DOCSLIB.ORG

Study of Emerging Technologies in Waste Management for MSW Landfills

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Study of Emerging Technologies in Waste Management for MSW Landfills Contractor’s Report to the Board Landfill Facility Compliance Study Task 7 Report—Study of Emerging Technologies in Waste Management for MSW Landfills December 2003 Produced under contract by: GeoSyntec Consultants, Inc. Walnut Creek, California Zero Waste—You Make It Happen! S TATE OF C ALIFORNIA Gray Davis Governor Winston H. Hickox Secretary, California Environmental Protection Agency • INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD • Mark Leary Executive Director For additional copies of this publication, contact: Integrated Waste Management Board Public Affairs Office, Publications Clearinghouse (MS–6) 1001 I Street P.O. Box 4025 Sacramento, CA 95812-4025 www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Publications/ 1-800-CA-WASTE (California only) or (916) 341-6306 Publication #520-03-008 Printed on recycled paper containing a minimum of 30 percent postconsumer fiber. Copyright © 2003 by the California Integrated Waste Management Board. All rights reserved. This publication, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form without permission. Prepared as part of contract no. IWM-C9047 (total contract amount: $654,063, includes other services). The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) does not discriminate on the basis of disability in access to its programs. CIWMB publications are available in accessible formats upon request by calling the Public Affairs Office at (916) 341-6300. Persons with hearing impairments can reach the CIWMB through the California Relay Service, 1-800-735-2929. The energy challenge facing California is real. Every Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption. For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, Flex Your Power and visit www.consumerenergycenter.org/flex/index.html Disclaimer: This report to the Board was produced under contract by GeoSyntec Consultants, Inc. The statements and conclusions contained in this report are those of the contractor and not necessarily those of the California Integrated Waste Management Board, its employees, or the State of California and should not cited or quoted as official Board policy or direction. The State makes no warranty, expressed or implied, and assumes no liability for the information contained in the succeeding text. Any mention of commercial products or processes shall not be construed as an endorsement of such products or processes. Table of Contents Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................................viii 1 Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................1 2 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................3 2.1 Emerging Technologies Discussed in This Report .................................................................3 2.2 Organization of This Report ....................................................................................................5 2.3 Application of Technologies in California ..............................................................................6 2.4 Glossary .....................................................................................................................................6 3 Pre-Disposal Waste Treatment Technologies ....................................................................................9 3.1 Mechanical Pre-Processing ......................................................................................................9 3.1.1 General Description ...................................................................................................................9 3.1.2 Detailed Description and Process Options.................................................................................9 3.1.2.1 Separation..................................................................................................................................9 3.1.2.2 Size Reduction..........................................................................................................................10 3.1.2.3 Washing ...................................................................................................................................10 3.1.2.4 Baling.......................................................................................................................................11 3.1.3 Global Application of Technology and Case Histories............................................................11 3.1.4 Research Studies......................................................................................................................13 3.1.5 Technologies in Combination ..................................................................................................13 3.1.6 Application in California .........................................................................................................15 3.1.7 Evaluation of Benefits and Barriers.........................................................................................16 3.1.7.1 Separation................................................................................................................................16 3.1.7.2 Size Reduction..........................................................................................................................17 3.1.7.3 Washing ...................................................................................................................................17 3.1.7.4 Baling.......................................................................................................................................18 3.2 Biological Pre-Treatment .......................................................................................................19 3.2.1 General Description .................................................................................................................19 3.2.2 Detailed Description and Process Options...............................................................................19 3.2.2.1 Anaerobic Pre-Treatment ........................................................................................................19 3.2.2.2 Aerobic Pre-Treatment ............................................................................................................20 3.2.3 Global Application of Technology and Case Histories............................................................21 3.2.3.1 Anaerobic Pre-Treatment ........................................................................................................21 3.2.3.2 Aerobic Pre-Treatment ............................................................................................................24 3.2.4 Research Studies......................................................................................................................24 3.2.5 Technologies in Combination ..................................................................................................24 3.2.6 Application in California .........................................................................................................25 3.2.7 Evaluation of Benefits and Barriers.........................................................................................26 3.2.7.1 Anaerobic Pre-treatment .........................................................................................................26 3.2.7.2 Aerobic Pre-Treatment ............................................................................................................26 i 3.3 Thermal Pre-Treatment .........................................................................................................27 3.3.1 General Description .................................................................................................................27 3.3.2 Detailed Description and Process Options...............................................................................27 3.3.2.1 Incineration..............................................................................................................................27 3.3.2.2 Pyrolysis ..................................................................................................................................30 3.3.3 Global Application of Technology and Case Histories............................................................31 3.3.3.1 Incineration..............................................................................................................................31 3.3.3.2 Pyrolysis ..................................................................................................................................31 3.3.4 Research Studies......................................................................................................................33 3.3.4.1 Incineration..............................................................................................................................33 3.3.4.2 Pyrolysis...................................................................................................................................33 3.3.5 Technologies in Combination ..................................................................................................33 3.3.6 Application in California .........................................................................................................33 3.3.7 Evaluation of Benefits and Barriers.........................................................................................34
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Assessment of the Possible Reuse of Extractive Waste Coming from Abandoned Mine Sites: Case Study in Gorno, Italy
    sustainability Article Assessment of the Possible Reuse of Extractive Waste Coming from Abandoned Mine Sites: Case Study in Gorno, Italy Neha Mehta 1,2, Giovanna Antonella Dino 1,*, Iride Passarella 3, Franco Ajmone-Marsan 4, Piergiorgio Rossetti 1 and Domenico Antonio De Luca 1 1 Department of Earth Sciences, University of Turin, 10125 Torino, Italy; [email protected] (N.M.); [email protected] (P.R.); [email protected] (D.A.D.L.) 2 School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, BT9 5AH, UK 3 Horizon s.r.l., 10095 Grugliasco (TO), Italy; [email protected] 4 Department of Agricultural, Forestry and Food Sciences, University of Turin, 10095 Grugliasco (TO), Italy; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +39-011-6705150 Received: 21 January 2020; Accepted: 17 March 2020; Published: 21 March 2020 Abstract: Supply of resources, a growing population, and environmental pollution are some of the main challenges facing the contemporary world. The rapid development of mining activities has produced huge amounts of waste. This waste, found in abandoned mine sites, provides the potential opportunity of extracting raw material. The current study, therefore, focuses on testing the validation of a shared methodology to recover extractive waste from abandoned mines, and applies this methodology to a case study in Gorno, northwest Italy. The methods focused on: (1) analyzing the impact of tailings and fine fraction of waste rock (<2 mm) on plants (Cress - Lepidium Sativum) to assess usability of both as soil additive, and (2) recovering raw materials from tailings and coarse fraction (>2 mm) of waste rock, by means of dressing methods like wet shaking table and froth flotation.
    [Show full text]
  • Integration of Resource Recovery Into Current Waste Management Through
    INTEGRATION OF RESOURCE RECOVERY INTO CURRENT WASTE MANAGEMENT THROUGH (ENHANCED) LANDFILL MINING Juan Carlos Hernández Parrodi 1,2,*, Hugo Lucas 3, Marco Gigantino 4, Giovanna Sauve 5, John Laurence Esguerra 6,7, Paul Einhäupl 5,7, Daniel Vollprecht 2, Roland Pomberger 2, Bernd Friedrich 3, Karel Van Acker 5, Joakim Krook 6, Niclas Svensson 6 and Steven Van Passel 7 1 Renewi Belgium SA/NV, NEW-MINE project, 3920 Lommel, Belgium 2 Montanuniversität Leoben, Department of Environmental and Energy Process Engineering, 8700 Leoben, Austria 3 RWTH Aachen University, Process Metallurgy and Metal Recycling, 52056 Aachen, Germany 4 ETH Zürich, Department of Mechanical and Process Engineering, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland 5 Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Department of Materials Engineering, 3001 Leuven, Belgium 6 Linköping University, Environmental Technology and Management, 58183 Linköping, Sweden 7 Universiteit Antwerpen, Department of Engineering Management, 2000 Antwerpen, Belgium Article Info: ABSTRACT Received: Europe has somewhere between 150,000 and 500,000 landfill sites, with an estimat- 1 November 2019 Accepted: ed 90% of them being “non-sanitary” landfills, predating the EU Landfill Directive of 15 November 2019 1999/31/EC. These older landfills tend to be filled with municipal solid waste and Available online: often lack any environmental protection technology. “Doing nothing”, state-of-the- 23 December 2019 art aftercare or remediating them depends largely on technical, societal and eco- Keywords: nomic conditions which vary between countries. Beside “doing nothing” and land- Landfill mining strategies fill aftercare, there are different scenarios in landfill mining, from re-landfilling the Enhanced landfill mining waste into “sanitary landfills” to seizing the opportunity for a combined resource-re- Resource recovery covery and remediation strategy.
    [Show full text]
  • Cost of Organic Waste Technologies: a Case Study for New Jersey
    AIMS Energy, 3 (3): 450–462. DOI: 10.3934/energy.2015.3.450 Received date 28 June 2015, Accepted date 30 August 2015, Published date 15 September 2015 http://www.aimspress.com/ Research article Cost of organic waste technologies: A case study for New Jersey Gal Hochman 1,*, Shisi Wang 1, Qing Li 1, Paul D. Gottlieb 1, Fuqing Xu 2 and Yebo Li 2 1 Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA 2 The Ohio State University, Ohio 44691 * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel: +1-848-932-9142 Abstract: This paper evaluates the benefits of converting food waste and manure to biogas and/or fertilizer, while focusing on four available waste treatment technologies: direct combustion, landfilling, composting, and anaerobic digestion. These four alternative technologies were simulated using municipal-level data on food waste and manure in New Jersey. The criteria used to assess the four technologies include technological productivity, economic benefits, and impact on land scarcity. Anaerobic digestion with gas collection has the highest technological productivity; using anaerobic digesters would supply electricity to nearly ten thousand families in New Jersey. In terms of economic benefits, the landfill to gas method is the least costly method of treating waste. In comparison, direct combustion is by far the most costly method of all four waste-to-energy technologies. Keywords: Organic waste; manure; combustion; land-fill gas; aerobic composting; anaerobic digestion 1. Introduction Population growth and urbanization yield an increase in the generation and disposal of waste. On average, each person in the U.S. produces 1.5 kilograms of municipal solid waste (MSW) per day.
    [Show full text]
  • Developing the Case for Enhanced Landfill Mining in the UK
    Developing the case for enhanced landfill mining in the UK Stuart Wagland Senior Lecturer, Energy & Environmental Chemistry IOSH Environmental Waste Management Group July 2021 www.cranfield.ac.uk Overview of webinar Enhanced landfill mining in the UK • Background- UK landfill legacy and concept of ELFM • Recent sampling work and experimental data • Risks associated with landfill mining and remediation • ELFM in Europe and the UK- the next steps 2 Landfills in UK Substantial resource for future exploitation Over 20,000 legacy and current landfills in the UK Licences required from 1974 under the Control of Pollution Act Over 4,000 licensed sites, most of which are now closed Currently over 40 million tonnes of waste from all sources is deposited in UK landfills each year 3 Firstly, what is enhanced landfill mining?? Landfill mining: Enhanced landfill mining [ELFM]: 'a process for extracting materials ‘the safe conditioning, excavation or other solid natural resources and integrated valorisation of from waste materials that (historic and/or future) landfilled previously have been disposed of waste streams as both materials by burying them in the ground' (Waste-to-Material, WtM) and energy (Waste-to-Energy, WtE), (Krook at al. 2012) using innovative transformation technologies and respecting the most stringent social and ecological criteria.' (Jones et al. 2013) 4 Landfill mining vs enhanced landfill mining 'Landfill mining' is limited to: ELFM goes further and aims to elicit higher recovery rates • Capturing of methane for and value: energy purposes • Recovery of some • In-situ and ex-situ recovery materials through physical • Waste to materials and excavation energy using innovative • Excavation for reclamation and state-of-the art of land (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Wastewater Disposal to Landfill-Sites
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Ghent University Academic Bibliography Journal of Environmental Management 128 (2013) 427e434 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Journal of Environmental Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman Review Wastewater disposal to landfill-sites: A synergistic solution for centralized management of olive mill wastewater and enhanced production of landfill gas Vasileios Diamantis a,*, Tuba H. Erguder b, Alexandros Aivasidis a, Willy Verstraete c, Evangelos Voudrias a a Department of Environmental Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, Vas. Sofias 12, 67100 Xanthi, Greece b Department of Environmental Engineering, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey c Laboratory of Microbial Ecology and Technology (LabMET), University of Ghent, Belgium article info abstract Article history: The present paper focuses on a largely unexplored field of landfill-site valorization in combination with Received 22 February 2013 the construction and operation of a centralized olive mill wastewater (OMW) treatment facility. The Received in revised form latter consists of a wastewater storage lagoon, a compact anaerobic digester operated all year round and 14 May 2013 a landfill-based final disposal system. Key elements for process design, such as wastewater pre- Accepted 25 May 2013 treatment, application method and rate, and the potential effects on leachate quantity and quality, are Available online 20 June 2013 discussed based on a comprehensive literature review. Furthermore, a case-study for eight (8) olive mill enterprises generating 8700 m3 of wastewater per year, was conceptually designed in order to calculate Keywords: fi Anaerobic digestion the capital and operational costs of the facility (transportation, storage, treatment, nal disposal).
    [Show full text]
  • Storing E-Waste in Green Infrastructure to Reduce Perceived Value Loss Through Landfill Siting and Landscaping: a Case Study in Nanjing, China
    sustainability Article Storing E-waste in Green Infrastructure to Reduce Perceived Value Loss through Landfill Siting and Landscaping: A Case Study in Nanjing, China Fu Chen 1,2,* , Xiaoxiao Li 2, Yongjun Yang 2, Huping Hou 2, Gang-Jun Liu 3 and Shaoliang Zhang 2 1 Low Carbon Energy Institute, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou 221008, China 2 School of Environmental Science and Spatial Informatics, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou 221008, China; [email protected] (X.L.); [email protected] (Y.Y.); [email protected] (H.H.); [email protected] (S.Z.) 3 Geospatial Science, College of Science, Engineering and Health, RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-5168-388-3501 Received: 31 January 2019; Accepted: 25 March 2019; Published: 27 March 2019 Abstract: Electronic waste (e-waste) represents a severe global environmental issue due to the fast upgrading and updating of electronic products and the high environmental risk. Current low recycling technology, high economic cost, and weak disposal capability make it difficult for e-waste to be rendered 100% harmless. E-waste disposal requires new site-selection methods and site-saving technology to take into account the loss of public perceived value. This study attempts to improve e-waste disposal through siting and landscaping to reduce perceived value loss. The first step is to determine the minimum distance for landfill siting by surveying the minimum loss of perceived value and to use the geographic information system (GIS) to sketch the suitable landfill site thereafter.
    [Show full text]
  • Binning the Old Landfill Approach Using Global Innovations Presented By: Eric Mead
    Binning the Old Landfill Approach Using Global Innovations Presented By: Eric Mead 30 March 2017 © 2017 HDR, all rights reserved. Brisbane Sydney Melbourne HDR Overview 3 offices in Australia 10,000 professionals 250+ offices with a total of 150 staff “In the fight against litter and pollution, we still have so far to go.” - Iron Eyes Cody More focus on landfills means a greater need to: Maximise permitted airspace Optimise day-to-day operations Minimise expenditures Source: MSW in Texas 2015 Annual Review October 2016 Maximise Permitted Airspace MSE Walls Bioreactor Waffle Top Landfill Design Mining Mechanically Stabilised Earth (MSE) Walls Proposed Final Grades Property Boundary Permitted MSE Final Grades Wall MSE Walls Proposed Final Grades Permitted Final MSE Grades MSE Wall Wall Waffle Top Design . Hilltop vs ridges . Maintain highest elevation Bioreactor . Goal is to accelerate decomposition . Select waste . Control moisture . Renewable airspace Landfill Mining . Benefits o Cost reductions o Revenues o Increased property value o Additional disposal capacity . Risks o Unknown waste materials o LFG and odours o Water management o Dust and litter Landfill Mining Est. Waste Est. Waste Years Benefit of Source Property Value Landfill Volume Relocation Closed Removal Gained (USD) (Million M3) Cost (USD) Duvall 36 Medium 1.11 $25M $2M Houghton 50 Medium 0.93 $17M $31M Cedar Falls 31 High 1.22 $32M $2M Hobart 23 Low 1.30 $20M $2M Vashon 18 High 0.74 $24M $2M Puyallup 50 Medium 1.48 $27M $6M Enumclaw 24 Low 1.33 $24M $0M CHRLF 26 Medium 14.0 $146M $0M Optimise Day-to-Day Operations Intelligent Compaction Drones Fill Plans Equipment Aesthetics Environmental Traffic DENSITY Controls Human Resources Intelligent Compaction Drones .
    [Show full text]
  • Solid Waste Management in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam: Moving Towards a Circular Economy?
    sustainability Case Report Solid Waste Management in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam: Moving towards a Circular Economy? Petra Schneider 1,2,*, Le Hung Anh 3, Jörg Wagner 4, Jan Reichenbach 4 and Anja Hebner 5 1 C&E Consulting and Engineering GmbH, Jagdschänkenstraße 52, D-09117 Chemnitz, Germany 2 Department for Water, Environment, Civil Engineering and Safety, University of Applied Sciences Magdeburg-Stendal, Breitscheidstraße 2, D-39114 Magdeburg, Germany 3 Institute for the Environmental Science, Engineering & Management, Industrial University of Ho Chi Minh City, No. 12 Nguyen Van Bao, Ward 4, Ho Chi Minh City 00000, Vietnam; [email protected] 4 INTECUS GmbH Abfallwirtschaft und umweltintegratives Management, Pohlandstr. 17, D-01309 Dresden, Germany; [email protected] (J.W.); [email protected] (J.R.) 5 Vita 34 AG Business Unit BioPlanta, Deutscher Platz 5a, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +49-391-886-4577 Academic Editor: Christian Zurbrügg Received: 30 November 2016; Accepted: 9 February 2017; Published: 17 February 2017 Abstract: The paper presents the current situation of the waste management system of the megacity Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, and the options for waste and land recycling in a low income country. Generally, there is a large potential for circular economy in the city as the main proportion of the waste flows are recyclables. Due to the missing selective collection system, this potential is not used in the full extend yet, even if the collection of the entire waste volumes is envisaged in the National Waste Management Strategy by 2025.
    [Show full text]
  • Waste to Energy in the Age of the Circular Economy Best Practice Handbook
    WASTE TO ENERGY IN THE AGE OF THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY BEST PRACTICE HANDBOOK NOVEMBER 2020 ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK WASTE TO ENERGY IN THE AGE OF THE CIRCULAR ECONOMY BEST PRACTICE HANDBOOK NOVEMBER 2020 ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO license (CC BY 3.0 IGO) © 2020 Asian Development Bank 6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City, 1550 Metro Manila, Philippines Tel +63 2 8632 4444; Fax +63 2 8636 2444 www.adb.org Some rights reserved. Published in 2020. ISBN: 978-92-9262-480-4 (print); 978-92-9262-481-1 (electronic); 978-92-9262-482-8 (ebook) Publication Stock No. TIM200330-2 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22617/TIM200330-2 The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) or its Board of Governors or the governments they represent. ADB does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their use. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by ADB in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. By making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area, or by using the term “country” in this document, ADB does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area. This work is available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 IGO license (CC BY 3.0 IGO) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/.
    [Show full text]
  • Economics of Landfill Mining
    Linköping Studies in Science and Technology Licentiate Thesis No. 1876 FACULTY OF SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING Esguerra Laurence John Linköping Studies in Science and Technology, Licentiate Thesis No. 1876, 2020 Department of Management and Engineering Economics of Linköping University SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden Landfill Mining: www.liu.se Usefulness and Validity of Economics of Landfill Mining: Usefulness andValidity of Different Assessment Approaches Different Assessment Approaches John Laurence Esguerra Individual landfill mining project Landfill Input for Strategies mining the generic for the future economics model projects Multiple landfill mining projects in a region 2020 Linköping Studies in Science and Technology Licentiate Thesis No. 1876 Economics of Landfill Mining: Usefulness and Validity of Different Assessment Approaches John Laurence Esguerra Division of Environmental Technology and Management Department of Management and Engineering Linköpings universitet, SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden Linköping, 2020 © John Laurence Esguerra, 2020 Printed in Sweden by LiU—Tryck, Linköping, 2020 ISBN 978-91-7929-852-4 ISSN 0280-7971 ii Economics of landfill mining: Usefulness and Validity of Different Assessment Approaches Abstract Landfill mining (LFM) is an alternative strategy to manage landfills that integrates remediation with secondary resource recovery. At present, LFM remains as an emerging concept with a few pilot-scale project implementations, which presents challenges when assessing its economic performance. These challenges include large knowledge deficits about the individual processes along the LFM process chain, lack of know-how in terms of project implementation and economic drivers, and limited applicability of results to specific case studies. Based on how these challenges were addressed, this thesis aims to analyze the usefulness and validity of different economic assessments of LFM towards the provision of better support for decision-making and in-depth learning for the development of cost-efficient projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Landfill Reclamation
    United States Solid Waste EPA530-F-97-001 Environmental Protection and Emergency Response July 1997 Agency (5306W) 1EPA Landfill Reclamation his fact sheet describes new and innovative technologies and products that meet the performance standards of the Criteria for Municipal Solid T Waste Landfills (40 CFR Part 258). Landfill reclamation is a relatively new approach used to expand municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill capacity and avoid the high cost of acquiring addi- tional land. Reclamation costs are often offset by the sale or use of recovered materials, such as recyclables, soil, and waste, which can be burned as fuel. Other important benefits may include avoided liability through site remediation, reductions in closure costs, and reclamation of land for other uses. Despite its many benefits, some potential drawbacks exist to landfill reclama- tion. This technology may release methane and other gases, for example, that result from decomposing wastes. It may also unearth hazardous materials, which can be costly to manage. In addition, the excavation work involved in reclamation may cause adjacent landfill areas to sink or collapse. Finally, the dense, abrasive nature of reclaimed waste may shorten the life of excavation equipment. To identify potential problems, landfill operators considering recla- mation activities should conduct a site characterization study. Landfill reclamation projects have been successfully implemented at MSW facilities across the country since the 1980s. This fact sheet provides information on this technology and presents case studies of successful reclamation projects. The Reclamation Soil Separation (Screening) A trommel (i.e., a revolving cylindrical sieve) Process or vibrating screens separate soil (including Landfill reclamation is conducted in a num- the cover material) from solid waste in the ber of ways, with the specific approach based excavated material.
    [Show full text]
  • Rawfill Landfill Miner Guide
    LANDFILL MINER GUIDE Copyright © 2021 RAWFILL Project partners, All rights reserved. Authors: Pascal Beese-Vasbender (BAV) David Caterina (University of Liège) Martje Ceulemans (VITO) Jonathan Chambers (British Geological Survey) Ben Dashwood (British Geological Survey) Renaud De Rijdt (ATRASOL) Stefanie De Smet (VITO) Alain Ducheyne (VITO) Cornelia Inauen (British Geological Survey) Itzel Isunza Manrique (University of Liège) Laura Lamair (SPAQuE) Simon Loisel (SAS Les Champs Jouault) Sébastien Moreaux (ATRASOL) Claudia Neculau (SPAQuE) Frédéric Nguyen (University of Liège) Marta Popova (SPAQuE) Michaël Van Raemdonck (OVAM) Gaëtan Vivien (SAS Les Champs Jouault) Arnaud Watlet (British Geological Survey) Eddy Wille (OVAM) This guide is the result of teamwork among the RAWFILL project partners. In detail, they respectively took responsibility for the following chapters: OVAM (Chapters 1, 2, 3 & 7), University of Liège and British Geological Survey (Chapter 4), ATRASOL (Chapters 5, 6, 8 & 9), SPAQuE (Chapters 9, 10 & 13) and VITO (Chapter 11). Table of contents 1 Rationale of RAWFILL project .......................................................................... 15 Introduction ........................................................................................... 15 Basic principles of the linear economy ........................................................ 15 Resources and reserves ........................................................................... 16 Scarcity, depletion and availability of resources: critical raw materials
    [Show full text]