental legislation. This is cheaper,
as recycling computer monitors in the United States costs 10 times more
than in China. Demand in Asia for electronic waste began to grow when
scrap yards found that they could extract valuable substances such as
copper, silver, iron, silicon, nickel, and gold, during the recycling
process.
The 2000s saw a large increase in both the sale of electronic devices
and their growth as a waste stream: in 2002, e-waste grew faster than
any other type of waste in the EU.
This caused investment in modern, automated facilities to cope with the
influx of redundant appliances, especially after strict laws were
implemented in 2003.
As of 2014, the European Union
had about 50% of world share of the waste and recycling industries,
with over 60,000 companies employing 500,000 persons, with a turnover of
€24 billion.
Countries have to reach recycling rates of at least 50%, while the lead
countries were around 65% and the EU average was 39% as of 2013.
The EU average has been rising steadily, to 45% in 2015.
The United Nations General Assembly, in 2015, set 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Goal 12 Responsible Consumption and Production is to "ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns" and is composed of 11 targets. The fifth target, Target 12.5, is defined as substantially reducing waste generation by 2030, indicated by the National Recycling Rate.
In 2018, changes in the recycling market have sparked a global
"crisis" in the industry. On 31 December 2017, China announced its "National Sword"
policy, setting new standards for imports of recyclable material and
banning materials that were deemed too "dirty" or "hazardous". The new
policy caused drastic disruptions in the global market in recycling and
reduced the prices of scrap plastic and low-grade paper. Exports of
recyclable materials from G7 countries to China dropped dramatically,
with many exports shifting to countries in southeast Asia. The crisis
generated significant concern about the practices and environmental
sustainability of the recycling industry. The abrupt shift caused
countries to accept more recyclable materials than they could process,
raising fundamental questions about shipping recycling waste from
economically developed countries to countries with few environmental
regulations—a practice that predated the crisis.
Legislation
Supply
For a recycling program to work, having a large, stable supply
of recyclable material is crucial. Three legislative options have been
used to create such a supply: mandatory recycling collection, container deposit legislation,
and refuse bans. Mandatory collection laws set recycling targets for
cities to aim for, usually in the form that a certain percentage of a
material must be diverted from the city's waste stream by a target date.
The city is then responsible for working to meet this target.
Container deposit legislation involves offering a refund for the
return of certain containers, typically glass, plastic, and metal. When a
product in such a container is purchased, a small surcharge is added to
the price. This surcharge can be reclaimed by the consumer if the
container is returned to a collection point. These programs have been
successful, often resulting in an 80 percent recycling rate.
Despite such good results, the shift in collection costs from local
government to industry and consumers has created strong opposition to
the creation of such programs in some areas.
A variation on this is where the manufacturer bears responsibility for
the recycling of their goods. In the European Union, the WEEE Directive
requires producers of consumer electronics to reimburse the recyclers'
costs.
An alternative way to increase the supply of recyclates is to ban
the disposal of certain materials as waste, often including used oil,
old batteries, tires, and garden waste. One aim of this method is to
create a viable economy for proper disposal of banned products. Care
must be taken that enough of these recycling services exist, or such bans simply lead to increased illegal dumping.
Government-mandated demand
Legislation
has also been used to increase and maintain a demand for recycled
materials. Four methods of such legislation exist: minimum recycled
content mandates, utilization rates, procurement policies, and recycled product labeling.
Both minimum recycled content mandates and utilization rates
increase demand directly by forcing manufacturers to include recycling
in their operations. Content mandates specify that a certain percentage
of a new product must consist of recycled material. Utilization rates
are a more flexible option: industries are permitted to meet the
recycling targets at any point of their operation or even contract
recycling out in exchange for tradeable credits. Opponents to both of
these methods point to the large increase in reporting requirements they
impose, and claim that they rob the industry of necessary flexibility.
Governments have used their own purchasing power
to increase recycling demand through what are called "procurement
policies". These policies are either "set-asides", which reserve a
certain amount of spending solely towards recycled products, or "price
preference" programs which provide a larger budget when recycled items are purchased. Additional regulations can target specific cases: in the United States, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency mandates the purchase of oil, paper, tires and building insulation from recycled or re-refined sources whenever possible.
The final government regulation towards increased demand is
recycled product labeling. When producers are required to label their
packaging with amount of recycled material in the product (including the
packaging), consumers are better able to make educated choices.
Consumers with sufficient buying power
can then choose more environmentally conscious options, prompt
producers to increase the amount of recycled material in their products,
and indirectly increase demand. Standardized recycling labeling can
also have a positive effect on supply of recyclates if the labeling
includes information on how and where the product can be recycled.
Recyclates
Glass recovered by crushing only one kind of beer bottle
"Recyclate" is a raw material that is sent to, and processed in a
waste recycling plant or materials recovery facility which will be used
to form new products.
The material is collected in various methods and delivered to a
facility where it is processed so that it can be used in the production
of new materials or products. For example, plastic bottles that are collected can be re-used and made into plastic pellets, a new product.
Quality of recyclate
The
quality of recyclates is recognized as one of the principal challenges
that needs to be addressed for the success of a long-term vision of a
green economy and achieving zero waste. Recyclate quality is generally
referring to how much of the raw material is made up of target material
compared to the amount of non-target material and other non-recyclable
material.
For example, steel and metal are materials with a higher recyclate
quality. It's estimated that two-thirds of all new steel manufactured
comes from recycled steel.
Only target material is likely to be recycled, so a higher amount of
non-target and non-recyclable material will reduce the quantity of
recycling product.
A high proportion of non-target and non-recyclable material can make it
more difficult for re-processors to achieve "high-quality" recycling.
If the recyclate is of poor quality, it is more likely to end up being
down-cycled or, in more extreme cases, sent to other recovery options or
landfilled.
For example, to facilitate the re-manufacturing of clear glass products
there are tight restrictions for colored glass going into the re-melt
process. Another example is the downcycling of plastic, in which
products such as plastic food packaging are often downcycled into lower
quality products, and do not get recycled into the same plastic food
packaging.
The quality of recyclate not only supports high-quality
recycling, but it can also deliver significant environmental benefits by
reducing, reusing, and keeping products out of landfills. High-quality recycling can help support growth in the economy by maximizing the economic value of the waste material collected.
Higher income levels from the sale of quality recyclates can return
value which can be significant to local governments, households, and
businesses.
Pursuing high-quality recycling can also provide consumer and business
confidence in the waste and resource management sector and may encourage
investment in that sector.
There are many actions along the recycling supply chain that can influence and affect the material quality of recyclate.
It begins with the waste producers who place non-target and
non-recyclable wastes in recycling collection. This can affect the
quality of final recyclate streams or require further efforts to discard
those materials at later stages in the recycling process.
The different collection systems can result in different levels of
contamination. Depending on which materials are collected together,
extra effort is required to sort this material back into separate
streams and can significantly reduce the quality of the final product.
Transportation and the compaction of materials can make it more
difficult to separate material back into separate waste streams. Sorting
facilities are not one hundred percent effective in separating
materials, despite improvements in technology and quality recyclate
which can see a loss in recyclate quality.
The storage of materials outside, where the product can become wet, can
cause problems for re-processors. Reprocessing facilities may require
further sorting steps to further reduce the amount of non-target and
non-recyclable material. Each action along the recycling path plays a part in the quality of recyclate.
Quality recyclate action plan (Scotland)
The Recyclate Quality Action Plan of Scotland sets out a number of proposed actions that the Scottish Government
would like to take forward in order to drive up the quality of the
materials being collected for recycling and sorted at materials recovery
facilities before being exported or sold on to the reprocessing market.
The plan's objectives are to:
- Drive up the quality of recyclate
- Deliver greater transparency about the quality of recyclate
- Provide help to those contracting with materials recycling facilities to identify what is required of them
- Ensure compliance with the Waste (Scotland) regulations 2012
- Stimulate a household market for quality recyclate
- Address and reduce issues surrounding the Waste Shipment Regulations
The plan focuses on three key areas, with fourteen actions which were
identified to increase the quality of materials collected, sorted and
presented to the processing market in Scotland.
The three areas of focus are:
- Collection systems and input contamination
- Sorting facilities – material sampling and transparency
- Material quality benchmarking and standards
Recycling consumer waste
Collection
A three-sided bin at a railway station in
Germany, intended to separate paper
(left) and plastic wrappings
(right) from other waste
(back)
A number of different systems have been implemented to collect
recyclates from the general waste stream. These systems lie along the
spectrum of trade-off between public convenience and government ease and
expense. The three main categories of collection are "drop-off
centers", "buy-back centers", and "curbside collection". About two-thirds of the cost of recycling is incurred during the collection phase.
Curbside collection
Curbside collection encompasses many subtly different systems, which
differ mostly on where in the process the recyclates are sorted and
cleaned. The main categories are mixed waste collection, commingled
recyclables, and source separation. A waste collection vehicle generally picks up the waste.
At one end of the spectrum is mixed waste collection, in which
all recyclates are collected mixed in with the rest of the waste, and
the desired material is then sorted out and cleaned at a central sorting
facility. This results in a large amount of recyclable waste, paper
especially, being too soiled to reprocess, but has advantages as well:
the city need not pay for a separate collection of recyclates and no
public education is needed. Any changes to which materials are
recyclable is easy to accommodate as all sorting happens in a central
location.
In a commingled or single-stream system,
all recyclables for collection are mixed but kept separate from other
waste. This greatly reduces the need for post-collection cleaning but
does require public education on what materials are recyclable.
Source separation
Source
separation is the other extreme, where each material is cleaned and
sorted prior to collection. This method requires the least
post-collection sorting and produces the purest recyclates, but incurs
additional operating costs
for collection of each separate material. An extensive public education
program is also required, which must be successful if recyclate contamination is to be avoided.[5] In Oregon,
USA, its environmental authority Oregon DEQ surveyed multi-family
property managers and about half of them reported problems including
contamination of recyclables due to trespassers such as transients gaining access to the collection areas.
Source separation used to be the preferred method due to the high
sorting costs incurred by commingled (mixed waste) collection. However,
advances in sorting technology have lowered this overhead
substantially. Many areas which had developed source separation programs
have since switched to what is called co-mingled collection.
Buy-back centers
Buy-back centers differ in that the cleaned recyclates are purchased,
thus providing a clear incentive for use and creating a stable supply.
The post-processed material can then be sold. If this is profitable,
this conserves the emission of greenhouse gases; if unprofitable, it
increases the emission of greenhouse gases. Government subsidies are
necessary to make buy-back centres a viable enterprise. In 1993,
according to the U.S. National Waste & Recycling Association, it costs on average $50 to process a ton of material, which can be resold for $30.
In the US, the value per ton of mixed recyclables was $180 in 2011, $80 in 2015, and $100 in 2017.
In 2017, glass is essentially valueless, because of the low cost
of sand, its major component; low oil costs thwarts plastic recycling.
In 2017, Napa, California was reimbursed about 20% of its costs in recycling.
Drop-off centers
Drop-off
centers require the waste producer to carry the recyclates to a central
location, either an installed or mobile collection station or the
reprocessing plant itself. They are the easiest type of collection to
establish but suffer from low and unpredictable throughput.
Distributed recycling
For some waste materials such as plastic, recent technical devices called recyclebots enable a form of distributed recycling. Preliminary life-cycle analysis (LCA) indicates that such distributed recycling of HDPE to make filament of 3D printers
in rural regions is energetically favorable to either using virgin
resin or conventional recycling processes because of reductions in
transportation energy.
Sorting
Video of recycling sorting facility and processes
Once commingled recyclates are collected and delivered to a materials recovery facility,
the different types of materials must be sorted. This is done in a
series of stages, many of which involve automated processes such that a
truckload of material can be fully sorted in less than an hour. Some plants can now sort the materials automatically, known as single-stream recycling. Automatic sorting may be aided by robotics and machine-learning.
In plants, a variety of materials is sorted such as paper, different
types of plastics, glass, metals, food scraps, and most types of
batteries. A 30 percent increase in recycling rates has been seen in the areas where these plants exist. In the United States, there are over 300 materials recovery facilities.
Initially, the commingled recyclates are removed from the
collection vehicle and placed on a conveyor belt spread out in a single
layer. Large pieces of corrugated fiberboard and plastic bags are removed by hand at this stage, as they can cause later machinery to jam.
Early sorting of recyclable materials: glass and plastic bottles in
Poland.
Next, automated machinery such as disk screens and air classifiers
separate the recyclates by weight, splitting lighter paper and plastic
from heavier glass and metal. Cardboard is removed from the mixed paper
and the most common types of plastic, PET (#1) and HDPE (#2), are collected. This separation is usually done by hand but has become automated in some sorting centers: a spectroscopic
scanner is used to differentiate between different types of paper and
plastic based on the absorbed wavelengths, and subsequently divert each
material into the proper collection channel. Plastics tend to be incompatible with each other due to differences in chemical composition. The polymer molecules repel each other rather than mixing, similar to oil and water.
Strong magnets are used to separate out ferrous metals, such as iron, steel, and tin cans. Non-ferrous metals are ejected by magnetic eddy currents in which a rotating magnetic field induces an electric current around the aluminum cans, which in turn creates a magnetic eddy current inside the cans. This magnetic eddy current is repulsed by a large magnetic field, and the cans are ejected from the rest of the recyclate stream.
A recycling point in
New Byth, Scotland, with separate containers for paper, plastics, and differently colored glass.
Finally, glass is sorted according to its color: brown, amber, green, or clear. It may either be sorted by hand,
or via an automated machine that uses colored filters to detect
different colors. Glass fragments smaller than 10 millimetres (0.39 in)
across cannot be sorted automatically, and are mixed together as "glass
fines".
This process of recycling as well as reusing the recycled
material has proven advantageous because it reduces amount of waste sent
to landfills, conserves natural resources, saves energy, reduces
greenhouse gas emissions, and helps create new jobs. Recycled materials
can also be converted into new products that can be consumed again, such
as paper, plastic, and glass.
The City and County of San Francisco's Department of the
Environment is attempting to achieve a citywide goal of generating zero
waste by 2020. San Francisco's refuse hauler, Recology, operates an effective recyclables sorting facility which helped the city reach a record-breaking diversion rate of 80%.
Recycling industrial waste
Mounds of shredded rubber tires ready for processing
Although many government programs are concentrated on recycling at
home, 64% of waste in the United Kingdom is generated by industry. The focus of many recycling programs done by industry is the cost–effectiveness of recycling. The ubiquitous nature of cardboard packaging makes cardboard a commonly recycled waste product by companies that deal heavily in packaged goods, like retail stores, warehouses,
and distributors of goods. Other industries deal in niche or
specialized products, depending on the nature of the waste materials
that are present.
The glass, lumber, wood pulp and paper manufacturers all deal directly in commonly recycled materials; however, old rubber tires may be collected and recycled by independent tire dealers for a profit.
Levels of metals recycling are generally low. In 2010, the International Resource Panel, hosted by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) published reports on metal stocks that exist within society and their recycling rates.
The Panel reported that the increase in the use of metals during the
20th and into the 21st century has led to a substantial shift in metal
stocks from below ground to use in applications within society above
ground. For example, the in-use stock of copper in the USA grew from 73
to 238 kg per capita between 1932 and 1999.
The report authors observed that, as metals are inherently
recyclable, the metal stocks in society can serve as huge mines above
ground (the term "urban mining" has been coined with this idea in mind). However, they found that the recycling rates of many metals are low. The report warned that the recycling rates of some rare metals
used in applications such as mobile phones, battery packs for hybrid
cars and fuel cells, are so low that unless future end-of-life recycling
rates are dramatically stepped up these critical metals will become
unavailable for use in modern technology.
The military recycles some metals. The U.S. Navy's Ship Disposal Program uses ship breaking to reclaim the steel of old vessels. Ships may also be sunk to create an artificial reef. Uranium is a dense metal that has qualities superior to lead and titanium for many military and industrial uses. The uranium left over from processing it into nuclear weapons and fuel for nuclear reactors is called depleted uranium, and is used by all branches of the U.S. military for the development of such things as armour-piercing shells and shielding.
The construction industry may recycle concrete and old road surface pavement, selling their waste materials for profit.
Some industries, like the renewable energy industry and solar photovoltaic
technology, in particular, are being proactive in setting up recycling
policies even before there is considerable volume to their waste
streams, anticipating future demand during their rapid growth.
Recycling of plastics is more difficult, as most programs are not able to reach the necessary level of quality. Recycling of PVC often results in downcycling
of the material, which means only products of lower quality standard
can be made with the recycled material. A new approach which allows an
equal level of quality is the Vinyloop process. It was used after the London Olympics 2012 to fulfill the PVC Policy.
E-waste recycling
Computer processors retrieved from waste stream
E-waste is a growing problem, accounting for 20–50 million metric tons of global waste per year according to the EPA. It is also the fastest growing waste stream in the EU. Many recyclers do not recycle e-waste responsibly. After the cargo barge Khian Sea dumped 14,000 metric tons of toxic ash in Haiti, the Basel Convention was formed to stem the flow of hazardous substances into poorer countries. They created the e-Stewards
certification to ensure that recyclers are held to the highest
standards for environmental responsibility and to help consumers
identify responsible recyclers. This works alongside other prominent
legislation, such as the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive of the EU the United States National Computer Recycling Act, to prevent poisonous chemicals from entering waterways and the atmosphere.
In the recycling process, television sets, monitors, cell phones,
and computers are typically tested for reuse and repaired. If broken,
they may be disassembled for parts still having high value if labor is
cheap enough. Other e-waste is shredded to pieces roughly 10 centimetres
(3.9 in) in size, and manually checked to separate out toxic batteries
and capacitors
which contain poisonous metals. The remaining pieces are further
shredded to 10 millimetres (0.39 in) particles and passed under a magnet
to remove ferrous metals. An eddy current
ejects non-ferrous metals, which are sorted by density either by a
centrifuge or vibrating plates. Precious metals can be dissolved in
acid, sorted, and smelted into ingots. The remaining glass and plastic
fractions are separated by density and sold to re-processors. Television
sets and monitors must be manually disassembled to remove lead from
CRTs or the mercury backlight from LCDs.
Plastic recycling
A container for recycling used plastic spoons into material for 3D printing
Plastic recycling is the process of recovering scrap or waste plastic
and reprocessing the material into useful products, sometimes
completely different in form from their original state. For instance,
this could mean melting down soft drink bottles and then casting them as
plastic chairs and tables.
For some types of plastic, the same piece of plastic can only be
recycled about 2–3 times before its quality decreases to the point where
it can no longer be used.
Physical recycling
Some
plastics are remelted to form new plastic objects; for example, PET
water bottles can be converted into polyester destined for clothing. A
disadvantage of this type of recycling is that the molecular weight of
the polymer can change further and the levels of unwanted substances in
the plastic can increase with each remelt.
A commercial-built recycling facility was sent to the International Space Station
in late 2019. The facility will take in plastic waste and unneeded
plastic parts and physically convert them into spools of feedstock for
the space station additive manufacturing facility used for in-space 3D printing.
Chemical recycling
For
some polymers, it is possible to convert them back into monomers, for
example, PET can be treated with an alcohol and a catalyst to form a
dialkyl terephthalate. The terephthalate diester can be used with
ethylene glycol to form a new polyester polymer, thus making it possible
to use the pure polymer again. In 2019, Eastman Chemical Company announced initiatives of methanolysis and syngas designed to handle a greater variety of used material.
Waste plastic pyrolysis to fuel oil
Another process involves the conversion of assorted polymers into petroleum by a much less precise thermal depolymerization process. Such a process would be able to accept almost any polymer or mix of polymers, including thermoset materials such as vulcanized rubber tires and the biopolymers
in feathers and other agricultural waste. Like natural petroleum, the
chemicals produced can be used as fuels or as feedstock. A RESEM
Technology plant of this type in Carthage, Missouri,
US, uses turkey waste as input material. Gasification is a similar
process but is not technically recycling since polymers are not likely
to become the result.
Plastic Pyrolysis can convert petroleum based waste streams such as
plastics into quality fuels, carbons. Given below is the list of
suitable plastic raw materials for pyrolysis:
Recycling loops
Loops for production-waste, product and material recycling
The (ideal) recycling process can be differentiated into three loops,
one for manufacture (production-waste recycling) and two for disposal
of the product (product and material recycling).
The product's manufacturing phase, which consists of material processing and fabrication, forms the production-waste recycling loop. Industrial waste materials are fed back into, and reused in, the same production process.
The product's disposal process requires two recycling loops: product recycling and material recycling.
The product or product parts are reused in the product recycling
phase. This happens in one of two ways: the product is used retaining
the product functionality ("reuse") or the product continues to be used
but with altered functionality ("further use"). The product design is unmodified, or only slightly modified, in both scenarios.
Product disassembly requires material recycling where
product materials are recovered and recycled. Ideally, the materials are
processed so they can flow back into the production process.
Recycling codes
Recycling codes on products
In order to meet recyclers' needs while providing manufacturers a consistent, uniform system, a coding system was developed. The recycling code for plastics was introduced in 1988 by the plastics industry through the Society of the Plastics Industry. Because municipal recycling programs traditionally have targeted packaging—primarily bottles and containers—the resin coding system offered a means of identifying the resin content of bottles and containers commonly found in the residential waste stream.
Plastic products are printed with numbers 1–7 depending on the type of resin. Type 1 (polyethylene terephthalate) is commonly found in soft drink and water bottles. Type 2 (high-density polyethylene) is found in most hard plastics such as milk jugs, laundry detergent bottles, and some dishware. Type 3 (polyvinyl chloride) includes items such as shampoo bottles, shower curtains, hula hoops, credit cards, wire jacketing, medical equipment, siding, and piping. Type 4 (low-density polyethylene) is found in shopping bags, squeezable bottles, tote bags, clothing, furniture, and carpet. Type 5 is polypropylene and makes up syrup bottles, straws, Tupperware, and some automotive parts. Type 6 is polystyrene
and makes up meat trays, egg cartons, clamshell containers, and compact
disc cases. Type 7 includes all other plastics such as bulletproof
materials, 3- and 5-gallon water bottles, cell phone and tablet frames,
safety goggles and sunglasses.
Having a recycling code or the chasing arrows logo on a material is not
an automatic indicator that a material is recyclable but rather an
explanation of what the material is. Types 1 and 2 are the most commonly
recycled.
Cost–benefit analysis
Environmental effects of recycling
Material
|
Energy savings vs. new production
|
Air pollution savings vs. new production
|
Aluminium |
95% |
95%
|
Cardboard |
24% |
—
|
Glass |
5–30% |
20%
|
Paper |
40% |
73%
|
Plastics |
70% |
—
|
Steel |
60% |
—
|
There is debate over whether recycling is economically efficient. According to a Natural Resources Defense Council
study, waste collection and landfill disposal creates less than one job
per 1,000 tons of waste material managed; in contrast, the collection,
processing, and manufacturing of recycled materials creates 6–13 or more
jobs per 1,000 tons.
According to the U.S. Recycling Economic Informational Study, there
are over 50,000 recycling establishments that have created over a
million jobs in the US. The National Waste & Recycling Association
(NWRA) reported in May 2015 that recycling and waste made a $6.7
billion economic impact in Ohio, U.S., and employed 14,000 people.
Economists would classify this extra labor used as a cost rather than a
benefit since these workers could have been employed elsewhere; the
cost effectiveness of creating these additional jobs remains unclear.
Sometimes cities have found recycling saves resources compared to
other methods of waste disposal. Two years after New York City declared
that implementing recycling programs would be "a drain on the city",
New York City leaders realized that an efficient recycling system could
save the city over $20 million. Municipalities often see fiscal benefits from implementing recycling programs, largely due to the reduced landfill costs. A study conducted by the Technical University of Denmark
according to the Economist found that in 83 percent of cases, recycling
is the most efficient method to dispose of household waste.
However, a 2004 assessment by the Danish Environmental Assessment
Institute concluded that incineration was the most effective method for
disposing of drink containers, even aluminium ones.
Fiscal efficiency is separate from economic efficiency. Economic analysis of recycling does not include what economists call externalities:
unpriced costs and benefits that accrue to individuals outside of
private transactions. Examples include less air pollution and greenhouse
gases from incineration and less waste leaching from landfills.
Without mechanisms such as taxes or subsidies, businesses and consumers
following their private benefit will ignore externalities despite the
costs imposed on society. If landfills and incinerator pollution is
inadequately regulated,these methods of waste disposal will appear
cheaper than they really are, because part of their cost will the
pollution imposed on people nearby. Thus, advocates have pushed for
legislation to increase demand for recycled materials. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has concluded in favor of recycling, saying that recycling efforts reduced the country's carbon emissions by a net 49 million metric tonnes in 2005. In the United Kingdom, the Waste and Resources Action Programme stated that Great Britain's recycling efforts reduce CO2 emissions by 10–15 million tonnes a year.
The question for economic efficiency is whether this reduction is worth
the extra cost of recycling and thus makes the artificial demand
creates by legislation worthwhile.
Wrecked automobiles gathered for smelting
Certain requirements must be met for recycling to be economically
feasible and environmentally effective. These include an adequate source
of recyclates, a system to extract those recyclates from the waste stream,
a nearby factory capable of reprocessing the recyclates, and a
potential demand for the recycled products. These last two requirements
are often overlooked—without both an industrial market for production
using the collected materials and a consumer market for the manufactured
goods, recycling is incomplete and in fact only "collection".
Free-market economist Julian Simon
remarked "There are three ways society can organize waste disposal: (a)
commanding, (b) guiding by tax and subsidy, and (c) leaving it to the
individual and the market". These principles appear to divide economic
thinkers today.
Frank Ackerman
favours a high level of government intervention to provide recycling
services. He believes that recycling's benefit cannot be effectively
quantified by traditional laissez-faire economics. Allen Hershkowitz
supports intervention, saying that it is a public service equal to
education and policing. He argues that manufacturers should shoulder
more of the burden of waste disposal.
Paul Calcott and Margaret Walls advocate the second option. A
deposit refund scheme and a small refuse charge would encourage
recycling but not at the expense of fly-tipping. Thomas C. Kinnaman
concludes that a landfill tax would force consumers, companies and
councils to recycle more.
Most free-market thinkers detest subsidy and intervention, arguing that they waste resources. The general argument
is that if cities charge the full cost of garbage collection, private
companies can profitable recycle any materials for which the benefit of
recycling exceeds the cost (e.g. aluminum) and will not recycle other materials for which the benefit is less than the cost (e.g. glass).
Cities, on the other hand, often recycle even when they not only do
not receive enough for the paper or plastic to pay for its collection,
but must actually pay private recycling companies to take it off of
their hands. Terry Anderson
and Donald Leal think that all recycling programmes should be privately
operated, and therefore would only operate if the money saved by
recycling exceeds its costs. Daniel K. Benjamin argues that it wastes people's resources and lowers the wealth of a population.
He notes that recycling can cost a city more than twice as much as
landfills, that in the United States landfills are so heavily regulated
that their pollution effects are negligible, and that the recycling
process also generates pollution and uses energy, which may or may not
be less than from virgin production.
Trade in recyclates
Certain countries trade in unprocessed recyclates.
Some have complained that the ultimate fate of recyclates sold to
another country is unknown and they may end up in landfills instead of
being reprocessed. According to one report, in America, 50–80 percent of
computers destined for recycling are actually not recycled.
There are reports of illegal-waste imports to China being dismantled
and recycled solely for monetary gain, without consideration for
workers' health or environmental damage. Although the Chinese government
has banned these practices, it has not been able to eradicate them.
In 2008, the prices of recyclable waste plummeted before rebounding in
2009. Cardboard averaged about £53/tonne from 2004 to 2008, dropped to
£19/tonne, and then went up to £59/tonne in May 2009. PET plastic
averaged about £156/tonne, dropped to £75/tonne and then moved up to
£195/tonne in May 2009.
Certain regions have difficulty using or exporting as much of a
material as they recycle. This problem is most prevalent with glass:
both Britain and the U.S. import large quantities of wine bottled in
green glass. Though much of this glass is sent to be recycled, outside
the American Midwest
there is not enough wine production to use all of the reprocessed
material. The extra must be downcycled into building materials or
re-inserted into the regular waste stream.
Similarly, the northwestern United States has difficulty finding markets for recycled newspaper, given the large number of pulp mills
in the region as well as the proximity to Asian markets. In other areas
of the U.S., however, demand for used newsprint has seen wide
fluctuation.
In some U.S. states, a program called RecycleBank
pays people to recycle, receiving money from local municipalities for
the reduction in landfill space which must be purchased. It uses a
single stream process in which all material is automatically sorted.
Criticisms and responses
Critics
dispute the net economic and environmental benefits of recycling over
its costs, and suggest that proponents of recycling often make matters
worse and suffer from confirmation bias.
Specifically, critics argue that the costs and energy used in
collection and transportation detract from (and outweigh) the costs and
energy saved in the production process; also that the jobs produced by
the recycling industry can be a poor trade for the jobs lost in logging,
mining, and other industries associated with production; and that
materials such as paper pulp can only be recycled a few times before
material degradation prevents further recycling.
Much of the difficulty inherent in recycling comes from the fact
that most products are not designed with recycling in mind. The concept
of sustainable design aims to solve this problem, and was laid out in the book Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things by architect William McDonough and chemist Michael Braungart.
They suggest that every product (and all packaging it requires) should
have a complete "closed-loop" cycle mapped out for each component—a way
in which every component will either return to the natural ecosystem
through biodegradation or be recycled indefinitely.
Complete recycling is impossible
from a practical standpoint. In summary, substitution and recycling
strategies only delay the depletion of non-renewable stocks and
therefore may buy time in the transition to true or strong sustainability, which ultimately is only guaranteed in an economy based on renewable resources.
— M. H. Huesemann, 2003
While recycling diverts waste from entering directly into landfill
sites, current recycling misses the dispersive components. These critics
believe that complete recycling is impracticable as highly dispersed
wastes become so diluted that the energy needed for their recovery
becomes increasingly excessive.
As with environmental economics, care must be taken to ensure a complete view of the costs and benefits involved. For example, paperboard
packaging for food products is more easily recycled than most plastic,
but is heavier to ship and may result in more waste from spoilage.
Energy and material flows
Bales of crushed steel ready for transport to the smelter
The amount of energy saved through recycling depends upon the
material being recycled and the type of energy accounting that is used.
Correct accounting for this saved energy can be accomplished with life-cycle analysis using real energy values, and in addition, exergy,
which is a measure of how much useful energy can be used. In general,
it takes far less energy to produce a unit mass of recycled materials
than it does to make the same mass of virgin materials.
Some scholars use emergy
(spelled with an m) analysis, for example, budgets for the amount of
energy of one kind (exergy) that is required to make or transform things
into another kind of product or service. Emergy calculations take into
account economics which can alter pure physics-based results. Using
emergy life-cycle analysis researchers have concluded that materials
with large refining costs have the greatest potential for high recycle
benefits. Moreover, the highest emergy efficiency accrues from systems
geared toward material recycling, where materials are engineered to
recycle back into their original form and purpose, followed by adaptive reuse
systems where the materials are recycled into a different kind of
product, and then by-product reuse systems where parts of the products
are used to make an entirely different product.
The Energy Information Administration
(EIA) states on its website that "a paper mill uses 40 percent less
energy to make paper from recycled paper than it does to make paper from
fresh lumber."
Some critics argue that it takes more energy to produce recycled
products than it does to dispose of them in traditional landfill
methods, since the curbside collection of recyclables often requires a
second waste truck. However, recycling proponents point out that a
second timber or logging truck is eliminated when paper is collected for
recycling, so the net energy consumption is the same. An emergy
life-cycle analysis on recycling revealed that fly ash, aluminum,
recycled concrete aggregate, recycled plastic, and steel yield higher
efficiency ratios, whereas the recycling of lumber generates the lowest
recycle benefit ratio. Hence, the specific nature of the recycling
process, the methods used to analyse the process, and the products
involved affect the energy savings budgets.
It is difficult to determine the amount of energy consumed or
produced in waste disposal processes in broader ecological terms, where
causal relations dissipate into complex networks of material and energy
flow. For example, "cities do not follow all the strategies of ecosystem
development. Biogeochemical paths become fairly straight relative to
wild ecosystems, with very reduced recycling, resulting in large flows
of waste and low total energy efficiencies. By contrast, in wild
ecosystems, one population's wastes are another population's resources,
and succession results in efficient exploitation of available resources.
However, even modernized cities may still be in the earliest stages of a
succession that may take centuries or millennia to complete."
How much energy is used in recycling also depends on the type of
material being recycled and the process used to do so. Aluminium is
generally agreed to use far less energy when recycled rather than being
produced from scratch. The EPA states that "recycling aluminum cans, for
example, saves 95 percent of the energy required to make the same
amount of aluminum from its virgin source, bauxite." In 2009, more than half of all aluminium cans produced came from recycled aluminium. Similarly, it has been estimated that new steel produced with recycled cans reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 75%.
Every year, millions of tons of
materials are being exploited from the earth's crust, and processed into
consumer and capital goods. After decades to centuries, most of these
materials are "lost". With the exception of some pieces of art or
religious relics, they are no longer engaged in the consumption process.
Where are they? Recycling is only an intermediate solution for such
materials, although it does prolong the residence time in the
anthroposphere. For thermodynamic reasons, however, recycling cannot
prevent the final need for an ultimate sink.
— P. H. Brunner
Economist Steven Landsburg
has suggested that the sole benefit of reducing landfill space is
trumped by the energy needed and resulting pollution from the recycling
process.
Others, however, have calculated through life-cycle assessment that
producing recycled paper uses less energy and water than harvesting,
pulping, processing, and transporting virgin trees.
When less recycled paper is used, additional energy is needed to create
and maintain farmed forests until these forests are as self-sustainable
as virgin forests.
Other studies have shown that recycling in itself is inefficient
to perform the "decoupling" of economic development from the depletion
of non-renewable raw materials that is necessary for sustainable
development.
The international transportation or recycle material flows through
"... different trade networks of the three countries result in different
flows, decay rates, and potential recycling returns".
As global consumption of a natural resources grows, their depletion is
inevitable. The best recycling can do is to delay; complete closure of
material loops to achieve 100 percent recycling of nonrenewables is
impossible as micro-trace materials dissipate into the environment
causing severe damage to the planet's ecosystems. Historically, this was identified as the metabolic rift by Karl Marx,
who identified the unequal exchange rate between energy and nutrients
flowing from rural areas to feed urban cities that create effluent
wastes degrading the planet's ecological capital, such as loss in soil
nutrient production. Energy conservation also leads to what is known as Jevon's paradox,
where improvements in energy efficiency lowers the cost of production
and leads to a rebound effect where rates of consumption and economic
growth increases.
This shop in New York only sells items recycled from demolished buildings.
Costs
The amount of money actually saved through recycling depends on the efficiency of the recycling program used to do it. The Institute for Local Self-Reliance argues that the cost of recycling depends on various factors, such as landfill fees
and the amount of disposal that the community recycles. It states that
communities begin to save money when they treat recycling as a
replacement for their traditional waste system rather than an add-on to
it and by "redesigning their collection schedules and/or trucks".
In some cases, the cost of recyclable materials also exceeds the
cost of raw materials. Virgin plastic resin costs 40 percent less than
recycled resin. Additionally, a United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) study that tracked the price of clear glass from 15 July to 2
August 1991, found that the average cost per ton ranged from $40 to $60 while a USGS report shows that the cost per ton of raw silica sand from years 1993 to 1997 fell between $17.33 and $18.10.
Comparing the market cost of recyclable material with the cost of new raw materials ignores economic externalities—the
costs that are currently not counted by the market. Creating a new
piece of plastic, for instance, may cause more pollution and be less
sustainable than recycling a similar piece of plastic, but these factors
will not be counted in market cost. A life cycle assessment
can be used to determine the levels of externalities and decide whether
the recycling may be worthwhile despite unfavorable market costs.
Alternatively, legal means (such as a carbon tax) can be used to bring externalities into the market, so that the market cost of the material becomes close to the true cost.
Working conditions
Some people in
Brazil earn their living by collecting and sorting garbage and selling them for recycling.
The recycling of waste electrical and electronic equipment can create
a significant amount of pollution. This problem is specifically
occurrent in India and China. Informal recycling in an underground
economy of these countries has generated an environmental and health
disaster. High levels of lead (Pb), polybrominated diphenylethers
(PBDEs), polychlorinated dioxins and furans, as well as polybrominated dioxins and furans (PCDD/Fs and PBDD/Fs), concentrated in the air, bottom ash, dust, soil, water, and sediments in areas surrounding recycling sites. These materials can make work sites harmful to the workers themselves and the surrounding environment.
Environmental impact
Economist Steven Landsburg, author of a paper entitled "Why I Am Not an Environmentalist", claimed that paper recycling
actually reduces tree populations. He argues that because paper
companies have incentives to replenish their forests, large demands for
paper lead to large forests while reduced demand for paper leads to
fewer "farmed" forests.
A metal scrap worker is pictured burning insulated copper wires for copper recovery at Agbogbloshie, Ghana.
When foresting companies cut down trees, more are planted in their
place; however, such "farmed" forests are inferior to natural forests in
several ways. Farmed forests are not able to fix the soil as quickly as
natural forests. This can cause widespread soil erosion and often requiring large amounts of fertilizer to maintain the soil, while containing little tree and wild-life biodiversity compared to virgin forests.
Also, the new trees planted are not as big as the trees that were cut
down, and the argument that there will be "more trees" is not compelling
to forestry advocates when they are counting saplings.
In particular, wood from tropical rainforests is rarely harvested for paper because of their heterogeneity.
According to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
secretariat, the overwhelming direct cause of deforestation is subsistence farming (48% of deforestation) and commercial agriculture (32%), which is linked to food, not paper production.
The reduction of greenhouse gas emission reduction also benefits from the development of the recycling industry. In Kitakyushu,
the only green growth model city in Asia selected by OECD, recycling
industries are strongly promoted and financially supported as part of
the Eco-town program
in Japan. Given the industrial sector in Kitakyushu accounts for more
than 60% energy consumption of the city, the development of recycling
industry results in substantial energy reduction due to the economies of
scale effects; the concentration of CO is, thus, found to decline
accordingly.
Other non-conventional methods of material recycling, like
Waste-to-Energy (WTE) systems, have garnered increased attention in the
recent past due to the polarizing nature of their emissions. While
viewed as a sustainable method of capturing energy from material waste
feedstocks by many, others have cited numerous explanations for why the
technology has not been scaled globally.
Possible income loss and social costs
In some countries, recycling is performed by the entrepreneurial poor such as the karung guni, zabbaleen, the rag-and-bone man, waste picker, and junk man. With the creation of large recycling organizations that may be profitable, either by law or economies of scale, the poor are more likely to be driven out of the recycling and the remanufacturing
job market. To compensate for this loss of income, a society may need
to create additional forms of societal programs to help support the
poor. Like the parable of the broken window,
there is a net loss to the poor and possibly the whole of a society to
make recycling artificially profitable, e.g. through the law. However,
in Brazil and Argentina, waste pickers/informal recyclers work alongside
the authorities, in fully or semi-funded cooperatives, allowing
informal recycling to be legitimized as a paid public sector job.
Because the social support of a country is likely to be less than
the loss of income to the poor undertaking recycling, there is a
greater chance the poor will come in conflict with the large recycling
organizations.
This means fewer people can decide if certain waste is more
economically reusable in its current form rather than being reprocessed.
Contrasted to the recycling poor, the efficiency of their recycling may
actually be higher for some materials because individuals have greater
control over what is considered "waste".
One labor-intensive underused waste is electronic and computer
waste. Because this waste may still be functional and wanted mostly by
those on lower incomes, who may sell or use it at a greater efficiency
than large recyclers.
Some recycling advocates believe that laissez-faire
individual-based recycling does not cover all of society's recycling
needs. Thus, it does not negate the need for an organized recycling
program. Local government can consider the activities of the recycling poor as contributing to the ruining of property.
Public participation rates
Changes that have been demonstrated to increase recycling rates include:
Recycling of metals varies extremely by type. Titanium and lead have
an extremely high recycling rates of over 90%. Copper and cobalt have
high rates of recycling around 75%. Only about half of aluminum is
recycled. Most of the remaining metals have recycling rates of below
35%, while 34 types of metals have recycling rates of under 1%.
"Between 1960 and 2000, the world production of plastic resins
increased 25 times its original amount, while recovery of the material
remained below 5 percent."
Many studies have addressed recycling behaviour and strategies to
encourage community involvement in recycling programs. It has been
argued
that recycling behavior is not natural because it requires a focus and
appreciation for long-term planning, whereas humans have evolved to be
sensitive to short-term survival goals; and that to overcome this innate
predisposition, the best solution would be to use social pressure to
compel participation in recycling programs. However, recent studies have
concluded that social pressure will not work in this context.
One reason for this is that social pressure functions well in small
group sizes of 50 to 150 individuals (common to nomadic hunter–gatherer
peoples) but not in communities numbering in the millions, as we see
today. Another reason is that individual recycling does not take place
in the public view.
Following the increasing popularity of recycling collection being
sent to the same landfills as trash, some people kept on putting
recyclables on the recyclables bin.
Recycling in art
Uniseafish – made of recycled aluminum beer cans
Art objects are more and more often made from recycled material.
In a study done by social psychologist Shawn Burn,
it was found that personal contact with individuals within a
neighborhood is the most effective way to increase recycling within a
community. In his study, he had 10 block leaders talk to their neighbors
and persuade them to recycle. A comparison group was sent fliers
promoting recycling. It was found that the neighbors that were
personally contacted by their block leaders recycled much more than the
group without personal contact. As a result of this study, Shawn Burn
believes that personal contact within a small group of people is an
important factor in encouraging recycling. Another study done by Stuart
Oskamp
examines the effect of neighbors and friends on recycling. It was found
in his studies that people who had friends and neighbors that recycled
were much more likely to also recycle than those who didn't have friends
and neighbors that recycled.
Many schools have created recycling awareness clubs in order to
give young students an insight on recycling. These schools believe that
the clubs actually encourage students to not only recycle at school but
at home as well.