Comparative LCA of two approaches with different emphasis on energy or material recovery for a municipal solid waste management system in Gipuzkoa G. Bueno a,n , I. Latasa b , P.J. Lozano b a Department of Electronics Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, Alameda Urquijo s/n, 48013 Bilbao, Spain b Department of Geography, Prehistory and Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, Tomás y Valiente s/n, 01006 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain article info Article history: Received 20 May 2014 Received in revised form 20 March 2015 Accepted 1 June 2015 Available online 25 June 2015 Keywords: Life cycle assessment (LCA) Municipal solid waste (MSW) Material recovery Energy recovery Waste management abstract Two alternative approaches for an integrated municipal solid waste management system (MSW-MS) have been confronted in the province of Gipuzkoa, in the north of Spain, during the last decade. While one of them prioritizes energy recovery from mixed residual waste in an incineration plant, the other approach gives precedence to material recovery of separately collected waste. Which system would present a lower environmental impact and be more desirable from a sustainability perspective? Answering this question is hindered by the fact that recovered energy and materials are not directly comparable or directly substitutable with each other. Based on the powerful framework provided by life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology, this work performs a comparative LCA of overall environmental impacts of these two alternative approaches, showing that comparisons of alternative systems in terms of direct energy recovery or direct material recovery should be avoided in favor of other indicators already proposed in the LCA framework, such as the Cumulative Energy Demand category from Ecoinvent, or the global warming potential and the Abiotic Resources Depletion categories from the CML 2001 method. Applying the LCA framework, this work shows that when a high share of waste is collected separately, and processes assumed in the background system are adequately characterized, especially the production of the electricity mix, then prioritizing material recovery provides better results even in environmental categories tightly related to fossil energy consumption, such as the global warming potential impact category. & 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Contents 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 450 1.1. Waste management strategies in Gipuzkoa ......................................................................... 450 1.2. Objectives of the study ......................................................................................... 451 2. Materials and methods ............................................................................................... 452 2.1. Goal and scope definition ....................................................................................... 452 2.2. Waste prevention derived from the broadening of selective collection in Gipuzkoa ......................................... 453 2.3. Characterization of background and foreground processes ............................................................. 453 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.06.021 1364-0321/& 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Abbreviations: acid, Acidification impact category from CML 2001 method; ard, Abiotic Resource Depletion impact category from CML 2001 method; eutro, Eutrophication impact category from CML 2001 method; GHG, Greenhouse Gas; gw, Global Warming impact category from CML 2001 method; htox, Human Toxicity impact category from CML 2001 method; ILCD, International Reference Life Cycle Data System; ISO, International Organization for Standardization; LCA, life cycle assessment; LCA-IWM, LCA Tools for the Development of Integrated Waste Management; MBP, mechanical biological pre-treatment; MSW, municipal solid waste; MSW-MS, municipal solid waste management systems; P, product; PE, primary energy demand; ph-tox, Photo-oxidant Formation impact category from CML 2001 method; RM, resource material demand; SC, separate collection; WFD, Waste Framework Directive; WP, waste prevention; WtE, Waste-to-Energy, incineration plant with energy recovery n Corresponding author. Tel.: þ34 94 601 41 34; fax: þ34 94 601 42 59. E-mail addresses: gorka.bueno@ehu.es (G. Bueno), itxaro.latasa@ehu.es (I. Latasa), pedrojose.lozano@ehu.es (P.J. Lozano). Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 51 (2015) 449–459