n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

In the last few decades there has been a massive growth in the Waste of Electric and ElectronicEquipment (WEEE). Part of these residues was already properly treated in some countries, but the lack of environmentally friendly options forced the European Union (EU) to take action. Two EU directives were created based on reduction, reutilization and recycling of WEEE. The need to properly designrecoverynetworks for such products appears as mandatory, where not only the economic aspects should be accounted for but also the environmental ones. The present paper addresses this problem and presents a generic optimization model for the design and planning of a recovery and treatment network of WEEE, minimizing both the costs and the environmental impacts that arise from the activity performed.

The model is applied to the real case of Amb3E, the Portuguese Association for the Management of Waste of Electric and ElectronicEquipment. Since its formation, in 2006, this organization has been registering an immense growth in the volume of residue collected, and faces now the necessity of reformulating its recoverynetwork. Both the actual cost structure and the best possible cost structure for Amb3E, given by the optimization of the model, are analyzed. These two scenarios are compared in order to turn clear the differences between them and to assess how the recoverynetwork of Amb3E can be improved through optimization. A similar analysis is performed from an environmental impacts perspective.

Under the framework of the European project named COPOWER, the possibility to partially substitute coal used in a 243 MWth Power Plant by biomass and non-hazardous wastes for the production of electricity and steam was assessed. Three combustion scenarios were studied, based on the combustion tests performed in a Power Plant located in Duisburg (Germany): Scenario 0 (Sc0) – combustion of coal; Scenario 1 (Sc1) – combustion of coal + sewage sludge (SS) + meat and bone meal (MBM); Scenario 2 (Sc2) – coal + SS + wood pellets (WP). An environmental and socio-economic assessment of these three scenarios was performed. In the environmental point of view, Sc0 was the worst scenario, mainly due to the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG). Sc1 was the best scenario, mainly due to the reduction of GHG emission, eutrophication chemical species and ozone depletion gases. In the socio-economic point of view, Sc0 was the worst scenario, mainly due to the absence of GHG abatement, and Sc1 was the best scenario due to the best cost of electricity production and negative cost of avoided emissions.