A precondition for a more circular economy is a more efficient use of resources and the utilisation of waste as a resource. However, the existing regulation of waste does not always promote this as its primary aim is to ensure safe waste handling. In order to improve a better utilisation of waste as a resource a first step is to get a better understanding of the barriers that hinders the utilisation of waste as a resource. The aim of this report is twofold. Firstly, to describe the formal barriers that hinders the recycling, reuse or other utilisation of biowaste. The focus is both on barriers related to regulation (from EU to national level), demands from authorities, taxes, business standards and certification schemes. Secondly, to point at solutions that can minimise these barriers at different policy levels. Some barriers can be addressed on a national or local level whereas others must be addressed through EU. We hope the report can inspire policy makers in the Nordic countries and elsewhere to work for the removal of barriers that hinder the utilisation of biowaste as a resource. The report has been written by a group of Nordic consultants: NIRAS (DK, NO and SE), VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland (FI) and Copenhagen Resource Institute (DK). February 2017 Signe Krarup Chairman of the Working Group on Environment and Economy under the Nordic Council of Ministers Safety of products. End of waste criteria. Private public dilemmas. These policy areas are, to a large extent, dependent on EU regulations, which means that significant changes in these areas need to be addressed at the EU level. Policy approaches that ease transition are broadly in line with the EU's Circular Economy agenda, which indicates that there could be broad support for such changes from EU institutions and Member States.
The role of sludge in renewable energy production and the final disposal of sludge are topical issues. The cost of sludge treatment account for a significant share of the total running costs of a WWTP. By increasing the efficiency of sludge treatment, significant savings can be achieved. Savings can be gained e.g. by more efficient energy utilisation of sludge, combined with optimised wastewater treatment processes. In addition to cost efficiency, environmental sustainability of the applied solutions is crucial. The energy balance and green house gas emissions can be used as tools to evaluate the sustainability of sludge treatment options.
This paper presents a case-based comparison of energy balances, green house gas emissions and costs of municipal wastewater sludge process chains based on anaerobic digestion or incineration. Information from existing plants was used for conducting the study. Several utilisation options were covered for biogas energy as well for energy from sludge incineration.
Based on the results, sludge incineration was the most expensive option of the studied scenarios, but justified if the heat generated can be fully utilised e.g. in district heating. Based on costs and energy balances as well as green house gas emissions it is most preferable in anaerobic digestion chains to feed the generated biogas to a gas engine to produce electricity and heat. Moreover, thermophilic anaerobic digestion can improve the overall economy of a WWTP provided that the biogas yield is sufficiently higher than in a mesophilic process. However increased odour is a risk in thermophilic digestion.
The study showed that the most energy efficient process modifications are always very case bound. However the tools developed in this study are generally applicable to waste water treatment plants for similar analyses.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.