Applied Eco Design Take Back Recycling Prof Dr

Applied Eco. Design Take Back & Recycling Prof. Dr. Ir. Ab Stevels Chair of Applied Eco. Design for Sustainability Dept. Design Engineering, School of Industrial Design Delft University of Technology stevels@xs 4 all. nl 1

Outline 1. Position in the product life cycle 2. Processing of discarded products 1. Disassembly 2. Shredding/separation 3. Design for recycling 4. Conclusions 2

Energy in the use phase deserves much more attention Average environmental load of an electronic product over its life cycle 3

The Product Life Cycle 4

End-of-Life: Drivers • Customer/ Consumer • no hassle, low costs on disposal • concern about waste and recycling • NGO’s • conservation of resources • toxic control • Legislation • waste problems in many countries • sustainability/closed loop perspective • EPR: Extended Producer Responsibility 5

End-of-Life: Enablers • Science and technology • end-of-life processing technology • upgrading secondary materials • Suppliers • re-use of components and materials • take-back in turn • Financial • better disassembly = cheaper assembly • services and pre-owned business opportunities 6

Processing of Discarded Products 7

Recycling strategy Wide spread idea: manual disassembly + upgrading of material streams Treatment Reality today: a lot of mechanical treatment + integral smelting processes If disassembly is dominant: design for recycling can do a lot (‘specific’). If mechanical treatment is dominant: design for recycling can do little (‘generic’). 8

DISASSEMBLY VS. MECHANCIAL TREATMENT + Disassembly because of value (recycling) Mechanical treatment € _ Disassembly because of cost (control hazardous materials) “What you do is value/cost dependant” 9

Disassembly: Minimal Amounts to Achieve Cost Neutral Operation Precious metals Gold 0. 05 g Palladium 0. 15 g Silver 5 g Metals Copper 300 g Aluminium 700 g Iron 50000 g Plastics PPE PC, POM ABS 250 g 350 g 800 g Glass 6000 g Minimal amount of material to be disassembled per minute (data based on West European price level, l 2007) 10

Standard Disassembly Times (seconds) Screws Glue joints Screws not directly Clamps Screws to be broken Wire connections Change screw driver Elco from PWB 6. 5 12. 0 10. 5 15. 5 18. 5 2. 0 4. 5 Nuts / bolts Display from PWB Click, simple Cooling plates Click, complicated Axis etc. Nails Bending joints 11. 5 25. 0 3. 5 26. 0 7. 5 9. 0 13. 0 6. 0 11

Disassembly Benchmark (TV’s with CRT) • • • Gross time (s) Getting ready Mains cord/ plug Unscrew back cover Clean and sort back cover Take out and sort PWB Take out and sort speaker Deflection unit Get CRT out Clean and sort CRT Clean and sort front cover Total TV 1 18 18 56 34 24 20 34 72 74 74 424 TV 2 24 20 66 42 18 16 26 50 62 58 380 TV 3 38 12 16 22 22 56 32 74 68 74 414 TV 4 32 16 32 44 18 54 30 70 46 44 386 TV 5 34 12 28 14 16 22 28 90 46 82 372 12

Disassembly Analysis • Determine Σ Nj * tstandard • with: N = number of joints j • tstandard = standard disassembly time per joint • Identify improvement • change of architecture • comparison with competitors products • Lower disassembly time = lower assembly time 13

Example Disassembly Analysis Portable audio (‘boombox’) Brand 1 Brand 2 73 Brand 3 82 Brand 4 Screws 122 Connectors Solder points Click 73 7 16 14 14 3 0 7 7 0 5 5 29 Total calc. 1074 630 628 796 disassembly time 14

Mechanical Treatment CRT Containing Appliances 15

Maximizing Yield of Mechanical Treatment I Balancing yield (metal smelters) and avoided cost (landfill, incineration) Example: Netherlands: Fraction to copper melting has high mixed plastic / FR content (high incineration cost) Spain: Fraction to copper melting has high content (low disposal cost of plastics) 16

Mechanical Treatment Non-CRT Containing Appliances 17

Maximizing Yield of Mechanical Treatment, I Recyclers • Revenues for metals (copper, precious metals) • Costs for final waste disposal (mixed plastics/ FR) • Balancing revenues and costs Example mixed plastics: • The Netherlands: fraction to copper smelter has high mixed plastics/ FR content due to avoiding high costs at landfill/ incineration • Spain: fraction to copper smelter has high copper content due to low disposal costs mixed plastics/ FR 18

Maximizing Yield of Mechanical Treatment, II Metal smelters • Rewards for economies of scale • Penalties for unwanted elements (limits) • Rewards for precious metals (threshold) Example the metal lead : • Separately disassembled as metal: little value • In copper fraction: high threshold/ penalties • In mixed plastics stream to incineration: low threshold/ penalties 19

Compatibility Table for Metals Fraction Typical knock-out (reduces value to zero or negative) Typical penalty elements (reduces value strongly) Copper (Cu) Hg, Be, PCB As, Sb, Ni, Al, Bi Aluminium (Al) Cu, Fe, polymers Si Iron (Fe) Cu Sn, Zn Example: Bismuth in a typical copper smelter • < 0, 01% (threshold, free of charge) • > 0, 01% and <0, 03% (penalty: 23 € per 0, 01% per ton fraction weight) • > 0, 03% (unacceptable, knock-out) 20

Copper Recycling: Value and Avoided Costs Value: copper content precious metal content Avoided costs: lead (usually byproduct) mixed plastics with flame retardants Shredding and separation settings determine strongly the value and processing of the copper fraction! 21

Aluminum Recycling: Value depends strongly on: Form Type of alloy Knock-out and penalty elements Shredding and separation settings determine strongly the value and processing of the aluminum fraction! 22

Ferro Recycling: Economy of Scale • Contributes to recycle% (weight) • Link to other and larger streams (integrated recycler) • Knock-out and penalty elements • Zinc coatings are getting critical in some countries 23

Compatibility Table for Plastics (general) PS ABS PA PC PVC PP PE PS + - - - ABS - + 0 - - PA - - + - - PC - + - - - PVC - 0 - - + - - PP - - + - PE - - + 24

Plastic Recycling: Conditions for Success • Mono materials • No fillers or additives • Economy of scale • No paper, stickers and metal coatings 25

Compatibility Table for Glass and Ceramics Acceptance Offer Bottle glass Window glass TV screen TV cone LCD screen Ceramics Bottle glass + - - - Window glass TV screen + + - - 0 0 + 0 - - TV cone - - - + - - LCD screen 0 0 0 - + - Ceramics - - - 26

Glass Recycling: Level of re-application • TV screen/ cone glass • no cross contamination • completely metal free • Ceramics • Foam glass • Lead smelter • Filler material (road paving) 27

Starting points for design for recycling • 1. Life Cycle Design has priority; Design for end-of-life (DFEOL) is only part of it and should be done in synergy • 2. Product functionality, Embodiment and value chain determine the room to maneuver • 3. The big issue in end-of-life is material streams resulting from treatment (not individual products) • 4. Control of potential toxicity needs more attention in end-of-life 28

Historic Perspective 29

Design for Recycling, Never a Standalone Activity Only meaningful because: Design for Disassembly Assembly costs are lowered as well Chemical content control is improved Bill of materials is lowered Chemical content control is improved Design for Non-disassembly Mono materials Elimination of halogenated flame retardants 30

Position of Recycling of Products in its context, I Aspects Positive Negative Functionality Design for Recycling simplifies product architectures Phase of recycling subordinate to meet functionality requirements Internal value chain Design for easy Where recycling is disassembly will not driven by the lower assembly costs market it will cost money External value chain Most stakeholders see recycling as a societal obligation Who pays the bill? 31

Position of Recycling of Products in its context, II Aspects Environmental dilemma’s Positive Negative - Recycling mostly looses in competition with other ecodesign aspects (energy, material) Eco. Design matrix High consumer and societal relevance Somebody has to foot the bill Design process Can inspire other design fields (product architecture materials application) Difficult to define where relevant 32

Conclusions • Current idea’s about recycling quite different from traditional perceptions • Best recycling solutions are specific for product (categories) • Design for Recycling strongly dependent on treatment technology applied • Design for Recycling subject to strong boundary conditions (functionality, Eco. Design) 33