1 Applied EcoDesign Take Back & Recycling Prof. Dr. Ir. Ab Stevels Chair of Applied EcoDesign Design for Sustainability Dept. Design Engineering, School of Industrial Design Delft University of Technology

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

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

4 The Product Life Cycle

5 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

6 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

7 Processing of Discarded Products

8 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’).

9 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” € + _

10 Disassembly: Minimal Amounts to Achieve Cost Neutral Operation Precious metalsPlastics Gold 0.05 gPPE250 g Palladium 0.15 gPC, POM350 g Silver 5 gABS800 g Metals Copper 300 gGlass 6000 g Aluminium 700 g Iron g Minimal amount of material to be disassembled per minute (data based on West European price level,l 2007)

11 Standard Disassembly Times (seconds) Screws 6.5 Glue joints 12.0 Screws not directly 10.5 Clamps 15.5 Screws to be broken 18.5 Wire connections 2.0 Change screw driver 4.0 Elco from PWB 4.5 Nuts / bolts11.5 Display from PWB25.0 Click, simple 3.5 Cooling plates 26.0 Click, complicated 7.5 Axis etc. 9.0 Nails13.0 Bending joints 6.0

12 Disassembly Benchmark (TV’s with CRT) Gross time (s)TV1TV2TV3TV4TV5 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

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

14 Example Disassembly Analysis Portable audio (‘boombox’) Brand 1Brand 2Brand 3Brand 4 Screws Connectors71475 Solder points16375 Click Total calc disassembly time

15 Mechanical Treatment CRT Containing Appliances

16 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)

17 Mechanical Treatment Non-CRT Containing Appliances

18 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

19 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

20 Compatibility Table for Metals 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) FractionTypical knock-out (reduces value to zero or negative) Typical penalty elements (reduces value strongly) Copper (Cu) Hg, Be, PCBAs, Sb, Ni, Al, Bi Aluminium (Al)Cu, Fe, polymersSi Iron (Fe)CuSn, Zn

21 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!

22 Aluminum Recycling: Value 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!

23 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

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

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

26 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 TV cone LCD screen Ceramics

27 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)

28 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

29 Historic Perspective

30 Design for Recycling, Never a Stand- alone ActivityOnly meaningful because: Design for Disassembly Assembly costs are lowered as well Design for Non-disassembly Chemical content control is improved Mono materialsBill of materials is lowered Elimination of halogenated Chemical content flame retardantscontrol is improved

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

32 Position of Recycling of Products in its context, II AspectsPositiveNegative Environmental dilemma’s -Recycling mostly looses in competition with other ecodesign aspects (energy, material) EcoDesign matrixHigh consumer and societal relevance Somebody has to foot the bill Design processCan inspire other design fields (product architecture materials application) Difficult to define where relevant

33 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, EcoDesign)