Circularity Futures Workshop Series: Summary Report

Abstract

The aim of this report is to synthesize key feedback received from the three-part Circularity Futures workshop series held in Spring 2024. The workshop series was conducted by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) on behalf of U.S. Department of Energy, Office Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), and was broken into three workshops: Workshop 1 - Circularity Analysis Needs and Priorities; Workshop 2 - Circularity Metrics and Indicators; and Workshop 3 - Circularity Data. Together, the workshops focused on identifying the existing priorities and gaps in the circularity modeling space, understanding different stakeholders' use and interpretation of circularity metrics and indicators, identifying common data gaps and data quality challenges, and assessing the robustness of available solutions. The workshop series brought a diverse group of stakeholders - including representatives from U.S. government offices, national labs, nonprofit organizations, industry, and academia - to collect first-hand feedback on needs, priorities, challenges and opportunities in the circularity modeling and analysis space. The workshop discussions highlighted numerous common needs, priorities and challenges among the interviewed groups. Several topics were frequently discussed, including: 1) Circularity as a pathway for sustainable economic growth: While circularity is generally defined in terms of resource conservation and reducing wasteful disposal of materials, participants agreed that circular strategies should serve broader economic, environmental, and social goals. It is therefore crucial for circularity analysis to look beyond waste reduction and instead evaluate a variety of impact metrics such as cost savings, job creation, air quality, and pollutant emissions. Mutli-criteria decision-making frameworks may be useful for making sense of disparate metrics and evaluating tradeoffs between impact categories.; 2) Economic and social factors are not well understood: Underdevelopment of existing end-of-life (EOL) management infrastructure, inconsistent standardization codes and policy space in reusing recycled content, and suboptimal collection and sorting strategies collectively contribute to uncertainty about the economic potential of circular pathways. The latter observation is consistent among all technologies but more emphasized for renewable energy systems. Social impacts of circularity practices are less understood and less researched than other sustainability aspects.; 3) Inconsistent methods for assessing emerging technologies: LCA and TEA results vary widely depending on the assumptions made with regards to market adoption of new technologies. Emerging technologies suffer limited availability of data needed to conduct a robust circularity analysis. Yet, understanding projected impacts of proposed nascent technology is a key need for different stakeholder groups.; and 4) Lack of temporally and geospatially explicit data: There is a need for open data that represents variations in circularity technologies over time and location. The lack thereof leads to aggregated and potentially misrepresented results in circularity analysis. Sensitivity analyses should be included to verify whether options perceived as more sustainable align with real-world practices.