Waste and Biomass Valorization

, Volume 6, Issue 5, pp 685–698 | Cite as

Athens-Biowaste Model: Cost and Carbon Footprint Calculation of the Collection at Source and Treatment of Biowaste

  • A. Bourka
  • D. Malamis
  • C. Venetis
  • K. Moustakas
  • G. E. Konstantzos
  • O. Skiadi
  • M. Loizidou
Original Paper

Abstract

This paper gives a brief introduction of the so called “Athens Biowaste” model and demonstrates its outcomes through its application on three different case study areas. The model has been developed aiming to support municipalities in building a separate biowaste collection scheme, estimating the direct investment and operational costs and identifying the areas where substantial GHG savings in CO2 eq. could be achieved. The model has been applied in three different Municipalities, representing European urban, suburban and rural areas, varying in population and building characteristics. In all areas, two collection scheme types were examined, namely door-to-door and road containers schemes. All scenarios modelled showed that the investment cost for establishing a separate collection scheme was approximately 10€ per inhabitant using existing waste collection vehicles. Operational cost is directly linked to the type of the collection scheme applied, the participation rate and the collection frequency. The operational cost per tonne of biowaste was reduced approximately by 50 % when the participation rate increases from 25 to 64 %, while cost increased from 40 to 60 % in all examined cases when the collection frequency is doubled. GHG emissions are mostly dependent on waste treatment methods and to a lesser extent on the collection and transportation conditions. The Athens Biowaste model can assist Municipalities in evaluating different biowaste source separation schemes and estimating the level of influence on the total waste management cost and GHG emission savings.

Keywords

Biowaste Source separation Model Cost Carbon footprint 

References

  1. 1.
    European Environment Agency: Annual European Union Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990–2012 and Inventory Report 2014, Technical Report No 09/2014 (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    UNEP, United Nations Environment Programme: Waste and Climate Change, Global Trends and Strategy Framework (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bernstad, A., La Cour Jansen, J.: Review of comparative LCAs of food waste management systems—current status and potential improvements. Waste Manag 32(12), 2439–2455 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kirkeby, J.T., Birgisdottir, H., Hansen, T.L., Christensen, T.H.: Environmental assessment of solid waste systems and technologies: EASEWASTE. Waste Manag. Res. 24(1), 3–15 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kirkeby, J.T., Birgisdottir, H., Hansen, T.L., Christensen, T.H., Bhander, G.S., Hauschild, M.: Evaluation of environmental impacts from municipal solid waste management in the municipality of Aarhus, Denmark (EASEWASTE). Waste Manag. Res. 24(1), 16–26 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Calabro, P.S.: Greenhouse gases emission from municipal waste management: the role of separate collection. Waste Manag 27(9), 2178–2187 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Christensen, T.H., Simion, F., Tonini, D., Møller, J.: Global warming factors modelled for 40 generic municipal waste management scenarios. Waste Manag. Res. 27(9), 871–884 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bernstad, A., La Cour Jansen, J.: A life cycle approach to the management of household food waste—a Swedish full-scale case study. Waste Manag 31(8), 1879–1896 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gentil, E.C., Damgaard, A., Hauschild, M., Finnveden, G., Eriksson, O.: Models for waste life cycle assessment: review of technical assumptions. Waste Manag 30(12), 2636–2648 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gomes, A.P., Matos, M.A., Carvalho, L.C.: Separate collection of the biodegradable fraction of MSW: an economic assessment. Waste Manag 28(10), 1711–1719 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    NTUA, EPTA: Athens Biowaste Model—Guidance Manual. s.l.: Athens Biowaste (biowaste.gr) (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    WRAP: Evaluation of the WRAP Separate Food Waste Collection Trials—Final report (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    EPTA, NTUA, EDSNA: Guide for the implementation, monitoring and assessment of biowaste source separation and management. s.l.: Athens Biowaste (biowaste.gr) (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    WRAP: KAT 5 Guidance Manual (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    DEFRA: Guidelines to Defra/DECC‘s GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting. London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Department for Energy and Climate Change (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ntziachristos, L., Samaras, Z: Exhaust emissions from road transport. In EMEP/EEA Emission Inventory Guidebook 2013. s.l.: EMEP (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Bourka
    • 1
    • 2
  • D. Malamis
    • 2
  • C. Venetis
    • 1
  • K. Moustakas
    • 2
  • G. E. Konstantzos
    • 2
  • O. Skiadi
    • 3
  • M. Loizidou
    • 2
  1. 1.EPTA SAHalandriGreece
  2. 2.Unit of Environmental Science and Technology, School of Chemical EngineeringNational Technical University of AthensAthensGreece
  3. 3.Association of Municipalities in the Attica Region–Solid Waste Management (EDSNA)AthensGreece

Personalised recommendations