Circular economy life cycle cost for kerbside waste material looping process.

Autor: Zhang J; Centre for Future Construction, School of Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne VIC3000, Australia., Bhuiyan M; Centre for Future Construction, School of Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne VIC3000, Australia., Zhang G; Centre for Future Construction, School of Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne VIC3000, Australia. Electronic address: kevin.zhang@rmit.edu.au., Sandanayake M; Institute of Sustainable Industries and Liveable Cities, Victoria University, Melbourne VIC3011 Australia., Navaratnam S; Centre for Future Construction, School of Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne VIC3000, Australia.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Waste management (New York, N.Y.) [Waste Manag] 2024 Sep 15; Vol. 186, pp. 307-317. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Jul 01.
DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2024.06.023
Abstrakt: Rapid expansion in urban areas has engendered a superfluity of municipal solid waste (MSW) stemming from contemporary civilization, encompassing commercial sectors and human undertakings. Kerbside waste, a type of MSW, has the potential for recycling and reuse at the end of its first life cycle, but is often limited to a linear cycle. This study aimed to assess the life cycle costs of different separation and recycling methods for handling kerbside waste. A new life cycle cost model, drawing from the circular economy's value retention process (VRP) model, has been created and applied to assess the continuous recycling of kerbside glass. The study investigates two key separation techniques, kerbside recycling mixed bin recycling (KRMB) kerbside glass recycling separate bin (KGRSB) and analyses their impact on the life cycle cost of the recycling process. Additionally, the research explores two approaches of recycling and downcycling: closed-loop recycling, which pertains to the recycling of glass containers, and open-looped recycling, which involves the use of recycled glass in asphalt. The results showed when use annually collected waste as the functional unit, the KRMB model incurred lower costs compared to the KGRSB model due to its lower production output. However, when evaluated over a 1-ton production of glass container and asphalt, the KGRSB method demonstrated superior cost performance with a 40-50% reduction compared to the KRMB method. The open-loop recycling method (asphalt) incurred a higher cost compared to the closed-loop recycling method due to its larger production volume over a 21-year period.
Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
(Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: