Samfundsøkonomisk analyse af bortskaffelse af plastflaske- og dunkeaffald fra husholdninger
Summary and conclusions
This report is a cost benefit analysis of various methods for treatment of plastic bottle waste from households.
Four alternative methods have been examined.
 | Alternative 1: Incineration producing electricity and heat |
| Alternative 2: Recycling. Collection in both local and municipal recycling stations. Production of granulate in Denmark |
| Alternative 3: Recycling. Collection in both local and municipal recycling stations. Export to Germany. |
| Alternative 4: Recycling. Collection only in municipal recycling stations. Export to Germany |
In alternatives 2 and 3, 40 per cent of the plastic bottle waste is collected, i.e. 5,000 tons. In alternative 4, 20 per cent is collected, i.e. 2,500 tons.
The financial analysis shows the economic consequences for each of the affected parties. The two most affected parties are the municipalities and the recycling firm. The financial cost for the municipalities is 1,322, 3,872, 3,022 and 2,079 DKK per ton for alternative 1 to 4 respectively, cf. table 1. The difference between the costs of incineration and recycling is primarily due to the collecting cost. The wage cost in particular makes the recycling alternatives 2 and 3 rather expensive compared to incineration. As the treatment of waste is due to the prime cost principle it will be the households – and not the municipalities – who pay the costs. The recycling company has a net revenue of 318 DKK pr. ton in alternative 2.
The welfare-economic analysis shows the impact for the whole society. The welfare-economic cost of the four alternatives is 2,204, 4,255, 3,654 and 2,442 DKK per ton respectively, cf. table 2. These figures include the value of the environmental effects (e.g. emissions of CO2, SO2, NOx, VOC, CO and PM10). However, the effects of dioxin emissions, ultrafine particles and COD are not measured in DKK due to lack of prices for these effects, so they are only listed in tons, cf. table 2.
Some sensitivity analyses where central parameters are changed have also been made. The following parameters have been changed in order to investigate the impact on the result: interest rate (social time preference rate), export price of plastic waste, sales price of granulate, price on environmental effects, collection system, tax distortion rate, investments already made and consumption of resources in households (i.e. use of water, energy for heating of water and transport). The sensitivity analyses show that the ranking of the four alternatives seems rather stable and not very sensitive to changes. However, an increase in the export price and an increase in the prices of environmental effects (especially the CO2 price) can make alternative 4 the best alternative. The inclusion of the cost of household resources (water and transport) will raise the cost for alternatives 2, 3 and 4 and, thus, make combustion even better than recycling.