See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/242238560

Energy and material flow of waste-processing operations

Article  in  Engineering Sustainability · January 2005

DOI: 10.1680/ensu.158.1.17.62483

CITATIONS READS

3 401

4 authors, including:

Vladimir Krivtsov Charles Banks

93 PUBLICATIONS   1,290 CITATIONS   
University of Southampton
163 PUBLICATIONS   4,931 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Sonia Heaven
University of Southampton
200 PUBLICATIONS   4,679 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

MATSIS View project

New Frontiers in Anaerobic Digestion (AD) Processes-Opening Special Issue View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sonia Heaven on 31 July 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers
Engineering Sustainability 158
March 2005 Issue ES1
Pages 17 –23 Paul Dacombe Vladimir Krivtsov
Research Fellow, University Research Fellow,
Paper 13735 of Southampton, UK University of Bangor, UK
Received 04/03/2004
Accepted 06/12/2004
Keywords:
recycling of materials/waste
management & disposal
Energy and material flow of waste-processing operations
P. Dacombe PhD, V. Krivtsov PhD, MSc, C. J. Banks DPhil, and S. Heaven BA, BSc, CEng, MICE, MICWEM, MICWM
Although waste continues to be produced in large
quantities—the rate of increase in waste production being
more or less in line with the rate of growth in the
economy—society is still grappling with the problem of
sustainable waste management. One of the best ways to
assess sustainability is in terms of mass and energy
balance. A project at the University of Southampton
looked at the ‘energy footprint’ for waste management.
The project brought together data from existing work on
waste quantities, materials flow and mass balance studies
for a range of materials including paper, glass, plastics,
metals and organics. These data have been combined with
information on the energy requirements for different
types of collection and processing systems for reuse,
recycling, recovery and disposal of such materials. Taking
into account energy benefits from any of these options, the
information has been used to produce an energy and
materials balance, and the results show the energy
footprint and materials output of the current waste
management practices in Southampton. This work allows
exploration of alternative methods and highlights areas
where insufficient information is available, or where
improvements in collection or processing technologies
could have a significant impact on the final energy and
material balance. The greater Southampton area was used
as a case study, but the methods developed could be
applied to other areas by modifying the input data.
1. INTRODUCTION
The EU Landfill Directive and national strategy documents have
set ambitious targets and deadlines for diversion and recycling:
more broadly, prudent use of energy and raw materials is
fundamental to sustainable development and will require a step-
change in resource productivity. Progress in waste management
is hampered, however, by the lack of methods to identify and
promote sustainable practices. In the absence of such methods,
choice is often driven by regulatory, financial or promotional
reasons. There is thus an urgent need to develop tools for rational
evaluation and comparison of alternatives for the collection,
separation and processing of waste fractions. These tools must
have a sound conceptual base. They must allow comparisons at
each stage in the waste cycle, by means of energy and materials
balances that can be further related to outputs of carbon dioxide.
Such an approach also allows consideration of the economics of
Engineering Sustainability 158 Issue ES1 Energy and material flow of waste-processing operations
Charles Banks Souic Heaven
Professor of Environmental Senior Research Fellow,
Technology, University of University of Southampton,
Southampton, UK UK
sustainability, as it takes into account whole-life energy and
materials inputs associated with each recovery/disposal option.
This paper describes a project set up under the UK’s Landfill Tax
Credit Scheme, with funding from Biffaward. The objectives of
the project were
(a) understand, quantify and model energy usage associated
with the collection, separation, processing and disposal of
municipal solid waste (MSW)
(b) produce an energy and materials balance that can be used
for evaluation and comparison of different alternatives
and combinations of options for MSW management.
A considerable amount of information is now available on waste
quantities, material flows and mass balances, life-cycle analyses
and whole-life costings for the materials that constitute MSW.
Data from these sources have been combined with information
on the energy requirements for different types of collection and
processing systems for reuse, recycling, recovery and disposal,
and on the energy benefits from these options. The resulting
model shows the energy footprint of current waste management
practices, both individually and in combination, and to allow
exploration of alternative choices and combination of options.
The project builds on existing studies, and highlights areas where
insufficient information is available. The results indicate key
areas where improvements in collection or processing
technologies could have a significant impact on the final energy
balance, and provide a rational basis for reduction in the amount
of materials sent to landfill. The work was based on Southampton
in the UK, but the methods and findings can be applied to other
areas by modifying the input data.
Figure 1 shows a simplified diagram of the options for MSW
management. On the left is the historical waste disposal route,
where the MSW is predominantly ‘disposed’ of through
incineration and/or landfill. Whereas landfill may traditionally
be considered, to some extent, to be a one-way disposal process,
incineration is somewhat cyclical in nature: MSW can be used as
an energy source to produce electricity to power homes, and as
district heating. There are, however, exceptions in both cases:
landfill gas can be harnessed in order to produce electricity; and
incinerators can operate as a means of waste volume reduction
only, without electricity or heat generation.
Dacombe et al. 17

? (i)
?
Fig. 1. Simplified diagram of MSW management
Although the route on the left is the more traditional route, it is
considered to be the least favourable, whereas recycling (and
reuse) is the preferred waste management option (after waste
minimisation). This route is indicated on the right of the diagram,
using glass as an example. However, although recycling
enhances sustainability with regard to raw materials, does it also
promote sustainable energy practices? There is an inherent
energy consumption associated not only with the processing of
the recycled materials, but also transporting the materials from
point A to point B.
The initial stage of this energy footprint study focuses on the
glass component of domestic MSW, and it is the results of the
findings from this case study that are presented in this paper. The
study looks at the present MSW management system in
Southampton (defined as the ‘base-case’ scenario), concentrating
on those areas associated with the glass waste stream, and
determines the mass and energy balances for the different
processes/stages involved in this. The model (compiled in
Microsoft Excel and Visual Basic for Applications (VBA)) allows
for various scenarios to be run, so that comparison can be made
with the base-case scenario, highlighting possible options for
improvement of the management system for glass.
2. METHODOLOGY
Figures for 2002/31 indicate that the vast majority (87%) of
household MSW is landfilled, with only 9.6% recycled and
3.2% composted, with negligible amounts of energy recovery
(0.1%). With the imposition of the Landfill Directive, it is
becoming increasingly more necessary to find other options for
waste management. It is the aim of the model described in this
paper to address this need and it focuses on all aspects of waste
management. For instance, for glass it looks at not only the
production of cullet from recycled glass, and use of this cullet in
glass manufacture or alternative options, but also how the glass
is transferred from the household to the glass processing plant,
and from there to the glass furnace. It also looks at how the
non-recycled glass is disposed of, and alternative options for
transfer of the recycled glass from point A to point B.
The model consists of individual, but interlinked, sub-models
(a) stage 1 transport (household to bottle bank)
(b) stage 2 transport (bottle bank to processing plant)
18 Engineering Sustainability 158 Issue ES1 Energy and material flow of waste-processing operations
(c) glass processing plant
(d) cullet transfer
(e) glass manufacture
( f) refuse collection
(g) landfill transfer
(h) incineration
kerbside collection.
2.1. Stage 1 transport
This is the transfer of the recycled glass from the household to
the bottle banks. The model examines recycling either at
bring-sites or via a Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC).
Here, bring-sites are defined as recycling centres located at, for
example, car parks and supermarkets: essentially all locations
except HWRCs. Of the 1377.3 t of glass recycled for the base-
case scenario (an average figure for the period 2000 –2002,
pers. comm.), 1271 t (92.3%) was recycled via bring-sites, with
the remainder (106.3 t) recycled via the HWRC.
2.1.1. Bring-sites. The majority of glass recycling via bring-
sites takes place either on foot or by car. If by car, the journey
may either be incidental (e.g. recycling at a supermarket bring-
site during a visit to do the weekly shopping) or specifically for
recycling. Here, only the journeys undertaken specifically for
recycling are considered. The percentage of journeys made
specifically for recycling is dependent on the average distance to
the bring-site, and is determined according to Reference 2. The
distance, L, can be determined from equation (1)
1
1 L¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (in km)
2
pSP
where S is the site density (sites per inhabitant) and P is the
population density (inhabitants per km2). From Reference 2, a
density of 3.954 sites per 10 000 inhabitants (equivalent to 86,
which is the present number of sites within the city of South-
ampton, Fig. 2 (pers. comm) equates to approximately 28% of
trips being made by car specifically for recycling, with an aver-
age return-journey trip of 0.267 miles.
Once the average distance to the bring-sites has been determined,
the overall yearly number of trips, BStr, is calculated, using
equation (2)
2 BStr ¼
BSR
TR
MGC =1000
where BStr represents the number of trips to bring-sites per year,
BSR is the tonnes of glass recycled via bring-sites per year
(1271 t), TR is the percentage of trips made by car specifically for
recycling (28%), and MGC is the mass of glass taken to bring-sites
per car-trip (assumed as 4.5 kg2). This gives 79 084 trips per year,
which is then multiplied by the average return-journey distance
per trip to give an annual mileage of 21 116 miles for the
base-case scenario.
In order to determine the energy consumption, the fuel
consumption must first be determined. In this model the fuel
consumption is calculated using the method given in Reference 2,
with data taken from Reference 3. Here, the assumption is made
that 50% of the cars that are used to take the glass to the bring-
site have catalytic converters, and that all vehicles are petrol
Dacombe et al.

Processing plant 1 mile
Endle St HWRC
Bottle bank
Fig. 2. Location of bottle banks within Southampton
driven. Future developments of the energy footprint model will,
however, adopt a more detailed representation of the vehicle split
within the UK, including engine capacity.
The fuel consumption is determined for vehicles with engine
capacities within the range 1.4 –2.0 litres, assuming a speed of
30 km/h (18.6 mph), which is the average speed for urban
driving conditions in the EU.3 From this, the fuel consumption for
conventional vehicles is calculated to be 139.3 grams/mile
(6.39 MJ/mile), while for vehicles with catalytic converters it is
143.5 grams/mile (6.58 MJ/mile). This gives an average value of
141.4 grams/mile (6.48 MJ/mile). From this, the annual energy
consumption for transporting the glass from the household to the
bring-site can be calculated for a given site density and glass
recycling rate. For the base-case scenario, this gives an energy
consumption per vehicle trip of 1.7 MJ, corresponding to an
annual consumption of 136 GJ, for 1271 t of glass.
2.1.2. HWRC. Glass is collected not only from bring-sites
located strategically throughout the city, but also at bottle banks
located at HWRC sites. The amount of glass recycled here is
significant, representing approximately 7.7% of the total glass
currently being recycled in Southampton. The calculations for
energy consumption for transport of glass from the household to
the HWRC is similar to that for bring sites. Indeed, the fuel con-
sumption calculations are identical, although the trip distance,
etc. are somewhat different. The model assumes (for simplicity)
that there is only one HWRC site in Southampton, which means
that there is a fixed trip distance to the site of 2.5 miles (estimated
from pers. comm.), giving a return-journey distance of 5 miles. It
is also assumed that all trips made to the HWRC are by car and
specifically for recycling (as compared to bring-sites).
Using the above methodology, the overall energy consumption
per trip is calculated as 10.8 MJ for the base-case scenario. The
number of trips per year (23 632) is calculated in a similar manner
as for the bring-sites, using the base-case value of 106.3 t of glass
recycled via the HWRC site. This gives a total annual energy
consumption of 255 GJ.
2.2. Stage 2 transport
The next stage is the transfer of the glass from the bring-site to
the glass processing plant. The situation in Southampton is
Engineering Sustainability 158 Issue ES1 Energy and material flow of waste-processing operations
unique, in that a new processing plant at the docks began
operating at the beginning of 2003, and the majority of the cullet
processed here will be transferred out by ship. Transfer of the
bottle banks to the processing plant takes place by skip lorry, and
the banks are emptied at the processing plant.
The average distance to the processing plant is determined by use
of a route planner to measure the distance from the plant to
several points at the outer boundary of Southampton. It is then
assumed that the average distance to the plant is half of the
average maximum distance, giving a return-journey trip of 7.34
miles, for the bottle banks at bring-sites. For loading and
unloading of the bottle bank at the bring-site, it is assumed that
each requires a time of 5 min. For emptying the bank at the
processing plant, a time of 10 min is used based on average times
taken from weighbridge ticket data (pers. comm). Fuel
consumption figures are taken from Reference 2, giving an
energy consumption of 267 MJ per bottle bank collection. The
number of collections per year has been taken to be 348, which is
an average figure for the actual number of collections made in
Southampton since 2000 (pers. comm), giving an annual
consumption of 93 GJ.
The energy consumption for transfer of material for the bottle
bank located at the HWRC site is calculated in a similar manner.
However, the return-journey distance is measured as 5.52 miles,
and the number of collections are 36 (pers. comm.), giving an
energy consumption per collection of 221 MJ, corresponding
to an annual value of 8 GJ.
2.3. Glass processing plant
The glass taken to the processing plant at the docks is crushed
and, if required, sorted using laser-separation equipment capable
of sorting a maximum of 40 t/h. Energy consumption for the
crushing/sorting has been estimated from electrical usage (pers.
comm.), allowing for an efficiency for electrical production of
30.2%.4 This gives an annual energy consumption for the current
situation of 5.9 GJ, for an average annual recycled tonnage of
1376.3 t.
2.4. Cullet transfer
As previously mentioned, the processing plant in Southampton is
a new facility. Before it began operation, glass from
Southampton was collected at local transfer stations before being
transferred by truck to a processing facility in the north of
England. Now, the glass is processed locally and the cullet
transferred by ship to a port local to the glass manufacturing
plant, and it is then transferred to the plant by truck. For this
model a shipload of 1200 t is assumed,5 and the ship fuel
consumption has been estimated (pers. comm.). Distances are
based on the destination port being Liverpool, and an average
distance from here to the different glass manufacturing plants
located in the north of England.6 This gives an annual energy
consumption of 605 GJ.
Although not discussed in this paper, the model also allows for
the possibility to use recycled glass in alternative applications
(aggregate, filtration media, etc.) rather than in glass
manufacture. Comparison can then be made between the energy
footprints for the different options; for example, glass
Dacombe et al. 19
 manufacture and use as an aggregates replacement, details of
which can be found elsewhere.7
2.5. Glass furnace
Cullet is used in glass manufacture in order to reduce the energy
required to produce the melted glass. The following is an estimate
of this energy saving8
3 Energy savings ¼ 0:25
percentage of scrap glass used
For this model an average furnace capacity of 204 t/day glass
output with a specific energy consumption (SEC) for melting of
4.97 GJ/t for a cullet level of 39.5% (17% internal cullet, 2.9%
external other, and the remainder from Southampton) has been
assumed.9,10 In order to determine the energy savings through
increased cullet use it has been assumed that the amount of glass
entering Southampton households each year is equal to the
amount recycled plus the amount disposed of in the refuse (after
accounting for labels, etc.). Then, based on the furnace capacity,
the number of days of production required to make this amount
of glass can be determined. The amount of cullet used in the
furnace will then vary dependent upon the amount of glass
recycled in Southampton.
Further, it has been assumed that the use of cullet will only
influence the melting energy, and not other stages of glass
production, and peripheral electrical usage. The energy usage for
the other stages, etc. is estimated at 2.03 GJ/t of glass, assuming
that the SEC of 4.97 represents 71% of the total energy usage.9
2.6. Refuse collection and landfill transfer
In order to complete the glass ‘waste’ cycle, it is necessary to also
take into account the glass that is not recycled but remains within
the general household waste (refuse). For this model the amount
of glass in the refuse for the base-case scenario has been
estimated from compositional data11 and actual monthly refuse
amounts (pers. comm.), as shown in Table 1. Determination of the
energy consumption for transporting the refuse to landfill (often
via a waste transfer station (WTS) is similar to that for transfer of
the glass to the processing plant. The only significant changes are
in the average distances travelled and the truck capacity (20 t; see
Reference 4). For transfer to the landfill site the model, however,
presently assumes that there are two stages: (a) collection and
transfer of the refuse from the household to a WTS using a refuse
collection vehicle (RCV); and (b) transfer from the WTS to the
landfill site. The total energy consumption for the first stage is
determined by calculating the energy consumption for the two
distinct phases for this stage: collection (low vehicle speed) and
non-collection (urban travel conditions). Here, the non-
collection phase is where the RCV is travelling to and from the
collection round. For the collection phase an energy
consumption of 38.3 MJ/mile is used, compared to 25.6 MJ/mile
for the non-collection phase.2 This gives an overall energy
consumption per trip of 991 MJ. For the transfer from the WTS to
the landfill site, an energy consumption of 25.6 MJ/mile has
been used, giving a value per trip of 847 MJ.
It should be noted that the energy consumption is determined for
the total amount of refuse collected, not just the glass fraction.
This is because, although the initial model focuses on glass, it is a
global model looking at the management of all of the MSW
streams. The total annual energy consumption for the base-case
scenario was calculated as 3709 GJ/year for refuse collection,
and 3169 GJ/year for transfer to landfill.
2.7. Incineration
Although glass is inert incineration is still included in the model
as a waste management option. This is primarily to assess any
impact recycling may have on incineration. The incineration sub-
model uses the composition of the refuse, which is variable
depending on the level of recycling, and the characteristics12 of
the incinerator being built at Marchwood, on the outskirts of
Southampton, in order to determine the energy production from
combustion of the refuse.
It should be noted that the model does not presently account for
variation in energy losses during the incineration process due to
the presence of glass in the refuse, and the effect that recycling
has on the energy losses. This will be addressed in future
developments of the model.
2.8. Kerbside collection
This model also includes the option for the introduction of a
kerbside collection scheme within Southampton. Energy
consumption calculations are similar to those for refuse
collection and transfer to the processing plant. However, it is

Composition: Moisture Gross CV: Net CV:

Category wt% kg/household/week content: wt% MJ/kg MJ/kg

Paper and card 25.62 4.01 1.68 4.41 4.37

Plastic film 8.07 1.26 0.02 3.35 3.35
Dense plastic 6.47 1.01 0.01 1.94 1.94
Textiles 5.87 0.92 0.40 0.95 0.94
Misc. combustibles 6.78 1.06 4.40 0.61 0.50
Misc. non-comb. 1.07 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00
Glass 5.48 0.86 0.00 0.01 0.01
Ferrous metals 3.73 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00
Non-ferrous metals 1.29 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00
Putrescibles 30.79 4.82 20.62 2.02 1.50
Fines 4.83 0.76 0.13 0.36 0.35
Total 100.00 15.66 27.26 13.65 12.96

Table 1. Composition of Southampton’s refuse, (CV: calorific value)

20 Engineering Sustainability 158 Issue ES1 Energy and material flow of waste-processing operations Dacombe et al.
assumed that the scheme would operate on a fortnightly basis,
75 ¥ 103
given the relatively low amounts of glass in domestic refuse. Glass manufacture
Total

Energy consumption: GJ/year

70 ¥ 103
It should be noted that the model is under development. Hence,
certain refinements will be made as and when more accurate
65 ¥ 103
information and data become available; for example, more
precise distances travelled by the collection vehicles to the
60 ¥ 103
process plant.

55 ¥ 103

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

50 ¥ 103
Figures 3 and 4 show the annual energy consumption values for 0 20 40 60 80 100
Glass recycling rate: %
the minor and major components, respectively, of the different
stages of glass recycling and waste management, and show how
Fig. 4. Effect of glass recycling rate on energy consumption
these vary with glass recycling rate. The energy consumption for
(major components)
the base-case scenario is indicated by the vertical dotted line (at
25.2%). Figure 3 shows that the energy consumption for both
stage 1 and stage 2 transportation increases with an increase in distances. However, it must not be forgotten that the raw
the recycling rate. This is because a fixed site density has been materials also have to be shipped to the manufacturing plant
used; hence the average distance to the bring-site remains fixed, although, of course, the need for raw materials can be reduced
but the number of trips made increases linearly as more glass is significantly through increased recycling. Naturally, siting of a
recycled. Similarly, as the recycling rate increases so does the glass manufacturing plant would be subject to a whole range of
number of collections required to empty the bottle banks. economic, social and environmental considerations. Account of
the relevant issues is best achieved through an environmental
It should be noted that, clearly, in practice high recycling rates impact assessment, which is beyond the scope of this paper.
will not be achieved without increasing the site density and this
will be discussed later. As mentioned, a practical measure that can be taken in order to
encourage recycling would be to increase the site density, and the
It can be seen from Fig. 4 that the bulk of the energy consumed is effect of this can be seen in Fig. 5. It has been assumed that at a
in the manufacturing process. Of course, this would be expected, recycling rate of 0% the number of sites is 0, for 25.2% the value
but it also shows the effect that recycling has on the amount of is 3.954 sites per 10 000 inhabitants (86 sites in Southampton),
energy consumed, giving an 8% decrease in consumption and for 100% recycling a value of 15 sites per 10 000 has been
going from 0 to 100% recycling (20% and 98% cullet use, used.2 The graph in Fig. 5 shows the energy consumption for
respectively), whereas the decrease by increasing the recycling stages 1 and 2 transport, and the total energy consumed during
rate from the base-case level (25.2%) to 100% is 6%. Hence, the transfer from the household to the processing plant.
relatively large savings in manufacturing energy offset any
increases in energy consumption through increased The results show that, compared to a fixed density, the energy
transportation, even though the cullet has to be transported consumption for transporting the glass from the household to the
relatively large distances by ship. bring-site is less for a variable site density once the recycling rate
increases above 25.2% (the base-case level). This is because, as
Although not presently looked at in the model, it would seem the site density increases, the average distance to a site decreases,
sensible, in terms of energy required for transportation, to site a resulting in not only a decrease in the amount of fuel consumed
glass manufacturing plant adjacent to the processing plant at the per trip but also in the number of trips made specifically for
docks. This would eliminate the need to transfer the cullet long recycling, with more people travelling by foot.

1800 4000 2000

Total (fixed site density)
1600
Annual energy consumption: GJ/year

1800 Stage 1 transport

Energy consumption: GJ/year

Energy consumption: GJ/year

1400 Stage 2 transport

3000 1600
Total (variable site density)
Stage 1 transport
1200 Stage 2 transport 1400 Stage 1 transport
1000 Glass processing plant Stage 2 transport
Cullet transfer
1200
2000
Refuse collection
800 1000
Landfill transfer
600 800
400 1000 600
200 400

0 0 200
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Glass recycling rate: % 0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Glass recycling rate: %
Fig. 3. Effect of glass recycling rate on energy consumption
(minor components) Fig. 5. Effect of bottle bank site density on energy consumption

Engineering Sustainability 158 Issue ES1 Energy and material flow of waste-processing operations Dacombe et al. 21
 For transportation to the processing plant, the amount of energy
consumed through fuel consumption is the same as for a fixed
number of bottle banks: if the number of banks is increased there
are more banks to be emptied, but they do not need to be emptied
so frequently, and vice versa. Hence, the effect is to increase the
energy consumption if the number of bottle banks is increased to
more than the present number.
The above assumes that a particular recycling rate will be
achievable for a given site density. While it is true that increasing
the number of sites encourages recycling—more people are likely
to recycle if they are within walking distance of a site—public
awareness and attitudes are also important. If these can be raised
then it might be possible to increase the recycling rate without
necessarily linearly increasing the site density. If this can be
achieved, then it might be possible to reduce the energy
consumption while increasing the recycling rate.
3.1. Kerbside collection scheme
Another option to increase recycling would be to introduce a
kerbside collection scheme to complement or largely replace
bottle banks. Switching to a 100% kerbside collection scheme
shows a significant decrease in energy consumption (Fig. 6) for
the collection stage of glass recycling. For example, at a recycling
rate of 50% there is a reduction in energy consumption of 57%,
and a reduction of 75% for a 100% recycling rate. In terms of
the overall total energy consumption, there are energy savings of
8% when compared to the base-case scenario (compared to 6%
for bottle bank recycling).
However, in practice, even with a kerbside collection scheme
covering the whole of the city, there would still be the
requirement for some bottle bank sites to cope with periods of
excess glass waste production (Christmas, etc.), especially with a
fortnightly kerbside collection. Hence, the energy savings would
be slightly less than if there were no bottle banks at all. However,
by its very nature, a kerbside collection scheme would have a
relatively high recycling rate,13 something not readily achievable
through bring-site recycling.
3.2. Incineration
Incineration is an option for waste management and it must,
therefore, be considered. This is certainly true for the Southampton
2500
Total (fixed site density)
Transfer energy consumption: GJ/year
Total (variable site density)
2000
Kerbside collection scheme
1500
1000
500
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Glass recycling rate: %
Fig. 6. Effect of kerbside collection scheme on energy
consumption
22 Engineering Sustainability 158 Issue ES1
area, since a new waste incineration plant is due to come online in
2004. However, since glass is inert its incineration will not directly
have a significant impact on energy consumption. Indeed,
incineration of glass consumes energy since it is inert and will
require landfilling after it has been incinerated.
Nevertheless, incineration can be considered to be part of the
global waste management strategy. Recycling of the glass waste
stream may be one part of the strategy, but incineration of the
residual waste stream can also be seen as another part. If this is
the case then glass recycling will directly impact on the
incineration of the residual waste, just as it impacts on, for
example, refuse collection or landfill transfer. Figure 7 shows the
effect that incineration has on the energy consumption
associated with the glass waste stream. The graph compares the
energy consumption for the base-case scenario with the
following scenarios
(a) recycling of the glass via bring-site/HWRC bottle banks
with variable recycling rate, and landfill of the residual
waste stream (no incineration)
(b) recycling of the glass (variable recycling rate), with
incineration of 30% of the residual waste stream (with
landfill of the remainder)
(c) no recycling of the glass, with incineration of 30% of the
residual waste stream (with landfill of the remainder).
The level of 30% incineration of the residual waste stream was
chosen since it gives an almost zero energy balance for the base-
case level of glass recycling rate (25.2%). If the recycling rate is
increased above this level, then the energy consumption becomes
(increasingly) negative—that is, energy is now essentially being
produced rather than consumed.
In terms of energy, incineration is a favourable option, and the
graph in Fig. 7 clearly shows that it is better to combine recycling
with incineration, rather than to have recycling with no
incineration of the residual waste stream. But what happens if the
glass is not recycled: is incineration (30%) alone better? Figure 7
also shows that the energy ‘consumption’ is higher with
incineration alone than it is for a combination of recycling plus
incineration. This is for two reasons, as shown in Fig. 8. First,
glass recycling has little impact on the energy produced from
incineration: it reduces the amount of waste incinerated but also
80 ¥ 103
Energy consumption/production: GJ/year
70 ¥ 103
60 ¥ 103
50 ¥ 103
Base-case scenario
40 ¥ 103 Recycling only (no incineration)
30 ¥ 103 Recycling plus incineration (30%)
No recycling plus incineration (30%)
20 ¥ 103
10 ¥ 103
0 ¥ 103
60 70 80 90 100 -10 ¥ 103
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Glass recycling rate: %
Fig. 7. Effect of incineration on energy consumption
Energy and material flow of waste-processing operations Dacombe et al.

70 ¥ 103
Energy consumption/production: GJ/year
69 ¥ 103
68 ¥ 103
67 ¥ 103
66 ¥ 103
65 ¥ 103
64 ¥ 103
Incineration
63 ¥ 103
Other components
62 ¥ 103
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Glass recycling rate: %
Fig. 8. Effect of recycling on energy consumption of waste
management components
increases the calorific value of the residual waste; and the
combination of these two opposing effects serves to balance each
other out. Second, the energy consumption associated with all
the other components of the glass waste chain/cycle is reduced
with an increase in recycling. This is mainly due to the energy
savings made in the glass manufacturing process through
increased use of cullet.
Hence, it is better to remove glass from the main waste stream
and to recycle the glass to reduce the energy consumption from
glass manufacture, while incinerating the residual waste stream.
4. CONCLUSIONS
(a) The major source of energy savings from glass recycling is
through increased use of cullet in the manufacture of glass.
(b) Maximum recycling of glass (100% recycling rate; used for
glass manufacture) gives a 6% reduction in energy
consumption (4031 GJ) when compared to the base-case
scenario. This is enough energy to generate 338 MWh
electricity, which is sufficient to provide power to 102
households annually. If these savings are replicated
throughout the United Kingdom, this would represent
approximately 27 000 households.
(c) Recycling via kerbside collection is better than via bottle
banks, increasing the maximum energy savings from 6%
to 8%. This is enough to generate 461 MWh of electricity,
sufficient to power 140 households (equivalent to
approximately 36 800 households throughout the UK).
(d) A combination of recycling of glass with incineration of the
residual waste stream is, in terms of energy consumption,
the more favourable waste management option.
5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the Biffaward scheme, which
provided funding for the Energy Footprint under the Landfill Tax
Credit Scheme. Thanks must also go to the co-sponsors
Southampton City Council, the BOC Foundation, Hampshire
What do you think?
To comment on this paper, please email up to 500 words to the editor at journals@ice.org.uk
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in by civil engineers and related professionals, academics and students. Papers
should be 2– 5000 words long, with adequate illustrations and references. Please visit www.thomastelford.com/journals for author
guidelines and further details.
Engineering Sustainability 158 Issue ES1
View publication stats
County Council, and Onyx Environmental, both for helping to
finance the project and for providing valuable information and
advice. Also, acknowledgement is given to Rockware Glass for
allowing use of images taken from the ‘GLASSFOREVER’
website.
REFERENCES
1. SOUTHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL . Southampton City Performance
Plan 2004 –05, available on the internet at: http://
www.southampton.gov.uk/council/cityplans/
cityperformanceplan/default.asp, last accessed November
80 90 100
2004.
2. EDWARDS D. W. and SCHELLING J. Municipal waste life cycle
assessment; Part 2: Transport analysis and glass case study.
Transactions of IChemE, 1999, 77, Part B, 259–274.
3. COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES . CORINAIR
Working Group on Emissions Factors for Calculating 1990
Emissions from Road Traffic, 1. Office for Official
Publications, Luxembourg, 1993.
4. MC DOUGALL F. R., WHITE P., FRANKE M. and HINDLE P.
Integrated Solid Waste Management: A Life Cycle Inventory,
2nd edn. Blackwell Science, Oxford, 2001.
5. ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS . News release 21 March 2003;
available on the internet at: http://www.abports.co.uk, last
accessed March 2003.
6. ENVIROS . Recycled Glass Market Study and Standards Review.
Waste & Resources Action Programme, Banbury, 2002.
7. DACOMBE P. J., KRIVTSOV V., BANKS C. J. and HEAVEN S. Use of
energy footprint analysis to determine the best options for
management of glass from household waste. Glass Waste:
Proceedings of the Sustainable Waste Management and
Recycling: Challenges and Opportunities Conference
(LIMBACHIYA M. and ROBERTS J. (eds)). Thomas Telford,
London, 2004, pp. 265–272.
8. BUWAL 250/II. Life Cycle Inventories for Packagings, vol. II.
Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Lansdscape
(SAEFL), Berne, Switzerland, 1998.
9. ENERGY TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT UNIT . Energy Efficient
Environmental Control in the Glass Industry (revised). ETSU,
Didcot, 2000, Good Practice Guide 127.
10. ENERGY TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT UNIT . The Glass Container
Industry, 2nd edn. ETSU, Didcot, 1997, Energy Consumption
Guide 27.
11. MEL RESEARCH . Project Integra—Kerbside and Household
Waste Recycling Centre: Waste Analysis and Questionnaire
Survey Results. MEL Research, Birmingham, 1999.
12. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT . Integrated Pollution
Prevention and Control Application Document for Integra
South West Energy Recovery Facility, at Marchwood
Industrial Park, Marchwood. Prepared for Onyx Hampshire,
2002.
13. WASTE & RESOURCES ACTION PROGRAMME . Kerbside Collection
of Glass: A Brief Study into the Coverage and Effectiveness of
Kerbside Collection in the UK. WRAP, Banbury, 2002.
Energy and material flow of waste-processing operations Dacombe et al. 23