Energy and environmental analysis of glass container production and recycling

Vellini, Michela; Savioli, Michela

doi:10.1016/j.energy.2008.09.017

Cited by 38 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Eriksson, et al [31] studied different MSWM scenarios in three Swedish municipalities and found that implementation of material sorting followed by reutilization of energy-rich wastes and recyclable materials is superior to putting all wastes into landfill in terms of GHG emissions. Overall, most separated wastes, i.e., glass, plastic, paper, metals, and aluminum, that enter into the recycling and remanufacturing system yield the least environmental impacts or even create positive outcomes for the environment by helping to reduce environmental impacts and GHG emissions [32,33].…”

Section: Greenhouse Gas (Ghg) Emission and Climate Co-benefits In Mswmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-Benefits of Household Waste Recycling for Local Community’s Sustainable Waste Management in Thailand

Challcharoenwattana

Pharino

2015

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The study aimed to evaluate co-benefits in term of GHG reduction, and avoided landfill costs by implementing a community-based management (CBM) program for municipal solid waste (MSW). Two towns of peri-urban settlement in Thailand were investigated in case studies to compare eco-performance between the towns with and without implementation of the CBM program. MSW mass flows together with MSW utilization records were analyzed based on data in year 2013. Climate co-benefits from waste utilization activities were examined. Results from the study indicated that waste banks in the CBM program can effectively divert most of recyclables from entering landfills. The performance of "waste bank-recyclable recovery program" recycling rate from the case study with CBM is 172.20 kg per member per year, which is about 926% higher than average CBMs with MSW recycling in Thailand, and the success of CBM can be attributed to its curbside pickup service and fair-pricing of recyclables. The study also found that if the town decided to divert wastes from landfilling, carbon intensity of the MSW system would be 0.47 tons of CO2-eq per ton of collected MSW. The landfilling cost would be approximately 7.41 USD per ton of MSW as landfilling cost. With CBM programs, current MSW reutilization rate has achieved 9.68% of generated waste, and 16.80% of GHG emission has been avoided, along OPEN ACCESSSustainability 2015, 7 7418 with a reduction in landfill costs of 11.57%. Two scenarios of waste utilization in Thailand were explored and compared, in terms of which scenarios yielded the highest co-benefits. The study demonstrates that by allowing local mechanism and community involvement programs to develop with operational waste banks, the efficiency of collecting recycling wastes increased. A similar system can be applied to other communities in other countries.

show abstract

Section: Greenhouse Gas (Ghg) Emission and Climate Co-benefits In Mswmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-Benefits of Household Waste Recycling for Local Community’s Sustainable Waste Management in Thailand

Challcharoenwattana

Pharino

2015

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further studies could focus on the most effective recycling management policy possible for DRW recycling, consider the actual possibilities of DRW reuse and recycling (Vellini and Savioli, 2009) have a similar viewpoint), and discuss reforming recycling regulations by decoupling the WRF and subsidy or initiating programs supporting individuals' environmental consciousness. Such programs could influence the public through a series of public discussions and hearings and promote individual environmental attitudes and behaviors that can achieve the objectives pursued through policies such as the WRF and subsidy (as similarly concluded by Chen Chung-Chiang (2005)).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The relationship between the waste recycling fee and subsidy of due recyclable waste

Huang

2016

Environmental Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study employs a life-cycle evaluation model of due recyclable waste (DRW) to analyze its optimal waste recycling fee (WRF) and subsidy. The results suggest that the government could set the optimal WRF and subsidy of DRW under the assumptions of the relationship that exist between the WRF and the subsidy for the budgetary constraints, but not set for the externality of DRW, and the environmental consciousness of individuals. And the different purposes of the WRF and subsidy are the reasons why a life-cycle evaluation model of due recyclable waste (DRW) is necessary to analyze its optimal waste recycling fee (WRF) and subsidy

show abstract

“…Büsser and Jungbluth (2009) studied the role of flexible packaging in the lifecycle of coffee. Vellini and Savioli (2009) focused particularly on glass containers from production to recycling. All of these reveal that the packaging issue is a significant one in evaluating environmental impacts.…”

Section: Lifecycle Assessment Of Drinking Water and Beveragesmentioning

confidence: 99%