Solid Waste Management Department Waste Reduction & Recycling Programs
RECYCLING AND THE ENVIRONMENT - BIGGEST “BANGS”: Do Recycling Programs Perform Better than...
-
Upload
derick-sherman -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of RECYCLING AND THE ENVIRONMENT - BIGGEST “BANGS”: Do Recycling Programs Perform Better than...
RECYCLING AND THE ENVIRONMENT - BIGGEST
“BANGS”:
Do Recycling Programs Perform Better than Energy Efficiency Programs for
GHG and Jobs Creation?
Lisa A. Skumatz, Ph.D. Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc.The Econservation Institute762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
303/494-1178 email: [email protected] May be used only with permission of Author - ©SERA2009Internally funded
SERA
US GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (2005) - CONVENTIONAL
Electricity34%
Transportation28%
Industry16%
Commercial6%
Agricultural8% Waste
3%
Residential5%
Source: USEPA
SERA
GOAL – REDUCE MTCE… Historic takeaways –
Prioritized actions in energy efficiency (EE), transportation
BUT – if an MTCE is an MTCE*, all reductions are great…
…and a CHEAPER one may be even greater…! What is the cost hierarchy? And are there other factors to consider?
**And an MTCE may not be an MTCE – methane (from solid waste)Has a more intense effect over 20 years – front-loaded. MultiplierMay be 23 times worse … or with the time element, 70 times worse.
SERA
WASTE PROGRAMS ANALYZED
Curbside Recycling(CS Recy)
Pay As You Throw (PAYT)
Curbside Yard Waste(CS YW)
SERA
ENERGY PROGRAMS ANALYZED
ResidentialWeatherization(Res EE)
Commercial Lighting (Coml EE)
Solar
Wind
SERA
PROGRAMS MODELED Solid waste:
Pay as you throw (PAYT) incentive – 3 effects
Residential curbside recycling
Residential organics composting collection (yard and food waste)
Energy Efficiency: Commercial lighting retrofit Residential weatherization Wind Photovoltaics / solar
Computation Steps - Estimated program costs: per MSW ton diverted (solid
waste) per kWh for energy
programs Used in-house SERA, “NEB-
It”© model, and external data
Modeled GHG impacts Computed $/MTCO2e for
each program “Normalized”
SERA
RELATIVE COST PER MTCO2e FOR SOLID WASTE, ENERGY PROGRAMS
01
2
34
5
67
Results show key MSW programs cheaper to reduce CO2 than EE.PV, Wind high cost per MTCO2e.Source: Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. SERA, Superior, COAll rights reserved, Draft. May be used with permission of author,
7x 18x
1x
3x
0.6x 0.3x 0.5x*
*Organics figuresVary based on model used
SERA
UPSTREAM PRODUCTION SAVINGS - LONG-HAUL BREAK-EVEN FIGURES
Material Prod’n Sav. (MMBTU/ ton coll’n)
Break even- Truck
Break even- Rail
Break even - Freighter
Aluminum 177 121,000 475,000 538,000
LDPE 61 41,000 162,000 184,000
PET 59 40,000 157,000 178,000
Steel 19 13,000 52,000 59,000
Newspaper 16 11,000 43,000 49,000
Corrugated 12 9,000 33,000 38,000
Office pap 10 7,000 27,000 31,000
Boxboard 6.5 4,400 17,400 19,800
Glass (to bottles) 1.9 1,300 5,100 5,800
Break even: transport energy = energy saved displacing virgin feedstockSource: Allaway, Oregon DEQ, draft)
It is not about the landfill savings – embedded energy as driver…Methane also important (front-loaded, high impact)
SERA
US GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (REVISED)
Food12%
Inter-city Passenger Transport
7%
Building Energy Use31%
Local Passenger Transport
12%
Provision of Goods & Materials
38%
Source: USEPA (Prelim); from Allaway (ORDEQ)
SERA
JOB MULTIPLIERS FOR ENERGY AND RECYCLING PROGRAMS
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Weatheriz Appliance
CAWINat'l
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Landfill YW Recy
J ob/ 10KTons
More local & national job impacts in weatherization because labor intensive pgm;Appliance replacement programs more limited impact (appliances not made in US)
Sources: Energy Job Multipliers - Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. (SERA) Superior, CO All rights reserved. May be used with permission of author; Solid waste job mult from Institute of Local Self Reliance, Washington DC.
ENERGY JOBS(per $1 million investment)
SOLID WASTE JOBS(per 10,000 tons)
SERA
MULTIPLIERS – GHG, JOBS, AND $ FOR DIVERSION & EE
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
$/ MTCO2E Jobs/ MTCO2E Jobs/ $1M
Source: DRAFT figures, Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. (SERA)Superior, CO. All rights reserved. May be used with permission of author.
Diversion cheaperper MTCE than EEor renewables.
EE labor intensive per MTCE, butdiversion compar-able in jobs/$1M
18x
SERA
SPEED / COVERAGE / AUTHORITY – COMPARISONS
Speed to implement Stroke of a pen…
Coverage All households vs. slow buildup
Authority Cities / counties often no authority over energy…. But
states have regulatory authority over both… Retention…
Studied in energy, not solid waste (PAYT exception) Advantage, solid waste on these issues…
SERA
RELATIVE COST (PER MTCO2E) AND COVERAGE – “RECYCLING” VS ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Normalized Multiplier for Cost per MTCO2E (SERA)
Speed to implement and full scale implementation coverage
Commercial Energy Efficiency
1.0 – baseline 1-3 years; fraction of customer base
Residential Energy Efficiency
3 times as expensive as com’l EE 1-3 years; fraction of customer households
Wind 7-8 times as expensive as com’l EE TBD, Phase 2
PhotoVoltaic (PV) 18-25 times com’l EE TBD, Phase 2
Curbside Recycling 0.6-0.7 times the cost of com’l EE 0.5- 2 years; covers all households (HH) in area
Pay As You Throw (PAYT) 0.2-0.3 times cost of com’l EE 3-9 months after political approval; covers all single family HH
Prevention & reuse 0 cost No lag; education
Yard Waste program 0.5 +/- times cost of com’l EE (Phase 2) 1-2 years, Phase 2
NOTE: Conservative estimates (Source: Skumatz Economic Research Associates SERA 2007-2008; DRAFT); may be used with permission of author
SERA
SUPPLY CURVE - PORTFOLIO FOR GHG STRATEGY– YEAR 1… YEAR N
Quantity (tons, kwh MTCE)
Cost $/MTCE
R1R2
EE1
EE2
R3
T1Etc…
Local, state, federal…
Other criteria – risk, reliability,Control, etc for portfolio…
Technical potential issue; Also RETENTION a factor….
SERA
AVOIDED GHG SUPPLY CURVE: RAMP UP MORE QUICKLY & CHEAPLY
Hypothetical / template program assumptions…Illustrative Purposes Only
Percent of GHG Goal
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 6 11 16 21 26
Year
With Recycling
Without Recycling
Costs Pct Sav25% 49%50% 32%75% 38%90% 20%
Years to Goal
With Recycling
Without Recycling
25% 2 550% 6 1075% 10 2790% 18 61
SERA
CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS Measurable impacts from GHG reductions
Millions in savings and premiums per ton diverted. Cost to achieve GHG reductions from strategies
Some “recycling” cheaper than energy conservation Faster to implement / greater coverage / have authority –
early “big bang” programs (phase 2) Broader context… “making the case” for diversion
beyond economics… Comparisons on other factors – jobs, stimulus implications Not 3% - Solid waste is faster / cheaper… Near term – Solid waste should be at the table for climate
change… policy / programs local, state, federal.
SERA
CONTACT INFORMATION
Lisa A. Skumatz, Ph.D.SERA, Inc.
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027Phone: 303/494-1178
Email: [email protected] www.serainc.com
Thanks to communities that fill out surveys on www.serainc.com – helps us with these statistical surveys!!
Happy to provide slides – leave business card or send email