Case Study on Environmental Impacts of the SWICO System: 3. Results
Figure 3 shows the CED, GWP and Eco-Points UBP '97 for the SWICO system calculated each time for the transportation processes, the sorting and dismantling process and the recycling and disposal processes. As can be seen in the figure, the most significant contributions to the total environmental impact of the SWICO system come from metals recycling (mainly due to the melting process in electric furnaces) and plastics disposal (mainly due to the incineration in MSWI plants).
Figure 3 Environmental Impacts (CED, GWP and Eco-points UBP '97) of processes in the SWICO system
Figure 4 shows the environmental impacts per ton of material for the transportation process (from the customer to the licensed sorting and dismantling companies), the sorting and dismantling process and the different recycling and disposal processes. As can be seen in the figure, cable recycling is most significant when considering Eco-Points UBP '97. As for GWP and CED, however, plastics incineration and http://www.pwbrc.org/faq10.cfm ">PWB recycling, respectively, become most significant.
Figure 4 Environmental impacts of fractions in the SWICO system (expressed per t of the respective fraction)
3.2 Environmental Impact of the SWICO System Compared to Primary Production
A comparison between the environmental impacts of the SWICO system and the environmental impacts resulting from the primary production of the secondary raw materials leaving the SWICO system shows that the SWICO system has significantly lower impacts (see figure 5, left). The higher environmental impact resulting from primary production of the raw materials leaving the SWICO system is mainly due to the recovery of metals, especially steel and precious metals (see figure 5, right). However, it must be taken into consideration that the data quality for precious metals is not yet satisfactory at the moment.
