Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “recycle”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 91 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2018

Comparative environmental and human health evaluations of thermolysis and solvolysis recycling technologies of carbon fiber reinforced polymer waste

Highlights: • Performed life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) of pyrolysis for CFRP waste recycling. • Performed LCIA of solvolysis using supercritical water (SCW) for CFRP recycling. • Performed comparative LCIA of pyrolysis vs SCW-based solvolysis for CFRP recycling. • Closed current knowledge gap about sustainability of SCW-based solvolysis. • Compared LCIA of pyrolyzer’s heating using natural gas in lieu of electricity. - Abstract: This quantitative research aims to compare environmental and human health impacts associated with two recycling technologies of CFRP waste. The ‘baseline’ recycling technology is the conventional thermolysis process via pyrolysis and the ‘alternative’ recycling technology is an emerging chemical treatment via solvolysis using supercritical water (SCW) to digest the thermoset matrix. Two Gate-to-Gate recycling models are developed using GaBi LCA platform. The selected functional unit (FU) is 1 kg CFRP waste and the geographical boundary of this comparative LCIA is defined to be within the U.S. The results of this comparative assessment brought to light new insights about the environmental and human health impacts of CFRP waste recycling via solvolysis using SCW and, therefore, helped close a gap in the current state of knowledge about sustainability of SCW-based solvolysis as compared to pyrolysis. Two research questions are posed to identify whether solvolysis recycling offers more environmental and human health gains relative to the conventional pyrolysis recycling. These research questions lay the basis for formulating two null hypotheses (H{sub 0,1} and H{sub 0,2}) and their associated research hypotheses (H{sub 1,1} and H{sub 1,2}). LCIA results interpretation included ‘base case’ scenarios, ‘sensitivity studies,’ and ‘scenarios analysis.’ The results revealed that: (a) recycling via solvolysis using SCW exhibits no gains in environmental and human health impacts relative to those impacts associated with recycling via pyrolysis and (b) use of natural gas in lieu of electricity for pyrolyzer’s heating reduces the environmental and human health impacts by 37% (lowest) and up to 95.7% (highest). It is recommended that on-going experimental efforts that focus only on identifying the best solvent for solvolysis-based recycling should also consider quantification of the energy intensity as well as environmental and human health impacts of the proposed solvents.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2015

Improving actinides recycling, a key step towards a more sustainable nuclear energy - 15617

Nuclear energy is thought to be one of the energy sources that could help mitigating the global climate change together with the renewables, due to its low green-house-gases emissions, its reliability and its high load power. However, nuclear energy will only develop if future nuclear energy systems meet the criteria of sustainability in terms of durability, bearability and liveability. Nowadays, many countries chose the so-called once-through cycle which basically considers spent nuclear fuel as a waste, whereas others reprocess their spent fuel to recover the energetically-valuable material Pu (and partially U) to produce Mixed Oxide Fuel (MOX) to be irradiated in a second cycle (twice-through cycle). Both options can be considered relevant, fitting diverse criteria; but if we consider a long lasting prospective for nuclear options, the once-through cycle sustainability is clearly lower (low consumption of natural resource, no recycling of potentially valuable energetic material, larger volume of waste...). Reversely, twice-through cycle can be seen as a first step towards an improved sustainability with a partial recycling of U/Pu and the reduction of the waste volume and toxicity. However, it is likely not sufficient for the long-term and implementing more efficient recycling is a key-driver to improve the environmental friendship, the economics and the social acceptability of nuclear energy. Future nuclear fuel cycles will have to better preserve the natural resource by improving the actinides recycling, to minimize the volume and toxicity of nuclear waste, to ensure their long-term confinement and to prevent any proliferation-risk. Such a gradual and progressive process calls for implementing appropriate technologies, either for reactors but also for fuel treatment/recycling facilities. This paper will describe the successive step that would allow improving the overall sustainability. Indeed, recycled Pu can be once recycled in MOX fuel feeding similar PWRs (Pressurized Water Reactor). Together with the recycling of reprocessed uranium, this first step already allows preserving ∼17% of the natural U resource and to confine ultimate wastes without Pu in a tailored durable wasteform. Subsequent Pu multi-recycling requires introducing Fast Reactors (FR) to efficiently use U-238 available in natural and depleted uranium stockpiles. In parallel, recycling processes would have to be adapted for treating spent LWR and SFR MOX spent fuels, which is currently under study thanks to an ambitious R and D program dedicated on MOX treatment and recycling. For the longer term, minor actinides recycling would allow decreasing the waste burden towards future generations: (i) Am-recycling leads to decrease the waste residual heat-power and increase the repository density and lifespan, (ii) Cm-recycling leads to decrease waste long-term toxicity. The stepwise implementation of these different processes defines a path towards sustainability for nuclear energy that are described in this paper from the fuel cycle viewpoint. (authors)

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2016

Impacts of Recycling Time on Fuel Cycle Transition

The purpose of this work is to show the importance of assumptions regarding the recycling time for time-dependent fuel cycle scenarios that involve transition from the current state of the U.S. fuel cycle to cycles based on continuous recycling via fast reactors. The recycling time is defined here as the total time between when the fuel is discharged from the reactor core and when its recovered heavy metals (HM) are recycled back into the core as part of the fresh/new fuel. The main processes occurring within the recycling time include cooling, separations, and fuel fabrication. The minimum recycling time required for fast reactor fuel largely depends on the minimum cooling time, which will be longer if discharged fuel needs to be moved to a centrally-located separations facility. A longer cooling time is needed for the heat load and fuel characteristics to reach safer levels for handling and transportation. Therefore, if the separation and fabrication facilities were co-located with reactors on-site, then the total recycling time could be reduced by several years. For fuel cycle transition scenarios in which external fissile materials (Pu or TRU) are limiting, these longer recycling times may prolong the transition to the continuous recycling system of fast reactors as well as impact the fuel cycle system performance during the transition. Therefore, in order to demonstrate the quantitative impacts of these recycling time assumptions, an example scenario of transition to the fast reactor fleet with continuous recycle was modeled in the fuel cycle systems code DYMOND. It must be emphasized that this is a point study that demonstrates how a longer recycling time can impact the rate of transition under specific conditions and assumptions. For alternative scenarios, such as those in which there are no fissile material constraints, there are likely no significant impacts due to recycling time. (authors)

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Vitrification of Hanford Tank Wastes for Condensate Recycle and Feed Composition Changeover Testing (Rev. 1)

During the vitrification of Hanford Site nuclear waste at the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP), which is a part of the safe and efficient retrieval, treatment, and disposal mission of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of River Protection, the offgas condensate generated from the waste-to-glass conversion is currently planned to be concentrated by evaporation in the Effluent Management Facility (EMF). This concentrated condensate can then be recycled back to the incoming waste and vitrified. To test the recycle process, an apparatus was designed and built to mimic the EMF evaporator and was then used to concentrate a volume of condensate produced during the vitrification of a sample of Hanford tank 241-AP-107 (referred to herein as AP-107) waste in a continuous laboratory-scale melter (CLSM). The concentrated condensate was added to an additional sample of AP-107 waste, to mimic one round of the recycle process, and the combined solution was vitrified, producing a second round of recycle condensate. In the current study, the EMF test apparatus was used to concentrate the second-round recycle condensate under evaporation conditions (at 45 °C and 1.4 psia) designed to emulate EMF operation. The condensate was successfully concentrated by a factor of ~10 while retaining over 95 % of the technetium-99 (99Tc), Cs, and I inventories in the concentrate. Another portion of AP-107 waste was retrieved by Washington River Protection Solutions, LLC (WRPS) and transferred to Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), where it was pretreated and then combined with the second-round recycle AP-107 condensate concentrate and glass-forming chemicals (GFCs) to form the two-time recycle AP-107 melter feed, approximating a second round to the recycling action to be performed at the WTP. A portion of AP-105 waste was also retrieved by WRPS and provided to PNNL for pretreatment and combining with GFCs to form AP-105 melter feed. The two-time recycle AP-107 and AP-105 melter feeds were processed consecutively in the CLSM. The CLSM run proceeded for 13.63 hours, producing 9.70 kg of glass for an average glass production rate of 1464 kg m 2 d -1 during the two-time recycle AP-107 feed charging and 1568 kg m 2 d -1 during the AP-105 feed charging. The rate during AP-107 charging was essentially equivalent to the rate when processing no-recycle AP-107 feed and lower than that achieved when processing one-time recycle AP-107 feed. However, all rates were within the potential range of variability when processing melter feeds with similar composition in the CLSM. Likewise, the rate during AP-105 charging was higher than the previous rate processing AP-105, but within the potential CLSM range. The cold-cap characteristics changed from the typically thin AP-107 cold cap to a foamy-edged cold cap as previously seen with AP-105 shortly after transitioning to the AP-105 melter feed. The glass produced during the CLSM run was within 10 % of its target composition for the primary glass components. The CaO and Li 2 O targets varied by more than 1 wt% between the two-time recycle AP-107 and AP-105 glass targets and it took about 2 turnovers of the CLSM glass inventory to reach a relative chemical steady state in the glass for CaO and Li 2 O after the melter feed inputs were switched.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2012

Assessing recycling versus incineration of key materials in municipal waste: The importance of efficient energy recovery and transport distances

Highlights: Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer We model the environmental impact of recycling and incineration of household waste. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer Recycling of paper, glass, steel and aluminium is better than incineration. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer Recycling and incineration of cardboard and plastic can be equally good alternatives. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer Recyclables can be transported long distances and still have environmental benefits. Black-Right-Pointing-Pointer Paper has a higher environmental benefit than recyclables found in smaller amounts. - Abstract: Recycling of materials from municipal solid waste is commonly considered to be superior to any other waste treatment alternative. For the material fractions with a significant energy content this might not be the case if the treatment alternative is a waste-to-energy plant with high energy recovery rates. The environmental impacts from recycling and from incineration of six material fractions in household waste have been compared through life cycle assessment assuming high-performance technologies for material recycling as well as for waste incineration. The results showed that there are environmental benefits when recycling paper, glass, steel and aluminium instead of incinerating it. For cardboard and plastic the results were more unclear, depending on the level of energy recovery at the incineration plant, the system boundaries chosen and which impact category was in focus. Further, the environmental impact potentials from collection, pre-treatment and transport was compared to the environmental benefit from recycling and this showed that with the right means of transport, recyclables can in most cases be transported long distances. However, the results also showed that recycling of some of the material fractions can only contribute marginally in improving the overall waste management system taking into consideration their limited content in average Danish household waste.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2023

Development of wind turbine blade recycling baselines in the United States

Over the past several years, the wind energy industry has received scrutiny regarding wind turbine blade (WTB) recycling due to the landfilling of WTBs caused by a lack of industrially viable recycling solutions. The amount of WTBs that will need to be recycled is set to increase in the United States as the deployment of wind energy is expected to rapidly grow to meet the nation's energy goals by 2035. While significant progress has been made worldwide, it is still unclear which WTB recycling solutions would be the most cost and energy effective within the United States for the existing fleet of wind turbines. To guide researchers and industry with a clear path forward, a range of options for WTB recycling in the United States are modeled through development of baseline scenarios and the use of formal life cycle assessment (LCA). Model data have been collected through literature review, industry engagement, and expert opinion regarding current end of life practices and considerations surrounding equipment, labor, and logistics. A detailed baseline for WTB decommissioning processes has been developed and used to assess alternative approaches, such as on-site shredding to compare the impacts on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The developed LCA model and baseline scenarios for WTB recycling is used to assess the current WTB decommissioning practices in the United States along with emerging recycling pathways, including cement kiln co-processing and pyrolysis. Initial findings indicate that there are different approaches to decommissioning WTBs in the United States, each of which has unique implications for recycling. In light of this finding, additional results from the modeling will be used to better understand decommissioning practices and assist in making educated decisions on recycling pathways for the future. Throughout the analysis, focus was given to where international efforts might differ from the United States. WTB recycling is occurring worldwide, and different countries have different drivers for creating markets for recycled WTB materials. The contrasts and similarities between the United States and other countries offer insight to areas of opportunity that the United States could investigate and areas that can be readily transferred from existing solutions. By modeling and characterizing the current decommissioning practices and potential recycling solutions for the United States, a clearer vision will be created for pathways forward as to how to handle end of life WTBs to enable more efficient and cost-effective opportunities for material recovery from end-of-life WTBs.

Korey, Matt↗
DOE OSTI2024

Assessment of Different Application Grades of Post-Consumer Recycled (PCR) Polyolefins from Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) in the United States

The recycling of plastics has been gaining traction in the following years as many companies, organizations, and governments are pushing toward a more circular economy. However, plastic recycling rates are still small compared to those of plastic production, especially for polyolefins, such as high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and polypropylene (PP). With the goal of finding applications for recycled plastic resin, recyclers can face some challenges associated with the heterogeneity in the polymer properties of plastic waste streams, which could hinder the full potential of recycling due to the lack of a consistent feedstock. Here, this study assessed how an additional sorting step of recycled HDPE and PP streams, separating them into two categories based on the previous application, impacts the recycled polymer properties, such as physical, molecular, and thermal. It was demonstrated that manually separating HDPE articles previously processed by extrusion blow molding (EBM) or injection molding (IM) and PP articles by thermoforming (TF) or IM could yield recycled resins with more consistent properties, considering the significant differences between them. This highlights that an additional sorting step would allow recyclers to target more premium or currently unattainable plastic processing applications with postconsumer recycled (PCR) resins, which could significantly promote an increase in plastic recycling rates. Nevertheless, the development of new technologies is needed to automate this extra sorting step, as with the increase in scale manual sortation could not be feasible and cost-effective, reducing the attractiveness of using PCR resins in comparison to virgin ones.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2013

Cost effectiveness of recycling: A systems model

Highlights: • Curbside collection of recyclables reduces overall system costs over a range of conditions. • When avoided costs for recyclables are large, even high collection costs are supported. • When avoided costs for recyclables are not great, there are reduced opportunities for savings. • For common waste compositions, maximizing curbside recyclables collection always saves money. - Abstract: Financial analytical models of waste management systems have often found that recycling costs exceed direct benefits, and in order to economically justify recycling activities, externalities such as household expenses or environmental impacts must be invoked. Certain more empirically based studies have also found that recycling is more expensive than disposal. Other work, both through models and surveys, have found differently. Here we present an empirical systems model, largely drawn from a suburban Long Island municipality. The model accounts for changes in distribution of effort as recycling tonnages displace disposal tonnages, and the seven different cases examined all show that curbside collection programs that manage up to between 31% and 37% of the waste stream should result in overall system savings. These savings accrue partially because of assumed cost differences in tip fees for recyclables and disposed wastes, and also because recycling can result in a more efficient, cost-effective collection program. These results imply that increases in recycling are justifiable due to cost-savings alone, not on more difficult to measure factors that may not impact program budgets.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2015

Flows of engineered nanomaterials through the recycling process in Switzerland

Highlights: • Recycling is one of the likely end-of-life fates of nanoproducts. • We assessed the material flows of four nanomaterials in the Swiss recycling system. • After recycling, most nanomaterials will flow to landfills or incineration plants. • Recycled construction waste, plastics and textiles may contain nanomaterials. - Abstract: The use of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) in diverse applications has increased during the last years and this will likely continue in the near future. As the number of applications increase, more and more waste with nanomaterials will be generated. A portion of this waste will enter the recycling system, for example, in electronic products, textiles and construction materials. The fate of these materials during and after the waste management and recycling operations is poorly understood. The aim of this work is to model the flows of nano-TiO{sub 2}, nano-ZnO, nano-Ag and CNT in the recycling system in Switzerland. The basis for this study is published information on the ENMs flows on the Swiss system. We developed a method to assess their flow after recycling. To incorporate the uncertainties inherent to the limited information available, we applied a probabilistic material flow analysis approach. The results show that the recycling processes does not result in significant further propagation of nanomaterials into new products. Instead, the largest proportion will flow as waste that can subsequently be properly handled in incineration plants or landfills. Smaller fractions of ENMs will be eliminated or end up in materials that are sent abroad to undergo further recovery processes. Only a reduced amount of ENMs will flow back to the productive process of the economy in a limited number of sectors. Overall, the results suggest that risk assessment during recycling should focus on occupational exposure, release of ENMs in landfills and incineration plants, and toxicity assessment in a small number of recycled inputs.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2023

Complementary roles for mechanical and solvent-based recycling in low-carbon, circular polypropylene

Plastic recycling presents a vexing challenge. Mechanical recycling offers substantial greenhouse gas emissions savings relative to virgin plastic production but suffers from degraded aesthetic and mechanical properties. Polypropylene, one of the most widely used and lowest-cost plastics, features methyl pendants along the polymer backbone, rendering it particularly susceptible to declining properties, performance, and aesthetics across a succession of mechanical recycles. Advanced processes, such as solvent-assisted recycling, promise near-virgin quality outputs at a greater energy and emissions footprint. Mechanical and advanced recycling are often presented as competing options, but real-world plastic waste streams are likely to require preprocessing regardless of whether they are routed to an advanced process. This study quantifies the life-cycle greenhouse gas implications of multiple recycling strategies and proposes a system in which mechanical and solvent-assisted recycling can be leveraged together to boost recycling rates and satisfy demand for a wider range of product applications. Polypropylene can be recovered from mixed-plastic bales produced at material recovery facilities and processed through mechanical recycling, with a varying fraction sent for further upgrading via solvent-assisted recycling to produce material approved for food packaging and other higher-quality applications. The resulting mechanically recycled rigid polypropylene reduces life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions by 80% relative to the same quantity of virgin material, while the upgraded higher-quality material achieves GHG savings of 30%.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
NASA NTRS2015

The Life Cycle Cost (LCC) of Life Support Recycling and Resupply

Brief human space missions supply all the crew's water and oxygen from Earth. The multiyear International Space Station (ISS) program instead uses physicochemical life support systems to recycle water and oxygen. This paper compares the Life Cycle Cost (LCC) of recycling to the LCC of resupply for potential future long duration human space missions. Recycling systems have high initial development costs but relatively low durationdependent support costs. This means that recycling is more cost effective for longer missions. Resupplying all the water and oxygen requires little initial development cost but has a much higher launch mass and launch cost. The cost of resupply increases as the mission duration increases. Resupply is therefore more cost effective than recycling for shorter missions. A recycling system pays for itself when the resupply LCC grows greater over time than the recycling LCC. The time when this occurs is called the recycling breakeven date. Recycling will cost very much less than resupply for long duration missions within the Earth-Moon system, such as a future space station or Moon base. But recycling would cost about the same as resupply for long duration deep space missions, such as a Mars trip. Because it is not possible to provide emergency supplies or quick return options on the way to Mars, more expensive redundant recycling systems will be needed.

recycling↗
DOE OSTI2011

Informal electronic waste recycling: A sector review with special focus on China

Informal recycling is a new and expanding low cost recycling practice in managing Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE or e-waste). It occurs in many developing countries, including China, where current gaps in environmental management, high demand for second-hand electronic appliances and the norm of selling e-waste to individual collectors encourage the growth of a strong informal recycling sector. This paper gathers information on informal e-waste management, takes a look at its particular manifestations in China and identifies some of the main difficulties of the current Chinese approach. Informal e-waste recycling is not only associated with serious environmental and health impacts, but also the supply deficiency of formal recyclers and the safety problems of remanufactured electronic products. Experiences already show that simply prohibiting or competing with the informal collectors and informal recyclers is not an effective solution. New formal e-waste recycling systems should take existing informal sectors into account, and more policies need to be made to improve recycling rates, working conditions and the efficiency of involved informal players. A key issue for China's e-waste management is how to set up incentives for informal recyclers so as to reduce improper recycling activities and to divert more e-waste flow into the formal recycling sector.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2023

Unlocking the value of recycling scrap from Li-ion battery manufacturing: Challenges and outlook

The growing global trend toward mobile electrification is primarily driven by the rising popularity of electric vehicles, leading to an unprecedented surge in demand for lithium-ion batteries. As a result, the importance of battery recycling has become increasingly apparent. Battery recycling aims to recover valuable materials from both spent batteries and battery manufacturing scraps. By recycling these resources, the reliance on raw material extraction is reduced, which benefits resource conservation and minimizes the need for new mining operations. While significant attention has been given to the recycling of spent batteries, less emphasis has been placed on the recycling and recovery of battery scraps. However, it is important to recognize that many gigafactories are still taking steps to improve their manufacturing processes, and end-of-life batteries take approximately 10 years to become suitable for recycling, the manufacturing scraps will serve as the primary sources for recycling in this decade. This review delves into the progress in recycling technologies associated with battery manufacturing scraps, shedding light on the challenges, opportunities, and evolving perspectives surrounding battery manufacturing scrap recycling. In conclusion, we aim to contribute to the knowledge base of battery manufacturing scrap recycling and promote a more comprehensive understanding of the subject.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2014

Recycling of non-metallic fractions from waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE): A review

Highlights: • NMFs from WEEE were treated by incineration or land filling in the past. • Environmental risks such as heavy metals and BFRs will be the major problems during the NMFs recycling processes. • Methods and technologies of recycling the two types of NMFs from WEEE, plastics, glasses are reviewed. • More environmental impact assessment should be carried out to evaluate the environmental risks of the recycling products. - Abstract: The world’s waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) consumption has increased incredibly in recent decades, which have drawn much attention from the public. However, the major economic driving force for recycling of WEEE is the value of the metallic fractions (MFs). The non-metallic fractions (NMFs), which take up a large proportion of E-wastes, were treated by incineration or landfill in the past. NMFs from WEEE contain heavy metals, brominated flame retardant (BFRs) and other toxic and hazardous substances. Combustion as well as landfill may cause serious environmental problems. Therefore, research on resource reutilization and safe disposal of the NMFs from WEEE has a great significance from the viewpoint of environmental protection. Among the enormous variety of NMFs from WEEE, some of them are quite easy to recycle while others are difficult, such as plastics, glass and NMFs from waste printed circuit boards (WPCBs). In this paper, we mainly focus on the intractable NMFs from WEEE. Methods and technologies of recycling the two types of NMFs from WEEE, plastics, glass are reviewed in this paper. For WEEE plastics, the pyrolysis technology has the lowest energy consumption and the pyrolysis oil could be obtained, but the containing of BFRs makes the pyrolysis recycling process problematic. Supercritical fluids (SCF) and gasification technology have a potentially smaller environmental impact than pyrolysis process, but the energy consumption is higher. With regard to WEEE glass, lead removing is requisite before the reutilization of the cathode ray tube (CRT) funnel glass, and the recycling of liquid crystal display (LCD) glass is economically viable for the containing of precious metals (indium and tin). However, the environmental assessment of the recycling process is essential and important before the industrialized production stage. For example, noise and dust should be evaluated during the glass cutting process. This study could contribute significantly to understanding the recycling methods of NMFs from WEEE and serve as guidance for the future technology research and development.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2014

Recyclability assessment of nano-reinforced plastic packaging

Highlights: • The study compares the recyclability of polymers with and without nanoparticles. • Visual appearance, material quality and mechanical properties are evaluated. • Minor variations in mechanical properties in R-PE and R-PP with nanoparticles. • Slight degradation of R-PET which affect mechanical properties. • Colour deviations in recycled PE, PP and PET in ranges higher that 0.3 units. - Abstract: Packaging is expected to become the leading application for nano-composites by 2020 due to the great advantages on mechanical and active properties achieved with these substances. As novel materials, and although there are some current applications in the market, there is still unknown areas under development. One key issue to be addressed is to know more about the implications of the nano-composite packaging materials once they become waste. The present study evaluates the extrusion process of four nanomaterials (Layered silicate modified nanoclay (Nanoclay1), Calcium Carbonate (CaCO{sub 3}), Silver (Ag) and Zinc Oxide (ZnO) as part of different virgin polymer matrices of polyethylene (PE), Polypropylene (PP) and Polyethyleneterephtalate (PET). Thus, the following film plastic materials: (PE–Nanoclay1, PE–CaCO{sub 3}, PP–Ag, PET–ZnO, PET–Ag, PET–Nanoclay1) have been processed considering different recycling scenarios. Results on recyclability show that for PE and PP, in general terms and except for some minor variations in yellowness index, tensile modulus, tensile strength and tear strength (PE with Nanoclay1, PP with Ag), the introduction of nanomaterial in the recycling streams for plastic films does not affect the final recycled plastic material in terms of mechanical properties and material quality compared to conventional recycled plastic. Regarding PET, results show that the increasing addition of nanomaterial into the recycled PET matrix (especially PET–Ag) could influence important properties of the recycled material, due to a slight degradation of the polymer, such as increasing pinholes, degradation fumes and elongation at break. Moreover, it should be noted that colour deviations were visible in most of the samples (PE, PP and PET) in levels higher than 0.3 units (limit perceivable by the human eye). The acceptance of these changes in the properties of recycled PE, PP and PET will depend on the specific applications considered (e.g. packaging applications are more strict in material quality that urban furniture or construction products)

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2017

Methods to estimate the transfer of contaminants into recycling products – A case study from Austria

Highlights: • Recycling of waste materials includes the risk of recycling hazardous substances. • Comparison of contaminants in recycling products to primary products and check of compliance with limit values. • Evaluation matrix to quickly scan the environmental and health risks of wastes for recycling. • Optimised sorting and quality control systems prevent transfer of contaminants into product cycles. - Abstract: Recycling of waste materials is desirable to reduce the consumption of limited primary resources, but also includes the risk of recycling unwanted, hazardous substances. In Austria, the legal framework demands secondary products must not present a higher risk than comparable products derived from primary resources. However, the act provides no definition on how to assess this risk potential. This paper describes the development of different quantitative and qualitative methods to estimate the transfer of contaminants in recycling processes. The quantitative methods comprise the comparison of concentrations of harmful substances in recycling products to corresponding primary products and to existing limit values. The developed evaluation matrix, which considers further aspects, allows for the assessment of the qualitative risk potential. The results show that, depending on the assessed waste fraction, particular contaminants can be critical. Their concentrations were higher than in comparable primary materials and did not comply with existing limit values. On the other hand, the results show that a long-term, well-established quality control system can assure compliance with the limit values. The results of the qualitative assessment obtained with the evaluation matrix support the results of the quantitative assessment. Therefore, the evaluation matrix can be suitable to quickly screen waste streams used for recycling to estimate their potential environmental and health risks. To prevent the transfer of contaminants into product cycles, improved data of relevant substances in secondary resources are necessary. In addition, regulations for material recycling are required to assure adequate quality control measures, including limit values.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2018

Global status of recycling waste solar panels: A review

Highlights: • Solar panel recycling minimizes waste of environmental and economic resources. • Several processing methods from the literature are evaluated. • The status of the management for waste solar panels are systemically reviewed and discussed. • Policy should be formulated to encourage recycling of waste solar panels. • Manufacturers should take greater responsibility for recycling. - Abstract: With the enormous growth in the development and utilization of solar-energy resources, the proliferation of waste solar panels has become problematic. While current research into solar panels has focused on how to improve the efficiency of the production capacity, the dismantling and recycling of end-of-life (EOL) panels are seldom considered, as can be seen, for instance, in the lack of dedicated solar-panel recycling plants. EOL solar-panel recycling can effectively save natural resources and reduce the cost of production. To address the environmental conservation and resource recycling issues posed by the huge amount of waste solar panels regarding environmental conservation and resource recycling, the status of the management and recycling technologies for waste solar panels are systemically reviewed and discussed in this article. This review can provide a quantitative basis to support the recycling of PV panels, and suggests future directions for public policy makers. At present, from the technical aspect, the research on solar panel recovery is facing many problems, and we need to further develop an economically feasible and non-toxic technology. The research on solar photovoltaic panels’ management at the end of life is just beginning in many countries, and there is a need for further improvement and expansion of producer responsibility.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2018

Evaluating Opportunities for a Circular Economy: An Investigation of Economic and Decision-Making Factors Underlying Recycling, Reusing and Remanufacturing Habits in U.S. Consumers and Manufacturers

Aluminum is increasingly used in consumer products and in lightweighting applications for airplanes, passenger cars and other vehicles. However, smelting primary aluminum is an energy-intensive process, and advanced low-energy smelting technologies have not yet been successfully scaled up to commercial production. Another way to reduce energy consumption associated with aluminum use is to increase the amount of secondary aluminum (recovered from manufacturing scrap and from recycled products) used as a raw material, thereby increasing the circularity of aluminum flows. This too has proven difficult due to the relatively low rates of recycling for most aluminum-containing products in the U.S., and the inevitable alloy mixing that occurs when end-of-life products are broken down during recycling. We previously investigated strategies for increasing secondary aluminum use, within limitations imposed by the presence of alloying elements and alloy requirements for new products. In this work, we provide context and assess the feasibility of those strategies by investigating established patterns and attitudes around recycling, remanufacturing, and other methods that promote circular material flows. Our objective is to identify technological, logistical, economic, and other barriers that exist to implementing such methods in aluminum-intensive sectors. A secondary objective is to construct a hypothetical blue-sky scenario in which aluminum use in the U.S. approaches a fully circular material flow. The blue-sky scenario allows us to identify future barriers to increasing material flow circularity and to gauge the scenario's attainability relative to current industrial practice. Our focus goes beyond recycling, in which an end-of-life product is disassembled, processed, and then separated into its component materials which serve as inputs for new products. While common in the U.S. and globally, this type of recycling involves non-trivial energy expenditures in the scrapping and processing stages and leads to impure streams of mixed secondary materials that may not be feasible or economical to use. We also consider consumer and manufacturer practices including refurbishing, remanufacturing, repair and reuse. None of these practices require that products are broken down into separate material streams before reconstitution into new products; the energy requirements are therefore lower, and the secondary components potentially easier and more economical to use. We evaluate each of these methods in terms of their economic viability for the consumer, the (re-)manufacturing firm and the scrapping and recycling firm. We also investigate barriers to and drivers of these circular practices, with particular attention paid to consumer attitudes. Initial research indicates that for consumer recycling, convenience of the recycling system is of paramount importance, with pre-existing attitudes towards recycling on a personal and community level almost as important. On the manufacturer side, a variety of logistical and economic barriers exist to instituting widespread product take-back and refurbishment programs. To better understand these barriers and how they can be overcome, we investigate several U.S. manufacturers that currently operate take-back, refurbishment and repair programs for their products, and conduct a review of similar programs in European countries where such programs are mandated by law rather than being conducted voluntarily.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗