Report on theEnvironmental Benefitsof Recycling
Bureau of International Recycling (BIR)

Report on the Environmental Benefits of Recycling
Prepared by: Professor Sue Grimes, Professor John Donaldson, Dr Gabriel Cebrian Gomez
Centre for Sustainable Production & Resource Efficiency (CSPRE)

Imperial College London
Commissioned by the Bureau of International Recycling
Under the project leadership of Roger Brewster, Metal Interests Ltd.
October 2008

Contents
Foreword		Preface		
Executive Summary
Understanding the Brief
Methodology		
Primary and Secondary Metal Production
Primary and Secondary Aluminium Production
		 Primary Production
		 Secondary Production
		 Energy Requirement and Carbon Footprint Data for Aluminium		 Summary		
Primary and Secondary Copper Production
		 Primary Production
		 Secondary Production
		 Energy Requirement and Carbon Footprint Data for Copper
		 Summary		
Primary and Secondary Ferrous Production
		 Primary Production
		 Secondary Production
		 Energy Requirement and Carbon Footprint Data for Steel Production
		 Summary		
Primary and Secondary Lead Production
		 Primary Production
		 Secondary Production
		 Energy Requirement and Carbon Footprint Data for Lead
		 Summary		
Primary and Secondary Nickel Production
		 Primary Production
		 Secondary Production
		 Energy Requirement and Carbon Footprint Data for Nickel
		 Summary		
Primary and Secondary Tin Production
		 Primary Production
		 Secondary Production
		 Energy Requirement and Carbon Footprint Data for Tin
		 Summary		
Primary and Secondary Zinc Production
		 Primary Production
		 Secondary Production
		 Energy Requirement and Carbon Footprint Data for Zinc
		 Summary		
Primary and Secondary Paper Production
Primary and Secondary Production of Paper
		 Primary Production
		 Secondary Production
		 Energy Requirements and Carbon Footprint Data for Paper Production
		 Summary		Sensitivity Analyses
Variation in Secondary Energy Requirement Compared with Primary
Variation in Primary Energy Data from Benchmark Values
Variation in Carbon Footprint for Secondary Production Compared with Primary Production
Variation in Carbon Footprint Data for Primary Production from the Benchmark Data
Variation in Energy by Country
Conclusion		Bibliography		
Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling

2
3
4
5
6
7
7
7
7
8
10
11
11
11
12
13
14
14
15
15
17
18
18
18
18
20
21
21
21
22
23
24
24
24
24
25
26
26
26
27
29
30
30
30
31
31
34
35
35
35
37
37
37
42
44
Page 1Foreword
The Imperial College remit was to use published literature data to estimate the carbon dioxide savings that could
be made through the recycling of metals and paper. The key to the document produced was the need to avoid bias,
and for this reason the concept of benchmark values was developed.

The benchmark values were based on the literature data and are intended to reflect what was achievable by boththe primary and secondary metal industries. Given time, the Imperial group would have preferred to have used verifiableindustry data provided for specific plants from different countries but, since this was not possible, sensitivity analyses
on the benchmark data have been carried out. The sensitivity analysis data enable any individuals or groups to input any
industry-specific data values that they might have for comparison with the benchmarks. We believe that the benchmark
information is completely defensible and very conservative. Undoubtedly, sections of industry may claim greater savings
based on their own databases, but there is a danger in over-stressing industry data which have not been independently
verified and which in any case will differ from country to country depending upon the sophistication of both the energy
supply and the metal production plant. The purpose of this report was to produce information on carbon dioxide savings
that is defensible, and to provide a balanced comparison between primary and secondary production from delivery of oreor secondary material to a metal-producing plant. It is hoped that this report will be used by industry to assess their own
situation in terms of secondary metal production and perhaps to provide information that can be independently verified
to permit further more accurate calculations of carbon dioxide savings in specific cases.

Roger Brewster
Metals Interests Limited

Page 2

Report on Environmental Benefits of RecyclingPreface
In March 2008, Roger Brewster of Metal Interests Limited, UK, on behalf of the Bureau of International Recycling (BIR)
in Brussels, commissioned Professor Sue Grimes of Imperial College and her team to carry out research and delivera report on the Environmental Benefits of Recycling.

Imperial College was established in 1907 through the merger of the Royal College of Science, the City and Guilds
College and the Royal School of Mines. In 2007, Imperial College celebrated its centenary and, coincident with thisdate, it withdrew its long-standing association with the University of London to become a university in its own right.
Imperial College owns one of the largest estates in the UK university sector and resides in the heart of London withits main campus at South Kensington. The College has over 2,900 academic and research staff in total and morethan 12,200 students, of whom approximately one third are postgraduates. The College has strong international
links with students from over 110 countries.
Imperial is ranked fifth in the world and has world-renowned academic expertise across its four faculties of Natural
Sciences, Engineering, Medicine and the Imperial College Business School. The College has a number of cross-faculty
initiatives that bring together College-wide expertise to focus on grand challenge research themes; these include
the Grantham Institute for Climate Change, the Energy Futures Laboratories and the Porter Institute for plant-based
biofuels.
The College’s academics have strong research groups delivering innovative solutions in all aspects of science,engineering, technology and business, and have taken a lead in guiding policy at national and international levels.
In 2005, the SITA Trust (the Trust body of SITA UK) and the Royal Academy of Engineering established a Chair
in Waste Management at Imperial College. The holder of the post, Professor Sue Grimes (the first lady in the UK
to be supported by the Royal Academy of Engineering to a professorship), is championing the creation of a centre forexcellence in Sustainable Production and Resource Efficiency that brings together disparate Imperial research groups
to provide a focus for collaborative research, in particular on key sustainability issues. The Centre draws on the Collegewide expertise in material recovery, mineral wastes, materials science and material reprocessing, biological treatmentof waste, waste electrical and electronic equipment, biofuels, incineration, energy from waste, carbon captureand sequestration, waste management decision-making tools, landfill science, agricultural waste, radioactive waste,
and epidemiology.

Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling

Page 3

Executive Summary
Energy requirement and carbon footprint values for the production of primary and secondary metals and paper
have been obtained from a survey of the primary literature. The metals included in the survey are aluminium,
copper, ferrous, lead, nickel, tin and zinc.

To avoid complications associated with the early stages of whole life cycles of these materials, benchmark energy
requirements and carbon footprints are extracted from: ore or raw material delivered at the production plant for primarymaterials; and delivered at the secondary plant for secondary material. Benchmark data are reported per 100,000 tonnesof material produced to provide a means of direct comparison between primary and secondary production. These data
are tabulated below for each material separately – as energy requirements and savings per 100,000 tonnesof production of material, and as carbon footprints and savings per 100,000 tonnes of production.

Energy Requirement and Savings in Terajoules (TJ/100,000t)
Material
Aluminium
CopperFerrous
Lead
Nickel
Tin
Zinc
Paper

Primary
4700
1690
1400
1000
2064
1820
2400
3520

Secondary
240
630
1170
13
186
20
1800
1880

Saving/100,000 Tonnes
4460
1060
230
987
1878
1800
600
1640

Carbon Footprint and Savings Expressed in Kilotonnes of CO2 (ktCO2)/100,000 Tonnes
Material

Primary

Secondary

Aluminium
CopperFerrous
Lead
Nickel
Tin
Zinc
Paper

383
125
167
163
212
218
236
0.17

29
44
70
2
22
3
56
0.14

Saving/100,000 Tonnes(% savings CO2 in paretheses)
354
(92%)
81
(65%)
97
(58%)
161
(99%)
190
(90%)
215
(99%)
180
(76%)
0.03
(18%)

The total estimated reduction in CO2 emissions obtained from these data is approximately 500Mt CO2
per annum.
The benchmark figures extracted from the primary literature in this work represent (i) data for situations that are said
to be achievable and (ii) values that are the most acceptable and justifiable.
To deal with variations in the processes involved, sensitivity analyses are provided to show how the data can be handled
to provide comparisons in any situation.

Page 4

Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling

Understanding the Brief
The environmental benefits of recycling can be expressed in many ways, including savings in energy and in useof virgin materials. There appears however to have been very little attempt to express these benefits in terms of carbon
footprint and particularly in savings in carbon dioxide equivalent emissions which would have implications in termsof both the environment and carbon emission.

The brief given by Metal Interests Limited on behalf of BIR is to prepare a report on the environmental benefits of recycling,
identifying the savings that can be made by using recyclables as opposed to primaries, and thereby the carbon credentialsof the recycling industries. In the first instance, the materials to be considered in the study are seven metals – aluminium,
copper, ferrous metals, lead, nickel, tin and zinc – and paper.
The overall aim of the project is to provide verifiable data on the influence of recycling on carbon emissions.
Ideally, the project should be carried out under two key phases.
The first phase (Phase I) would involve two steps:(i) to provide information to the Global Emissions Study of CO2 for recyclables with preliminary information from available
sources. This should provide a preliminary comparison between the use of primary and recycled materials for paper
and metals;(ii) to extend the study to provide additional information from primary scientific sources to verify the preliminary data,and provide new data where appropriate and to produce a report containing verifiable quantitative data.
Since the timescale did not permit detailed optimisation of the data, it is recommended that in the second phase(Phase II) consideration be given to further quantification and verification of the data using individual secondary material
recovery operations throughout the world. This is considered necessary to ensure that the collective data presented
by trade associations and other bodies can be defended, and to allow the secondary materials industries
to be certain of carbon savings achieved prior to second use of their materials by manufacturing industries.
Phase I, the subject of this report, will be the results of a detailed survey of the primary literature on energy consumption
in primary and secondary material recovery.

Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling

Page 5

Methodology
This report contains the results of a detailed survey to obtain information on energy consumption in primary andsecondary material recovery and the carbon emissions associated with these processes. The information obtainedis used in calculations to assess the environmental benefits of recycled materials expressed in both energy terms
and as a carbon footprint.

The most common greenhouse gas emitted is carbon dioxide and a carbon footprint is a quantitative measure of the
carbon dioxide released as a result of an activity expressed as a factor of the greenhouse gas effect of carbon dioxide itself.
Many environmental impacts, including the production of any electricity used in the materials recovery industry, can beconverted into carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2-e) emissions.
The methodology used involved:(i) A detailed survey of the primary literature to extract the data available on energy consumption and associated carbon
emissions.
(ii) The use of energy data and associated carbon emissions, extracted to highlight differences between primary andsecondary production of seven metals - aluminium, copper, ferrous metals, lead, nickel, tin and zinc - and of paper.
The assumptions made in all information provided are identified and the units used in the calculations are expressed
as MegaJoules per kilogram of product for energy and tonnes of CO2­per tonne of product for carbon emissions.
(iii) For each material for both primary and secondary production, best estimates of benchmark energy consumptions
and carbon footprints are used in the comparisons as examples of what can be achieved.
(iv) A summary table comparing the energy consumption and carbon footprint of primary and secondary productionof aluminium, copper, ferrous metals, lead, nickel, tin and zinc, and of paper, is compiled per 100,000 tonnesof production. For all materials, the life cycle boundaries are set to compare the production of (a) primary material
from raw material delivered to the primary production plant to final product, and (b) secondary materials delivered
to the recycling plant to final product.
(v) Sensitivity analyses are carried out on the data obtained using the benchmark values in the summary table to show
how these data can be handled to deal with variations in input such as the details of the energy sources used,the energy/fuel mix for different countries, and the energy efficiency of specific recovery plants.
This report sets out in the section ‘Primary and Secondary Metals Production’ (p.7) the data gathered for each metal.
The energy data obtained are expressed in flow diagrams and all references to the primary literature are given.
For the purposes of comparing primary and secondary production, however, the results for energy consumption andcarbon footprint are those for the following processes: (i) conversion of ore concentrate to metal in primary production,and (ii) from scrap and other secondary materials delivered to a recycling process and converted to metal. This choiceof life cycle boundaries avoids the complications associated with differences in mining and beneficiation of ores andin the collection and transport of scrap to a recycling process.
The data for primary and recycled paper are compared in the section ‘Primary and Secondary Paper Production’ (p.30).
Sensitivity analyses are provided on page 35 to show how data can be handled to provide comparisons and deal with any
variations in processes. Conclusions (p42) drawn from Phase I of the study are presented.

Page 6

Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling

Primary and Secondary Metals Production
The metals are discussed in the order: aluminium, copper, ferrous metals, lead, nickel, tin and zinc.

Primary and Secondary Aluminium Production
In 2006, the tonnages of primary and secondary aluminium produced were approximately 34 and 16Mt respectively,
so that about one third of aluminium demand is satisfied from secondary production.
The difference between primary and secondary production is illustrated in the following figure.

Primary and Secondary Production of AluminiumPrimary Production
Bauxite Mining
Alumina Production/Bayer Process

Secondary Production
Scrap
Old and New Scrap
Dross

New Scrap

Refiners

Remelters

Casting

Casting

Hall Heroult-Electrolysis
CastingPrimary Production
In the Bayer process, the bauxite ore is treated by alkaline digestion to beneficiate the ore. Although the red mud producedin this process is a waste which has major environmental impacts because about 3.2 tonnes of mud are produced
per tonne of aluminium produced, the comparison between primary and secondary aluminium production madein this report starts at the point of delivery of the alumina concentrate to the processing plant.
Primary production of aluminium from the ore concentrate is achieved by an electrolytic process in molten solution.
The Hall Héroult process consists of electrolysis in molten alumina containing molten cryolite (Na3AlF6) to lower
the melting point of the mixture from 2050ºC for the ore concentrate to about 960ºC.
The electrolysis cell consists of a carbon-lined reactor which acts as a cathode, with carbon anodes submergedin the molten electrolyte. In the electrolysis process, the aluminium produced is denser than the molten electrolyte
and is deposited at the bottom of the cell, from where it is cast into ingots. At the anodes, the anodic reaction is theconversion of oxygen in the cell to carbon dioxide by reaction with the carbon of the anodes. The process resultsin the production of between 2 and 4% dross.

Secondary Production
All secondary aluminium arisings are treated by refiners or remelters. Remelters accept only new scrap metal or efficiently
sorted old scrap whose composition is relatively known. Refiners, on the other hand, can work with all types of scrap as
their process includes refinement of the metal to remove unwanted impurities. In both processes, the molten aluminium
undergoes oxidation at the surface which has to be skimmed off as a dross. In Europe, about 2.5% of the feedstock
aluminium in the refining process is converted to dross.

Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling

Page 7

Energy Requirement and Carbon Footprint Tables for Aluminium
The gross energy requirement for primary aluminium production has been estimated at 120MJ/kg Al based on usinghydroelectricity with 89% energy efficiency. As alternatives to hydroelectricity, use of black coal for electricity generation
with an efficiency of 35% or natural gas with an efficiency of 54% would give gross energy estimates of approximately
211 and 150MJ/kg Al respectively. The data in the following table are the gross energy requirements that have been quoted
in various publications for production of primary aluminium by the Bayer-Hall Héroult route, along with the assumptions
that the authors made on the fuel used.

Energy Requirements of Production of Primary Aluminium
Energy Requirements Bayer Hall Héroult RouteSource
MJ/kg Al
Norgate211
Norgate
150
Norgate
120
Cambridge
260
Aus Alu Council
182-212
Grant
207
Choate and Green
133

Notes
Coal (c.e. 35%)
Gas (c.e. 54%)
Hydro (c.e. 89%)
Coal (c.e. 35%)
Coal (c.e. 35%)
Coal (c.e. 35%)
US average(c.e. – refers to conversion efficiency)

The electricity consumption in the Hall Héroult process is the most energy-demanding aspect of primary productionof aluminium. The energy requirements reported in the literature for the Hall Héroult process alone (i.e. for conversionof treated ore to metal) are in the following table along with the assumptions made on the fuel used.

Energy Requirements of the Hall Héroult Process
Energy Requirements Hall Héroult Process Only
Source
MJ/kg Al
Schwarz
47
IAI
54
Norgate66
Norgate46
IAI
69
Cambridge
55
Cambridge
160
Cambridge
50
Choate and Green
56

Notes
Electricity benchmark
Electricity averageElectricity max
Electricity benchmark
Electricity max
Hydro efficiency 95%
Coal efficiency 35%
100% efficient
US average

For the purpose of comparison of the energy requirements and associated carbon emissions for primary aluminium
production with data for secondary aluminium production, we have assumed that the benchmark process would involve
an electricity benchmark figure of about 47MJ/kg.

Page 8

Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling

The literature data on the carbon footprint for primary production of aluminium following the Bayer-Hall Héroult route andfor the Hall Héroult process alone are in the following tables, respectively, along with the assumptions made by the authors
on the fuel used.

Carbon Footprint for Primary Production of Aluminium
Carbon Footprint Bayer-Hall Héroult RouteSourceCarbon Footprint(tCO2/t Al)
Norgate
22.4
Grant
18.2
Kvande
24
IAI
20
IAI
9.8
Choate and Green
9.11
Choate and Green
5.48
Choate and Green
8.56
Choate and Green
6.71
Choate and Green
8.95

Energy Source
Coal
Coal
Coal
Coal
Hydro 57%, Coal 28%, Natural Gas 9%, Nuclear 5%, Oil 1%
US Average
Inert Anode, Wetted Cathode, ACD 2cm
Carbothermic Reaction
Wetted Cathode and ACD of 2cm
Chloride Reduction of Kaolinite Clays

Carbon Footprint for the Hall Héroult Process
Carbon Footprint Hall Héroult Process Only
SourceCarbon Footprint(tCO2/t Al)
Norgate
7.2
Norgate
4.6
IAI
Choate and Green

7.7
3.83

Notes
Drain Cathode, Inert Anode, Low Temp Electrolyte, Natural Gas 54%
Drain Cathode, Inert Anode, Low Temp Electrolyte,
Hydroelectricity 89%
Average IAI
US Average (Typical)

It has been reported that the production of one tonne of aluminium from scrap requires only 12% of the energy requiredfor primary production. Energy savings of between 90 and 95% have also been reported for secondary aluminium
production compared with primary production, starting with mining the ore and not with as-received concentrate.
The energy requirement to recycle aluminium has been calculated at between 6 and 10MJ/kg assuming efficiencies
of 60-80% in the recycling process.
The energy requirement data for secondary aluminium production are reported in the following table as mean values
for melting and casting and benchmark values for melting and casting. The carbon footprint data included in the tableon the following page have been calculated on the basis of these energy requirement data, using the carbon emission
factor for the UK.

Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling

Page 9Energy Requirement of Secondary Processes for the Production of Aluminium from Scrap
Process
RemeltingCasting

Mean in MJ/kg
4.5
0.5

Benchmark in MJ/kg
2.1
0.3

Carbon Footprint for the Secondary Processes for the Production of Aluminium from Scrap
Process
RemeltingCasting

Benchmark(tCO2/tAl)
0.25
0.04

CO2 Emissions(tCO2/t)
0.54
0.06

Summary
Using the benchmark data for primary and secondary aluminium production from delivered ore concentrate and scrap
respectively, the energy requirements for the production of 100,000 tonnes of aluminium are:Energy requirement for primary production:
Energy requirement for secondary production:

4700TJ
240TJ

Using the energy data, the carbon footprints for primary and secondary production of aluminium on the same basis are:Carbon footprint for primary production:
Carbon footprint for secondary production:

383kt CO2
29kt CO2

Sensitivity analyses on these data are given on page 35 of this report to illustrate the effects of deviations frombenchmark conditions.

Page 10

Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling

Primary and Secondary Copper Production
According to the US Geological Survey, world copper production in 2007 was 15.6Mt. The percentage of copper
recovered from scrap as a percentage of total copper produced has been reported to vary with geographical location
within the range 19-45%.

Primary Production
The major route in primary copper production is the pyrometallurgical route from copper sulfide ores that have been
concentrated usually by flotation to give the concentrate used in the pyrometallurgical process. A very small percentage
of primary copper is recovered from copper ores hydrometallurgically.
In the pyrometallurgical process, the concentrates are roasted to produce a copper matte which contains between
30-50% copper. The matte is reduced to copper metal in a converter process, and the final product is generally purified
by dissolving the copper metal obtained in sulfuric acid and recovering high-purity copper from this solution
by electrowinning.
The hydrometallurgical route involves leaching of the copper oxide ore with sulfuric acid to produce a solution from whichcopper metal can be recovered on the cathodes of an electrowinning process.

Schematic of Copper Production
Pyrometallurgical
Copper Ore

Hydrometallurgical
Waste Streams for Copper Related Processes, CuO Ore

Benefication

Cu Concentrate

Solvent Extraction (SX)
Acid Leaching
Electrowinning

Roasting
Smelting

Copper Matte
Scrap

Fire Refining
Electrorefining

Cu Cathode

Secondary Production
Secondary copper can be produced from scrap and other copper containing materials by pyrometallurgical andhydrometallurgical processes that are similar to those used in primary metal production. The following figure for example
is a flow chart of secondary pyrometallurgical copper production.

Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling

Page 11

Secondary Copper Production By Pyrometallurgy
Low Grade Scrap

Convertor

Smelting

Blister Copper

SLAG

Black Copper

Anode Furnace Refining

High Grade Scrap

Energy Requirement and Carbon Footprint Tables for Copper
There are literature reports suggesting that the energy requirement for secondary copper production is between
35 and 85% that for primary production – the higher value is that reported by the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries,
and this would lead to an estimated 7.3MJ/kg energy saving.
The data for energy required for primary copper production via pyrometallurgical and hydrometallurgical routes are given
in The following figure, and the figure also shows the point in the energy requirement diagram at which scrap copper
would enter the pyrometallurgical process. These are the data on which comparisons between primary and secondary
production have to be based. The data quoted on the extreme left of the figure are for energy calculations basedon different ore grades and by different authors.

Energy Requirements for Copper Production
Hydrometallurgical

Pyrometallurgical
Copper Ore
33MJ/kg(ore 3% Cu)

41.8MJ/kg

Cu Concentrate-15MJ/kg
10.6

57.3MJ/kg(0.5% Cu ore)

47.0MJ/kg(Boliden
0.5% Cu)

Waste Streams for Copper Related Processes, CuO Ore

MiningBenefication

Copper Matte

19.1MJ/kg(Europe)Solvent Extraction (SX)
Acid Leaching
Electrowinning

Roasting
Smelting

Scrap

16.9MJ/kg

Fire Refining 2.8MJ/kg
Electrorefining 3.5MJ/kg

24MJ/kg+1.5 MJ/kg
acid plant

64MJ/kg(from CuS ore
2% Cu)

Cu CathodeThe carbon footprint data for copper production from these data are presented in the following figure.

Page 12

Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling

Carbon Footprint for Copper Production
Hydrometallurgical

Pyrometallurgical
Copper Ore
MiningBenefication

Waste Streams fromCopper Related Processes

3.2tCO2/t

CuS Ore(ore 3% Cu)

MiningCu Concentrate
Roasting
Smelting

Solvent Extraction (SX)
Acid Leaching
Electrowinning

0.81tCO2/t

Copper Matte
Scrap

Fire Refining
Electrorefining

0.21tCO2/t
0.23tCO2/t

1.48tCO2/t

1.25tCO2/t+ 0.09tCO2/tacid plant

Cu CathodeThe benchmark energy requirements for the production of cathode copper metal from primary copper ore concentrateby pyrometallurgy, by hydrometallurgy from soluble copper ores, and for secondary cathode copper metal from scrap
and secondary sources are in the following table.

Benchmark Energy Requirements for Copper Production
Copper Recovery Method

Energy Requirement(MJ/kg Cu)
16.9
25.5
6.3

Pyrometallurgy from Ore Concentrate
Hydrometallurgy from Oxide Ores
Secondary Production from Scrap

Carbon Footprint(tCO2/t Cu)
1.25
1.57
0.44

Summary
Using the benchmark data for primary and secondary copper production from delivered ore concentrate and scrap
respectively, the energy requirements for the production of 100,000 tonnes of copper are:Energy requirement for pyrometallurgical primary production: 1690TJ
Energy requirement for hydrometallurgical primary production: 2550TJ
Energy requirement for secondary production:
630TJ
Using the energy data, the carbon footprints for primary and secondary production of copper on the same basis are:Carbon footprint for pyrometallurgical primary production:
Carbon footprint for hydrometallurgical primary production:
Carbon footprint for secondary production:

125kt CO2
157kt CO2
44kt CO2

Sensitivity analyses on these data are given on page 35 of this report to illustrate the effects of deviations frombenchmark conditions.

Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling

Page 13

Primary and Secondary Ferrous Production
Primary Production
In 2006, world production of steel was 1,245Mt in which scrap consumption amounted to approximately 440Mt.
A schematic representation of iron recovery and steel manufacture is in the following figure. There are four main routes
used for the production of steel, namely: blast furnace/basic oxygen furnace (BF-BOF); electric arc furnace (EAF);
direct reduction (DR) and smelting reduction (SR).

Iron Recovery and Steel ManufacturePrimary Production
MiningPelletisation
SinteringLimestone
Coke

Secondary Production
Ironmaking
MiningFuel

BF-Blast Furnace

DRI-Direct Reduced Iron

Pig Iron

Pig Iron

Basic Oxygen Furnace

Steel

BF-BOF Route

DRI-EAF Route

Scrap Collection
and Preparation

Electric Arc Furnace(EAF)

EAF Route

The BF-BOF route is the most complex and involves the reduction of iron oxide ore with carbon in the furnace.
Liquid iron produced in the blast furnace is referred to as pig iron, and contains about 4% carbon. The amount of carbon
has to be reduced to less than 1% for use in steelmaking, and this reduction is achieved in a basic oxygen furnace (BOF)
in which carbon reacts with oxygen to give carbon dioxide. The oxidation reaction is exothermic and produces enoughenergy to produce a melt. Scrap or ore is introduced at this stage to cool the mix and maintain the temperature
at approximately 1600-1650°C. Blast furnaces consume about 60% of the overall energy demand of a steelworks,
followed by rolling mills (25%), sinter plants (about 9%) and coke ovens (about 7%).
Direct reduction involves the production of primary iron from iron ores to deliver a direct reduced iron (DRI) product fromthe reaction between ores and a reducing gas in the reactor. The DRI product is mainly used as a feedstock in an electricarc furnace (EAF). The main advantage of this process is that the use of coke as a reductant is not required, thus avoiding
the heavy burden on emissions resulting from coke production and use.
The electric arc furnace (EAF) process involves the melting of DRI using the temperature generated by an electric arc
formed between the electrode and the scrap metal, producing an energy of about 35MJ/s which is sufficient to raise thetemperature to 1600ºC. Depending on the quality of product required, the output of the EAF might need further treatment
by secondary metallurgical and casting processes.
Smelting reduction (SR) is a current development that involves a combination of ore reduction and smelting in one reactor,
without the use of coke. The product is liquid pig iron which can be treated and refined in the same way as pig iron fromthe blast furnace.

Page 14

Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling

Secondary Production
Electric arc furnaces (EAF) are used to produce steel from scrap using the same process as that described for the useof DRI as feedstock. Production of steel from scrap has been reported to consume considerably less energy compared
to production of steel from iron ores.

Energy Requirements and Carbon Footprint Tables for Steel Production
The literature values for the energy requirements and carbon footprints for the production of steel by different routes
are in the following eight tables.
The energy requirements reported for the whole life cycle of steel production from ore to metal via the BF/BOF routeand for the conversion of ore concentrate to steel by this route, are presented in the following two tables.

Energy Requirements for Steel Production from Ore via the BF/BOF Route
BF-BOF RouteSourceDas and Kandpal
Hu et alSakamoto
NorgatePrice et al (Open Hearth)
Price et al
Phylipsen et al
Mean (SD)

Energy Requirement(MJ/kg Steel)
29.2
25.5
25
22
20.1
16.5
15.17
21.9 (5.1)

Energy Requirements for Steel Production from Ore Concentrate via the BF/BOF Route
BF-BOF Only

Ertem and GurgenPrice et al
Phylipsen et al
Sakamoto
Mean (SD)

Energy Requirement(MJ/kg Steel)
16.58
15.6
15.47
13.4
15.3 (1.3)

Carbon Footprint for Steel Production via the BF/BOF Route
BF-BOF RouteSourceNorgateOrth et al
Sakamoto
Orth et al

Carbon Footprint(tCO2/t Steel)
2.3
2.23
2.15
2.14
Table continues on page 16

Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling

Page 15

Carbon Footprint for Steel Production via the BF/BOF Route (Continued from Page 15)
BF-BOF RouteSourceDas and Kandpal
Gielen and Moriguchi
Hu et alOrth et al
Orth et al
Wang et al
Mean (SD)

Carbon Footprint (tCO2/t Steel)
2.12
2
1.97
1.82
1.69
1.32
1.97 (0.30)

The reported energy requirements for the DRI step of the steel production process, and for the DRI + EAF steps combined,
along with assumptions made on the energy source used, are represented in the following two tables. The data for the carbon
footprints associated with the energy source used are presented separately in the table below.

Energy Requirements for Steel Production for the DRI Step OnlyDRI Only
Energy Requirement (MJ/kg Steel)
10
10.93

Gielen and Moriguchi
Phylipsen et al

Energy Requirements for Steel Production for the DRI + EAF Steps
DRI + EAF

Das and Kandpal
Das and Kandpal
Price et al

Energy Requirement(MJ/kg Steel)
36.9
24
19.2

Note
Coal (India)
Gas (India)
80% DRI + 20% scrap

Carbon Footprint for Steel Production for the DRI + EAF Steps
DRI + EAF

Das and Kandpal
Orth et al
Das and Kandpal
Orth et al
Gielen and Moriguchi
Mean (SD)

Carbon Footprint(tCO2/t Steel)
3.31
1.74
1.57
1.46
0.7
1.76 (0.96)

Note
Coal (India)
Coal + Circofer
Gas
Gas + Circofer
Gas

The energy requirements and carbon footprints for the electric arc furnace route for production of steel from secondary
sources are in the following two tables.

Page 16

Report on Environmental Benefits of RecyclingEnergy Requirements for Steel Production from Scrap in an Electric Arc Furnace
EAF Route
SourceDas and Kandpal
Hu et alHu et alSakamoto et al
Mean (SD)

Energy Requirement (MJ/kg Steel)
14.4
11.8
11.2
9.4
11.7 (2.1)

Carbon Footprint for Steel Production in an Electric Arc Furnace
EAF Route
SourceDas and Kandpal
Wang et al
Hu et alSakamoto et al
Hu et alMean (SD)

Carbon Footprint (tCO2/t Steel)
1.18
0.64
0.59
0.56
0.54
0.70 (0.27)

The benchmark energy requirements for the production of steel from primary ore concentrate by the BF-BOF route,by the DRI + EAF route and from scrap and secondary sources via the EAF route are in in the following table.

Benchmark Energy Requirements for Steel Production
Steel Recovery Method
BF/BOF Route (Mean-SD)
DRI + EAF Route (Benchmark)
EAF Route (Mean)

Energy Requirement(MJ/kg Steel)
14
19.2
11.7

Carbon Footprint(tCO2/t Steel)
1.67
0.7
0.7

Summary
Using the benchmark data for primary and secondary steel production from delivered ore concentrate and scrap
respectively, the energy requirements for the production of 100,000 tonnes of steel are:Energy requirement for primary production BF-BOF route:
Energy requirement for primary production DRI + EAF route:
Energy requirement for secondary production EAF route:

1400TJ
1920TJ
1170TJ

Using the energy data, the carbon footprints for primary and secondary production of steel on the same basis are:Carbon footprint for primary production BF-BOF route:
Carbon footprint for primary production DRI + EAF route:
Carbon footprint for secondary production EAF route:

167kt CO2
70kt CO2
70kt CO2

Sensitivity analyses on these data are given on page 35 of this report to illustrate the effects of deviations from benchmark conditions.
Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling

Page 17

Primary and Secondary Lead Production
The annual production of lead is about 6.2M tonnes with approximately half of that originating from ore.
The schematic diagram of the production of primary lead and lead from scrap is in the following figure.

Schematic of Primary Lead Production
Blast Furnace

Imperial Smelting Furnace

RecyclingPbS OreZn/Pb Ore

Concentration

Concentration

Scrap Pb from Batteries(60% Pb, 15% PbO2, 12% PbSO4)

Sintering

Sintering

Smelting

Smelting

Smelting

Refining

Refining

Refining

Slag Treatment

Pb

75-85% Pb

Primary Production
Lead sulfide ores usually contain less than 10% of the metal by weight and are concentrated to around 70% before
processing. The main method of lead recovery from ores is a blast furnace process that involves three main steps:
sintering, smelting and refining. Lead is also recovered in the Imperial smelting furnace process that is designed
to recover both lead and zinc from ores. The energy demand for the Imperial smelting process is higher than that forthe blast furnace process for lead but is used because it has a significantly lower energy demand for zinc production
than alternative processes.

Secondary Production
Lead is easily recycled via pyrometallurgical routes and can be recycled many times without any deterioration ordegradation of its properties. A very high proportion of scrap lead comes from spent vehicle batteries. Secondary leadfrom this source is usually smelted at 1260°C in a rotary reverberatory furnace to produce a slag with a high lead content,along with lead metal for refining. The slag can then be heated in a blast furnace at 1000°C with coke to produce lead(purity 75-85%) and a slag with a low lead content.

Energy Requirement and Carbon Footprint Tables for Lead
The energy requirements for the production of lead from primary sources by the blast furnace and Imperial smelting
furnace routes are in the following figure.

Page 18

Report on Environmental Benefits of RecyclingEnergy Requirements for the Production of Lead from Primary Sources
Blast Furnace

20MJ/kg(Coal 35%,
Ore 5.5% Pb,
Concentrated
57.9% Pb)

Imperial Smelting Furnace

PbS OreZn/Pb Ore

Concentration

Concentration

Sintering~2.2MJ/kg

Smelting~6.0MJ/kg~10MJ/kg

Sintering

32MJ/kg(Coal 35%,
Ore 5.5% Pb,
Concentrated
57.9% Pb)

Smelting(Coal 35%,
Ore 5.5% Pb,
Concentrated
57.9% Pb)

Refining

Refining~1.5MJ/kg

Pb

Primary Production
In 2002, it was reported that 20MJ/kg of energy are required to produce 1kg of lead in the blast furnace process while
the Imperial smelting furnace process requires 32MJ/kg for the whole life cycle including mining and concentration,
assuming 98.3% and 95% recoveries in the blast furnace and Imperial smelting furnace respectively. The energy
requirements excluding the mining and mineral processes obtained from several different sources are reported to be
2.4MJ/kg Pb for the blast furnace route and 2.71MJ/kg Pb for the Imperial smelting furnace route.
Secondary Production
The literature contains reports that claim secondary production of lead results in a 60-65% energy saving compared to primary
production. Using these data, Norgate estimates a general energy demand of 9.1MJ/kg for secondary lead production.
Life cycle analysis of the secondary process has been conducted, including the processes of disaggregation and remanufacturingthat would be carried out at a reprocessing facility. From the data, energy consumption at a reprocessing plant was estimatedat a total of 0.40MJ/kg Pb.
The energy chosen as a benchmark for secondary production is that of calculated theoretical melting energies with 50%
furnace efficiency.

Carbon Footprint for Lead Production
Blast Furnace

2.1tCO2/t(Coal 35%,
Ore 5.5% Pb,
Concentrated
57.9% Pb)

Imperial Smelting Furnace

PbS OreZn/Pb Ore

Concentration

Concentration

Sintering

Sintering

3.2tCO2/t

Smelting

Smelting(Coal 35%,
Ore 5.5% Pb,
Concentrated
57.9% Pb)

Refining

Refining

1.63tCO2/t

2.50tCO2/t

Pb

Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling

Page 19

Carbon footprint data for production of lead calculated by Norgate are given in the previous figure. In 2001, Robertson
produced a life cycle analysis of primary lead production based on data from two plants in Australia, one of which is the thirdlargest producer of lead in the world. His calculations for emissions yielded a total value of 4.202tCO2e/t Pb; this value isgreater than that obtained by Norgate but it is not absolutely clear how Robertson’s data were derived and what assumptions
were made.
The benchmark energy requirements for the production of lead metal from primary ore concentrate and for secondary
lead from scrap are in in the following table.

Benchmark Energy Requirements for Lead Production
Lead Recovery Method
Primary
Secondary Assuming 50% Furnace Efficiency

Energy Requirement(MJ/kg Pb)
100.129*

Carbon Footprint(tCO2/t Pb)
1.63
0.015***Theoretical minimum energy requirement to melt lead assuming furnace efficiency of 50%**Based on electricity consumption (UK average emission factor)

Summary
Using the benchmark data for primary and secondary lead production from delivered ore concentrate and scrap respectively,
the energy requirements for the production of 100,000 tonnes of lead are:Energy requirement for primary production of lead:
Energy requirement for secondary production of lead:

1000TJ
12.9TJ

Using the energy data, the carbon footprints for primary and secondary production of lead on the same basis are:Carbon footprint for primary production of lead:
Carbon footprint for secondary production of lead:

163kt CO2
1.5kt CO2

Sensitivity analyses on these data are given on page 35 of this report to illustrate the effects of deviations frombenchmark conditions.

Page 20

Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling

Primary and Secondary Nickel Production
The International Nickel Study Group quotes a global primary production figure of 1.44Mt for nickel in 2007, and it has
been estimated that 0.35M tonnes of nickel is recycled from about 4.5Mt of scrap every year.

Primary Production
There are two types of nickel ore that are treated in different ways. The common ores are nickel sulfides (containing
about 2% Ni) and these are processed pyrometallurgically. Laterite oxide ores (containing approximately 1% Ni)
are treated hydrometallurgically to produce nickel metal, or pyrometallurgically to produce ferronickel. The following
figure is a schematic showing the primary production routes.

Schematic for Primary Production of Nickel
Laterite Ores
Sulfide OreLimonite Ore

Saprolite Ore

Concentration

Concentration

Ore Preparation

Concentration

Smelting

Reduction Roast

Pressure Acid Leaching

Rotary Kiln

Converting

Ammonia Leach

Neutralisation

Smelting

Refining

Solvent Extraction

Solvent Extraction
Electrowinning

Converting

Reduction
Sintering
NickelFerronickel

The pyrometallurigical process involves concentration of the sulfide ore followed by smelting to produce a matte whichis converted to nickel metal and refined by routes such as the Sherritt-Gordon process. Final nickel refining is often carriedout by an electrowinning process.
Laterite ores with nickel concentrations greater than 1.7% (saprolite ores) are processed pyrometallurgically in a rotarykiln and an electric furnace to obtain ferronickel. Laterite ores with less than 1.5% nickel (limonite ores) are processed
via a hydrometallurgical leaching route with the metal generally being recovered electrolytically.

Secondary Production
Nickel is recycled in different ways depending on its original application. Nickel alloys are often recycled as the samealloys, for example the nickel in stainless steel, where about 40% of the nickel used in the production of stainless steel
originates from post-consumer stainless steel scrap. Other secondary nickel arisings tend to be recycled by primary
nickel smelters.

Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling

Page 21

Energy Requirement and Carbon Footprint Tables for Nickel
The energy requirement and carbon footprint data reported in the literature are in the following two figures. The data in
the figures are based on publications by Norgate, Kellogg, Chapman and Roberts for the whole life cycle of nickel production
from mining to metal, and are expressed as gross energy requirement (GER) in MJ/kg and carbon footprint in kg CO2eq/kg Ni.

Energy Requirement for Production of Nickel
Laterite Ores

Sulfide Ore

Ammonia Leach
Solvent Extraction
Reduction
Sintering

Saprolite Ore
Ore Preparation

Pressure Acid Leaching
Neutralisation
Solvent Extraction
Electrowinning

194MJ/kg (coal at 35% efficiency from 1.0% Ni ore)

Refining

Reduction Roast

340-800MJ/kg (all laterite ore processes generally)

Converting

100-200MJ/kg

Smelting

Concentration
20.64MJ/kg

Concentration

152MJ/kg (32.5% power plant efficiency)

114MJ/kg (coal at 35% efficiency from 2.3% Ni ore)

Limonite Ore

NickelConcentration
Rotary Kiln
Smelting
Converting

Ferronickel

The Norgate data for the whole life cycle – from mining a sulfide ore containing nickel to the recovery of nickel by flash
furnace smelting with Sherritt-Gordon refining to recover 78% of the nickel and assuming a 35% energy efficiency –give a GER equal to 114MJ/kg and a carbon footprint of 11.4kgCO2eq/kg Ni. The smelting and refining processes alone
are reported to require 2900kWh/t of electricity, producing a carbon footprint of 8.5kgCO2eq/kg Ni.

Carbon Footprint for Production of Nickel
Laterite Ores

Sulfide Ore

Ore Preparation

Smelting

Reduction Roast

Pressure Acid Leaching

Ammonia Leach

Neutralisation

Converting

Solvent Extraction

Solvent Extraction
Electrowinning

Refining

Reduction

Smelting

16.1kgCO2eq/kg

Concentration

15kgCO2eq/kg

Saprolite Ore

Concentration
8.5kgCO2eq/kg

11.4kgCO2eq/kg

Limonite Ore

Concentration
Rotary Kiln
Smelting
Converting

Sintering
NickelPage 22

Ferronickel
Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling

Norgate’s data for the whole life cycle of a 1% laterite ore – with nickel recovery by pressure acid leaching followed by solvent
extraction and electrowinning to recover 92% of the nickel assuming a 35% energy efficiency – give a GER value of 194MJ/kg
and a carbon footprint of 16.1kgCO2eq/kg Ni. The pressure leach and solvent extraction/electrowinning stages of thehydrometallurgical process are reported to require 7651kWh/t of electricity, giving a carbon footprint of 15kgCO2eq/kg Ni.
A study of the effects of ore concentration on GER and carbon footprint suggested that lowering the ore grade from 2.4%
to 0.3% Ni resulted in an increase in GER from 130MJ/kg to 370MJ/kg and in carbon footprint from about 18kgCO2eq/kg Ni
to 85kgCO2eq/kg Ni.
Chapman and Roberts report GER values for the whole life cycle of 100-200MJ/kg for processing sulfide oresand 340-800 MJ/kg for processing laterite ores. Kellogg’s energy requirement value is 152MJ/kg to recover nickelfrom processing to mining nickel ingot, assuming 32.5% energy efficiency.
On the basis of an assumption of 90% energy savings for secondary nickel production and based on the European averagefor hydrometallurgical and pyrometallurgical use, Norgate estimates a 15.4-15.8MJ/kg energy requirement for secondary
nickel recovery.
Taylor has reported that recycling of nickel-based superalloys into a superalloy ingot requires only 14% of the primary“material fuel equivalent”, including transportation, sorting and processing.
The benchmark energy requirements for the production of nickel metal from primary ore concentrate and for secondary
nickel metal from scrap and secondary sources are in the following table.

Benchmark Energy Requirements for Nickel Production
Nickel Recovery Method
Primary Production of Nickel
Secondary Production from Scrap

Energy Requirement(MJ/kg Ni)
20.64
1.86*

Carbon Footprint(tCO2/t Ni)
2.12
0.22***Theoretical minimum requirement to melt assuming furnace efficiency of 50%**Based on melting recovery using UK average electricity emission factor to estimate CO2 emissions

Summary
Using the benchmark data for primary and secondary nickel production from delivered ore concentrate and scrap
respectively, the energy requirements for the production of 100,000 tonnes of nickel are:Energy requirement for primary production of nickel:
Energy requirement for secondary melting of nickel:

2064TJ
186TJ

Using the energy data, the carbon footprints for primary and secondary production of nickel on the same basis are:Carbon footprint for primary production of nickel:
Carbon footprint for secondary melting of nickel:

212kt CO2
22kt CO2

Sensitivity analyses on these data are given on page 35 of this report to illustrate the effects of deviations frombenchmark conditions.

Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling

Page 23

Primary and Secondary Tin Production
In 2007, approximately 300,000 tonnes of tin was recovered from ore worldwide, and an additional amount of approximately
50,000 tonnes was produced from scrap and other secondary sources.

Primary Production
The main ore of tin is cassiterite. The ores need to be concentrated prior to smelting in the presence of carbon to obtainthe metal that can be subsequently refined by pyrorefining or electrolytic refining to produce metal of high purity.
The following figure is a schematic of the processes involved in the recovery of tin from cassiterite ores.

A Schematic of the Processes Involved in Primary Production of Tin
Primary Ore
Concentration (Complex)
Roasting
Reduction
Refining
Tin

Secondary Production
Tin can be recovered from secondary sources via pyrometallurgical treatment by melting the scrap and purifying themetal obtained by similar refining processes to that used in primary production. Tin can also be recovered from secondary
sources by hydrometallurgical routes in which either alkali or acid leach solutions can be used, with final recovery usually
involving electrowinning of the tin from leach solutions.

Energy Requirement and Carbon Footprint Tables for Tin
The energy requirement for the whole life cycle production of tin from mining the ore to refined metal from a low-grade ore
has been reported as 200MJ/kg. The energy requirements for the smelting and refining stages only have been recorded
as 19.6MJ/kg from alluvial ores and 127MJ/kg from hard rock ores, and a value of 20MJ/kg has been calculated for thesestages based on a 32.5% energy efficiency.
The energy requirements reported for the production of primary tin are given in the following figure.

Page 24

Report on Environmental Benefits of RecyclingEnergy Requirements for Primary Tin Production
200MJ/kg

Primary Ore(32.5% power
plant efficiency)

Concentration (Complex)
19.6MJ/kg or 127.0MJ/kg
Depending on type of ore

20MJ/kg

Roasting(32.5% power
plant efficiency)

Reduction
Refining
Tin

The benchmark energy requirements for the production of tin metal from primary tin ore concentrate and for secondarytin metal from scrap and secondary sources are in the following table.

Benchmark Energy Requirements for Tin Production
Tin Recovery Method
Primary production of tin
Secondary production of tin from scrap

Energy Requirement(MJ/kg Sn)
18.2*
0.2**

Carbon Footprint(tCO2/t Sn)
2.18***
0.024*****Based on data shown but recalculated at 35% plant efficiency**Theoretical minimum requirement to melt assuming furnace efficiency of 50%*** Based on emissions of 0.12kgCO2/MJ, as found in processes with similar chemistry****Based on melting recovery using UK average electricity emission factor to estimate CO2 emissions

Summary
Using the benchmark data for primary and secondary tin production from delivered ore concentrate and scrap
respectively, the energy requirements for the production of 100,000 tonnes of tin are:Energy requirement for primary production of tin:
Energy requirement for secondary production of tin:

1820TJ
20TJ

Using the energy data, the carbon footprints for primary and secondary production of tin on the same basis are:Carbon footprint for primary production of tin:
Carbon footprint for secondary production of tin:

218kt CO2
2.4kt CO2

Sensitivity analyses on these data are given on page 35 of this report to illustrate the effects of deviations frombenchmark conditions.

Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling

Page 25

Primary and Secondary Zinc Production
The estimated worldwide production of zinc metal in 2007 was 11.4Mt. Of the total production of smelter zinc (10.6Mt),
4.97Mt are categorised as either primary or secondary, and the remaining 5.63Mt (53%) are not differentiated.
Production from secondary is estimated at 7.5% of the differentiated 4.97Mt.

Primary Production
Zinc is produced from zinc sulfide ores containing between 2 and 30% zinc, which are concentrated by froth flotation.
Primary zinc metal can be recovered from ore concentrates by both pyrometallurgical and hydrometallurgical processes
as shown in the schematic diagram in the following figure.

Schematic for Zinc Production
Hydrometallurgy

Pyrometallurgy (Imperial Smelting Furnace)ZnS OreZn/Pb Ore

Concentration

Concentration

Roasting

Sintering

Leaching

Smelting

Electrolysis

Refining

Casting

Casting

Zn Ingot

In the hydrometallurgical process, ore concentrate is roasted to convert the sulfide to zinc oxide which is then leached
out in sulfuric acid to give a leach solution that can be purified before recovering zinc by electrowinning.
The pyrometallurgical process makes use of a sulfide ore concentrate that is high in lead and zinc, and recovers both
metals simultaneously. This process has three main steps: (i) sintering in which the sulfide ore is converted to zinc oxide,(ii) smelting in the presence of carbon to reduce the oxide to zinc metal, and (iii) distillation in which the zinc is evaporated
off as zinc vapour and cooled to obtain the zinc metal.

Secondary Production
The routes for secondary processing of zinc depend upon the types of zinc-containing secondary material being
recycled, and in some cases the primary feed may include some secondary material as shown in the life cycle diagramin the following figure.

Page 26

Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling

Life Cycle Diagram Illustrating Zinc Flows
Total Scrap
Secondary Zinc

Old Scrap
Zinc Ore
Zinc Smelter

Process Scrap
Zinc Products

Clean and mixed scrap can be treated by sweating whereby the scrap is heated at 360-420°C to melt zinc for recovery,leaving other impurities such as copper, aluminium and iron in a solid slag. Zinc alloy scrap can also be recoveredby a similar process to recover the metal as the alloy and zinc oxide residues can be converted to zinc by dissolving
them in sulfuric acid and recovering the metal by electrowinning.

Energy Requirement and Carbon Footprint Tables for Zinc
The literature values for the energy requirements and carbon footprints for the production of primary zinc by different
routes are given in the following two figures respectively.
Two values have been reported for the energy savings made when secondary production is used instead of primary viz.
75% by Norgate (apparently based on a position paper on recycling by EuroMetaux) and 60% by Gaballah (based on
US Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries data from 1993). From these assumptions, Norgate estimated the total energy
consumption to recover secondary zinc as 13.7MJ/kg Zn. In 1982, Kellogg stated that secondary processing requires
about 5-40% of the energy required for primary processing. None of these data, however, seem to be basedon fundamental energy data measurements.

Energy Requirements for the Primary Production of Zinc
Hydrometallurgy

Pyrometallurgy (Imperial Smelting Furnace)ZnS OreZn/Pb Ore

Concentration

Concentration

Roasting

48MJ/kg(8.6% Zn ore)

Leaching

50MJ/kg(High grade)

2.51MJ/kg

1.33MJ/kg(High grade)(High grade including
fuel and coke)

3.57MJ/kg

40MJ/kg(High grade)

Electrolysis

35MJ/kg(Conventional)(High grade including
fuel and coke)

40MJ/kg

7.28MJ/kg(High grade)

24MJ/kg

Casting(High grade
including fuel)1.49MJ/kg

Sintering

36MJ/kg

Smelting

38MJ/kg

Refining

45MJ/kg

Refining(8.6% Zn ore)

(Low grade)(High grade)

29MJ/kg(High grade)

Zn Ingot

Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling

Page 27

Carbon Footprint for the Primary Production of Zinc
Hydrometallurgy
ZnS OreZn/Pb Ore

Concentration

Concentration

Roasting

4.6tCO2/t(8.6% Zn ore)

Pyrometallurgy (Imperial Smelting Furnace)

0.096tCO2/t

3.5tCO2/t

2.5tCO2/t(8.6% Zn ore)

(8.6% Zn ore)

Sintering

Leaching

Smelting

Electrolysis

Refining

Casting

Refining

3.3tCO2/t(8.6% Zn ore)

0.111tCO2/t
2.01tCO2/t
2.36
tCO2/t0.153tCO2/t

Zn Ingot

The energy data and carbon footprint data that have been reported for zinc recovery from flue dust are in the following
two tables.

Energy Requirements for Processes Associated with the Recovery of Zinc from Scrap
Secondary Processing of Zinc Flue Dust
Process
Energy Requirement(MJ/kg Zn)
Dezincing
54
Waelz-Kiln Process
18
EZINEX
35
DC-furnace
27% Electricity

Additional

93
82
96

1.2tcoke/t Zn
0.27tcoke/t Zn

Carbon Footprint Data for Processes Associated with the Recovery of Zinc from Scrap
Secondary Processing of Zinc Flue Dust
Process
Dezincing
Waelz-Kiln Process
EZINEX
DC-furnace

Carbon Footprint(tCO2/t Zn)
4.6
0.7-1.4

The benchmark energy requirements for the production of zinc metal from primary zinc ore concentrate and for secondary
zinc metal from scrap and secondary sources are in the following table. Although an energy value of 16.4MJ/kg has beenreported in Europe for the primary production of zinc via a combination of hydrometallurgical and pyrometallurgical routes,
in this work we have used the value of 24MJ/kg as this is more defendable.

Page 28

Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling

Benchmark Energy Requirements for Zinc Production
Zinc Recovery Method
Primary production of zinc
Secondary production from scrap
Secondary zinc vaporisation

Energy Requirement(MJ/kg Zn)
24
18
4.7*

Carbon Footprint(tCO2/t Zn)
2.36
1.4
0.56***Theoretical minimum with 50% furnace efficiency**UK average electricity emission factor to estimate CO2 emissions

Summary
Using the benchmark data for primary and secondary zinc production from delivered ore concentrate and scrap
respectively, the energy requirements for the production of 100,000 tonnes of zinc are:Energy requirement for primary production of zinc:
Energy requirement for secondary production of zinc:
Energy requirement for secondary vaporisation of zinc:

2400TJ
1800TJ
470TJ

Using the energy data, the carbon footprints for primary and secondary production of zinc on the same basis are:Carbon footprint for primary production of zinc:
Carbon footprint for secondary production of zinc:
Carbon footprint for secondary vaporisation of zinc:

236kt CO2
140kt CO2
56kt CO2

Sensitivity analyses on these data are given on page 35 of this report to illustrate the effects of deviations frombenchmark conditions.

Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling

Page 29

Primary and Secondary Paper Production
Approximately 365 million tonnes of paper and paperboard are produced globally per annum, with about
46% from secondary sources.

Comparison of the primary and secondary papermaking industry is complicated for the following reasons:• Recycled pulp and virgin pulp are often combined before manufacture• Paper can be recycled only 3-6 times before it degrades• The paper product from recycling will be of a lower quality than from primary sources• Some types of paper can be made only from 100% virgin pulp
• Recycled pulp cannot be used alone; some primary pulp is always required• Paper is produced from a renewable resource• As a waste, paper contains energy that can be recovered by incineration• Primary production removes trees and therefore reduces CO2 uptake by the trees• Most literature compares disposal options rather than production options

Primary and Secondary Production of Paper
The primary and secondary production of paper is illustrated schematically in the figure below.

Primary Production
In the primary manufacture of paper, trees must be harvested, debarked, chipped at the sawmill and pulped with water.
Pulping can be conducted by adding chemicals or by mechanical beating which will break down the lignin in wood and allow
the pulp to form. Chemical pulping is expensive because the paper yield from wood is very low, but the paper produced isstrong. Mechanical pulping is much cheaper despite the considerable use of electrical energy because it leads to a high yieldof paper product from the wood, although this paper is much weaker. More water is added to the pulp before chemicals
and dyes are added prior to the refining, screening and cleaning of the pulp which is then used in paper manufacture.

Schematic for the Primary and Secondary Production of Paper
Trees

Scrap Paper

HarvestSorting

DebarkingShredding

Chipping
Mechanical Pulping

Hydropulper

Chemical Pulping

Hydropulping

Deinking

Blend Chest

Blend Chest

Refining

Refining

Screening and Cleaning

Screening and Cleaning

PapermillPapermill

Paper

Page 30

Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling

Secondary Production
Waste paper from various sources is sorted, shredded, pulped with water and cleaned to remove impurities suchas wire, plastic, paperclips and staples that may be in the mix. A de-inking cell cleans the pulp, removing ink and sticky
substances. The pulp is fed into a blend chest where chemicals and dyes are added that will influence the character
and appearance of the final product. The pulp is refined using a mechanical abrasive and bruising action before
being screened, cleaned to remove any dirt or grit, and used in the manufacture of paper.

Energy Requirements and Carbon Footprint for Paper Production
The global average energy requirements for the production of 1 tonne of paper has been reported as 10.8GJ of thermalenergy and 4.5GJ of electrical energy, and it has been claimed that primary production requires 40% more energy
than secondary production, but more fossil fuels are required to make secondary paper. It has also been reported
that to produce paper from wood and then recycle it back into paper requires 22-53MJ/kg, excluding transportation.

Reported Energy Requirements in Primary and Secondary Paper Manufacture
28-41MJ/kg

Trees

Primary
manufacture
followedby recycle:
22-53MJ/kg

Chemical: 12MJ/kg
Mechanical: 28MJ/kg

HarvestThermal: 10.8MJ/kg
Electrical: 4.5MJ/kg

DebarkingScrap Paper

8.25MJ/kg

Sorting

36MJ/kg
scrap

Shredding

Thermal: 0.4MJ/kg
Electrical: 1.4MJ/kg

Chipping
MechanicalPulping

16-21MJ/kg

ChemicalPulping

Hydropulper

Hydropulping

Deinking

Blend Chest

Blend Chest

Refining

Refining

Screening and Cleaning

Screening and Cleaning

PapermillPapermillPaper

A review in 2007 of high-quality Life Cycle Analyses that compared disposal options for paper concluded that recycling
is a better option than landfill or incineration in terms of energy demand.
Schenk has compared energy requirements for chemically and mechanically processed paper manufacturing methods,
using varying amounts of recyclate in the feedstock. For the use of 100% virgin pulp, the energy requirement is 12MJ/kg
for chemical processing and 28MJ/kg for mechanical processing. If recycled pulp is added to the process, the energy
consumption will be increased in the chemical process but decreased in the mechanical process.

Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling

Page 31

An updated report by The Paper Task Force in 2002 gave information on primary and secondary paper production.
The types of paper considered were newsprint, corrugated, office paper and paperboard. The scope of the assessment
was broad, including all activities involved in the three scenarios from tree felling and waste paper collection to landfill
consequences and incinerator ash disposal. For ease of comparison and simplification of analysis, it was consideredthat in the recycling scheme the pulp was 100% waste paper. In order to prepare paper of good quality, however,
it would not be possible to use 100% pulp from recycled sources. Data obtained from the literature on energy use
and direct CO2 emissions are in the following table.

Energy Use and CO2 Emissions for Paper Production
UNITS

Newsprint

CorrugatedContainers

Office Paper

Virgin Manufacture
Total Energy
MJ/kg paper managed
39
28
40
Purchased Energy
MJ/kg paper managed
36
15
19
Fossil Fuel Energy
MJ/kg paper managed
26
13
14
Recycled Manufacture
Total Energy
MJ/kg paper managed
21
19
21
Purchased Energy
MJ/kg paper managed
21
19
21
Fossil Fuel Energy
MJ/kg paper managed
16
16
16
GHG Emissions – Whole System Minus Waste Management and Material Recovery
0.00230.00140.0014
VirginCO2eqt/t paper
0.00130.00130.0017
RecycleCO2eqt/t paper

CUK
Paperboard

SBS
Paperboard

28
14
12

41
19
14

17
17
13

16
16
13

0.00090.00130.00270.0014The data in the table above, which are for paper manufacturing steps only (i.e. excluding tree harvesting and transport,
and waste paper collection and sorting), show that the total energy requirement for the recycling process is always
less than the total energy for paper produced from virgin sources.
Values have been calculated by the Ecobilan Group for the energy requirement and CO2 emissions for recycling paper
but are reported per tonne of waste paper treated rather than per tonne of paper produced.
The carbon footprints (in the following figure) for the whole life cycle of primary and secondary paper manufacture
and the numerical values obtained from the literature on energy use and carbon footprint are given in the following table.

Page 32

Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling

Carbon Footprint Measurements
0.0009-0.0027
kgCO2eq/kg

Trees

Scrap Paper

HarvestSorting

DebarkingShredding

0.0013-0.0017
kgCO2eq/kg

Chipping
MechanicalPulping

ChemicalPulping

Hydropulper

Hydropulping

Deinking

Blend Chest

Blend Chest

Refining

Refining

Screening and Cleaning

Screening and Cleaning

PapermillPapermill

Paper

Energy Use and Carbon Footprint Data for Primary and Secondary Paper Production
MeasureThermal + Electrical Energy
Primary Paper Production + Recycle
Primary Paper Production + Incineration
Closed Recycle Scheme with Nearby Papermill

Units
MJ/kg
MJ/kg
MJ/kg
MJ/kg

Value
10.8 + 4.5
22-53
11-40
8.25

100% Primary Pulp – Chemical Process
100% Primary Pulp – Mechanical Process
100% Paper Recycling Rate (Energy per Ton of Total Paper Production)
Chemical Primary Processing
Chemical Secondary Processing
Mechanical Primary Processing
Mechanical Secondary Processing
Primary Manufacture (Total Energy)
Recycled Manufacture (Total Energy)

MJ/kg

12
28

MJ/kg
MJ/kg
MJ/kg
MJ/kg
MJ/kg

4
13
5
17
28-41
16-21

Specific Energy Consumption – PrimaryPrimary Energy Used in Secondary Production(In Terms of Waste Paper Treated)

MJ/kg
MJ/kg

8.7-16.9
36.2

Primary Energy to Produce a Clean Fibre Pulp from Wastepaper
Overall Energy to Produce 1 Tonne Recycled Paper

MJ/kg
MJ/kg

3.9
16.3
Table continues on page 34

Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling

Page 33

Energy Use and Carbon Footprint Data for Primary and Secondary Paper Production (Continued from Page 33)
MeasureGHG Emissions
Primary Production
Secondary Production

Units

Value

tCO2eq/t
tCO2eq/t

0.0009-0.0027
0.0013-0.0017

CO2 Emissions (In Terms of Waste Paper Treated)
Secondary Production

tCO2/t

1.4

GHG’s over 20 years (In Terms of Waste Paper Treated)
Secondary Production

tCO2eq/t

1.4

Text written in italics signifies the secondary process.

The benchmark figures for the energy requirement and carbon footprint for the manufacture of newsprint by primaryand secondary sources are given in the following table.

Benchmark Energy Requirements for Paper Production
Paper Recovery Method
Primary
Secondary

Energy Requirement(MJ/kg Paper)
35.2
18.8

Carbon Footprint(tCO2/t Paper)
0.00170.0014

Summary
Using the benchmark data for primary and secondary paper production from virgin pulp and scrap respectively,
the energy requirements for the production of 100,000 tonnes of paper are:Energy requirement for primary production:
Energy requirement for secondary production:

3520TJ
1880TJ

Using the energy data, the carbon footprints for primary and secondary production of paper on the same basis are:Carbon footprint for primary production:
Carbon footprint for secondary production:

0.17ktCO2
0.14ktCO2

Sensitivity analyses on these data are given on page 35 of this report to illustrate the effects of deviations frombenchmark conditions.

Page 34

Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling

Sensitivity Analyses
The benchmark figures extracted from the primary literature in this work represent data for situations that are said
to be achievable. To account for any variations arising from differences in processes, however, sensitivity analyses
can be carried out on any of the input data in order to show how differences in process parameters would be reflectedin the overall energy saving and carbon footprint results.

Sensitivity analysis can be carried out on any input parameter but the following are given as examples of variation in:(i) secondary production energy requirement data compared with the primary benchmark;(ii) primary production energy requirement data from the benchmark;(iii) carbon footprint data for secondary recovery compared with the primary benchmark;(iv) carbon footprint data for primary production from the primary benchmark;(v) energy and carbon footprint data expressed for different countries or regions depending on their fuel/energy balance.

Variation in Secondary Energy Requirement compared with Primary
The data in in the following table show how variations would arise in energy requirement data if a given process deviatedfrom the benchmark data process. Variations are calculated for deviations of -10, -5, +5, +10, +15, +20, +30, +40, +50,
+90 and +100%. The data presented in the three tables after the following table, are calculated for deviations of -10, -5,+5, +10, +15, +20, +30, +40, +50 and +100%.
For aluminium, copper, lead, nickel and tin, even if a given process deviates by 100% from the benchmark, an energy
saving would still be predicted (figure on the following page). However, for ferrous, zinc and paper, deviations of lessthan 100% would result in the prediction of an energy balance in favour of primary production.

Variation in Primary Energy Data from Benchmark Values
The sensitivity analyses on the primary energy data are expressed in the same way and show the variation in energy
requirement with deviations from the primary benchmark data (table on p.37) that would have to be comparedwith the energy requirement for secondary production in given situations.

Sensitivity Analysis for Secondary Energy Requirement Data vs. Primary Benchmark Data (Expressed in TJ/kg)
Material

Primary

Secondary

Aluminium
CopperFerrous
Lead
Nickel
Tin
Zinc
Paper

4700
1690
1400
1000
2064
1820
2400
3520

240
630
1170
13
186
20
1800
1880

Sensitivity Analysis of Secondary Recovery Data
-10% -5% 0%
5%
10% 15% 20%216
228 240 252 264 276 288
567
599 630 662 693 725 756
1053 1112 1170 1229 1287 1346 1404
12
12
13
14
14
15
16
167
177 186 195 205 214 223
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1620 1710 1800 1890 1980 2070 2160
1692 1786 1880 1974 2068 2162 2256

Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling

30%
312
819
1521
17
242
26
2340
2444

40%
336
882
1638
18
260
28
2520
2632

50%
360
945
1755
20
279
30
2700
2820

90%
456
1197
2223
25
353
38
3420
3572

100%
480
1260
2340
26
372
40
3600
3760

Page 35

200

0

0

1,000

800

500

400

0

0

Nickel 186

100%

1,200

40%

1,500

20%

1,600

10%

2,000

0%

2,000

-10%

2,500

Primary Benchmark 2046

Tin 20

4,000

4,000

3,500

3,500

3,000

3,000

2,500

Page 36

2,500

2,000

2,000

1,500

1,500

100%

40%

Primary Benchmark 1000

10%

Lead 130%Primary Benchmark 1400

-10%

Ferrous 1170

100%

500

100%

400

40%

1,000

100%

600

40%

1,500

20%

800

10%

2,000

0%

1,000

-10%

2,500

Primary Benchmark 1690

10%Copper 630

0%Primary Benchmark 4700

-10%

Aluminium 240

40%

0

20%

0

20%

400

20%

1,000

10%

800

0%

2,000

100%

1,200

40%

3,000

20%

1,600

10%

4,000

0%

2,000

-10%

5,000

-10%

Diagrammatic Representation of Changes in Secondary Energy Requirements vs Primary Benchmark Data

Primary Benchmark 1820

Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling

2,000

2,000

1,500

1,500

1,000

1,000

500

500

0

0

Zinc 1800

Primary Benchmark 2400

Paper 1880

100%
100%

2,500

100%

3,000

2,500

40%

3,000

20%

3,500

10%

3,500

0%

4,000

-10%

4,000

Primary Benchmark 1820

10%

Tin 200%Primary Benchmark 2046

-10%

-10%

Nickel 186

40%

0

40%

0

20%

400

20%

500

10%

800

0%

1,000

-10%

1,200

100%

1,500

40%

1,600

20%

2,000

10%

2,000

0%

2,500

Primary Benchmark 3520

Sensitivity Analysis for Primary Energy Requirement Data vs. Primary Benchmark Data (Expressed in TJ/kg)
Material

Primary

Aluminium
CopperFerrous
Lead
Nickel
Tin
Zinc
Paper

4700
1690
1400
1000
2064
1820
2400
3520

Sensitivity Analysis of Primary Data
-10% -5%0%
5%
10%4,230 4,465 4,700 4,935 5,170
1,521 1,606 1,690 1,775 1,859
1,260 1,330 1,400 1,470 1,540
900
950
1,000 1,050 1,100
1,858 1,961 2,064 2,167 2,270
1,638 1,729 1,820 1,911 2,002
2,160 2,280 2400
2,520 2,640
3,168 3,344 3,520 3,696 3,872

15%
5,405
1,944
1,610
1,150
2,374
2,093
2,760
4,048

20%
5,640
2,028
1,680
1,200
2,477
2,184
2,880
4,224

30%
6,110
2,197
1,820
1,300
2,683
2,366
3,120
4,576

40%
6,580
2,366
1,960
1,400
2,890
2,548
3,360
4,928

50%
7,050
2,535
2,100
1,500
3,096
2,730
3,600
5,280

100%
9,400
3,380
2,800
2,000
4,128
3,640
4,800
7,040

Variation in Carbon Footprint for Secondary Production Compared with Primary Production
The data in the second table on page 38 show how variations would arise in carbon footprint data if a given process
deviated from the benchmark data process. The sensitivity analysis is calculated across the same range; for all of themetals studied, deviations by plus 100% from the benchmark still lead to the prediction of carbon dioxide savings fromthe secondary process, but for paper production deviations of greater than 30% would lead to a prediction of a carbon
footprint in favour of primary production.

Variation in Carbon Footprint Data for Primary Production from the Benchmark Data
The sensitivity analyses on primary carbon footprint data are expressed in the same way and show the variationin CO2 emissions with deviations from the primary benchmark data (third table on p.38) that would have to be comparedwith the carbon footprint for secondary production in given situations.

Variation in Energy by Country
One obvious potential variation in energy use between countries or regions depends upon the nature of the energy source,
ranging from efficient hydroelectric production of electricity to the use of low-grade coals. The following table showsthe emission factors for different fuels averaged for the following 14 European countries (Europe-14): Austria, Belgium,
Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the UK.

Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling

Page 37

CO2 Emission Factors in kg/GJ, Average for Europe-14
StateType of Fuel

Gas
LiquidLiquidLiquid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid

Natural Gas
Natural Gas Liquids
Crude Oil
Orimulsion*
Anthracite
Bituminous Coal
Sub-bituminous Coal
LignitePeat

CO2 Emissions Factorin (kg/GJ)
56.3
63.8
73.6
80.7
98.7
94.8
96.7
105.5
106.8

* Orimulsion is a bitumen based fuel from Venezuela.

The data in the table above are averaged over the 14 European countries but they also vary with the source of extraction.
For example, although the average factor for bituminous coal in Europe-14 is 94.8, the UK average is 83.3 and for Canada
the factor is 80.3kgCO2/GJ.

Sensitivity Analysis for Secondary Carbon Footprint Data vs Primary Benchmark Data (Expressed in kTCO2/t)
Material

Primary

Secondary

Aluminium
CopperFerrous
Lead
Nickel
Tin
Zinc
Paper

383
125
167
163
212
218
236
0.17

29
44
70
2
22
3
56
0.14

Sensitivity Analysis of Secondary CO2 Data
-10% -5%0%
5%
10% 15%
26
28
29
30
32
33
40
42
44
46
48
51
63
67
70
74
77
81
2
2
2
2
2
2
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
3
3
3
3
3
50
53
56
59
62
64
0.13
0.13
0.14
0.15
0.15
0.16

20%
35
53
84
2
26
4
67
0.17

30%
38
57
91
3
29
4
73
0.18

40%
41
62
98
3
31
4
78
0.20

50%
44
66
105
3
33
5
84
0.21

100%
58
88
140
4
44
6
112
0.28

Sensitivity Analysis for Primary Carbon Footprint Data vs. Primary Benchmark Data (Expressed in kTCO2/t)
Material

Primary

Aluminium
CopperFerrous
Lead
Nickel
Tin
Zinc
Paper

383
125
167
163
212
218
236
0.17

Page 38

Sensitivity Analysis of Primary CO2 Data
-10% -5%
0%
5%
10%
345
364
383
402
421
113
119
125
131
138
150
159
167
175
184
147
155
163
171
179
191
201
212
223
233
196
207
218
229
240
212
224
236
248
260
0.15
0.16
0.17
0.18
0.19

15%
440
144
192
187
244
251
271
0.20

20%
460
150
200
196
254
262
283
0.20

30%
498
163
217
212
276
283
307
0.22

40%
536
175
234
228
297
305
330
0.24

50%
575
188
251
245
318
327
354
0.26

100%
766
250
334
326
424
436
472
0.34

Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling

Many primary and secondary production processes for metals rely on electricity as a source of energy, and the datain the following table show the benchmark CO2 emissions in the generation of electricity from different energy sources.
A US Department of Energy report provides information on the electricity emission factors worldwide between 1999
and 2002, averaged by region, and these are recorded in the table at the bottom of this page.

Benchmark CO2 Emissions in Generation of Electricity from Different Energy Sources
Minimum Emissions for Production of Electricity from Different Sources(kgCO2/GJ)
Coal
238.9
Oil
190.6
Natural Gas
127.8
Biomass
8.6
Solar PV
8.3
Hydro
4.4
Wind
4.2
Nuclear
2.5

Electricity Emission Factor by Region
RegionNon-OECD Asia
Middle East
AfricaU.S.
MexicoNon-OECD Europe and Eurasia
OECD Asia
OECD Europe
CanadaCentral and South America

Electricity Emission Factor(kgCO2/GJ)
224.8
206.3
189.7
187.8
164.8
142.5
142.0
107.4
62.0
56.7

The data provided in this section show that there are large variations in carbon footprints arising from the differencesin the sources of energy available between regions. For the purposes of this report, copper has been used as an example.
The estimated primary production of copper in 2007 was 15.6M tonnes. The following table shows the mine productionof copper in the largest producing countries.

Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling

Page 39

Largest Copper Mine Producers and Production in 2007
Country
Chile
Peru
U.S.
China
Australia
Indonesia
RussiaCanadaZambiaPolandKazakhstan
MexicoTotal

Copper Mine Production (Mt)
5.70
1.20
1.19
0.92
0.86
0.78
0.73
0.58
0.53
0.47
0.46
0.40
13.82

The production of 100,000 tonnes of primary copper following the pyrometallurgical route can be compared for different
countries on the basis of electricity emission factors. To do this, it is assumed that all countries initially have the same
specific energy requirement (the benchmark data taken from table on page 13 and presented in the table below).
Assuming that the energy requirement can be based on electricity emission factors, the emissions of CO2 per 100,000 tonnesof primary copper production compared with the benchmark value of 125 for different countries are given in the table below.

Benchmark Energy Requirements for Primary and Secondary Copper Production
Copper Recovery Method
Pyrometallurgy from Ore Concentrate
Secondary Production from Scrap

Energy Requirement (MJ/kg Cu)
16.9
6.3

CO2 Emissions per 100,000 Tonnes of Copper Production in Selected Countries
Country
Kazakhstan
Australia
China
PolandIndonesia
U.S.
MexicoRussiaChile
BenchmarkCanadaPeru
ZambiaPage 40

Electricity Emission Factor(kgCO2/GJ)
359.2
256.8
233.1
202.7
200.5
187.8
164.8
97.5
92.4
62.0
41.1
1.9

Emissions in ktCO2(100,000 tonnes Cu)
607
434
394
343
339
317
279
165
156
125
105
70
3

Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling

The data for production of 100,000 tonnes of secondary copper are given along with the benchmark figurein the following table.

CO2 Emissions per 100,000 Tonnes of Secondary Copper Production in Selected Countries
Country

Electricity Emission Factor(kgCO2/GJ)
277.4
256.8
253.0
233.1
202.7
200.5
187.8
166.2
164.8
149.7
132.0
116.0
97.5
69.7

India
Australia
South Africa
China
PolandIndonesia
U.S.
Islamic Republic of Iran
MexicoGermany
United Kingdom
Japan
RussiaVenezuela
BenchmarkCanadaBrazil

62.0
25.8

Emissions in ktCO2(100,000 tonnes 2ary Cu)
175
162
159
147
128
126
118
105
104
94
83
73
61
44
44
39
16

Using the benchmark data from this work, the total savings in CO2 from production of secondary material rather than
primary are estimated as approximately 500Mt CO2 (see table below).

Estimated Savings in CO2 Emissions
Material
Aluminium
CopperFerrous
Lead
Nickel
Tin
Zinc
Paper
Total

Secondary Production
(Mt)
16
6
440
3
0.35
0.05
1
168
628

Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling

Emission by Primary
Production (Mt CO2)
61.3
7.5
734.8
4.9
0.7
0.1
2.4
28.6
840

Emission by Secondary
Production (Mt CO2)
4.6
2.6
308.0
0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.6
23.5
340

Savings(Mt CO2)
56.6
4.9
426.8
4.8
0.6
0.1
1.8
5.1
501

Page 41

Conclusion
Values of the energy requirements and carbon footprints have been obtained from a survey of the primary literature, forthe production
Valuesof the energy
of primary
requirements
and secondaryand carbon
metalsfootprints
and paper.
have
Thebeenmetalsobtained
included
frominathe
surveysurveyof theare primaryaluminium,
literaturecopper,ferrous,forthe production
lead, nickel,of primarytin and zinc.
and secondary metals and paper. The metals included in the survey are aluminium,
copper, ferrous, lead, nickel, tin and zinc.

To avoid complications associated with the early stages of the whole life cycles of these materials, benchmark
energy requirements and carbon footprints for primary materials are extracted from ore or raw material deliveredat the production plant, and for secondary material delivered at the secondary plant. Benchmark data are reported
per 100,000 tonnes of material produced to provide a means of direct comparison between primary and secondary
production. These data are tabulated in the following two tables for each material separately, as energy requirements
and savings per 100,000 tonnes of production of material, and as carbon footprints and savings per 100,000 tonnesof production of material.

Energy Requirement and Savings in Terajoules (TJ/100,000t)
Material
Aluminium
CopperFerrous
Lead
Nickel
Tin
Zinc
Paper

Primary
4700
1690
1400
1000
2064
1820
2400
3520

Secondary
240
630
1170
13
186
20
1800
1880

Saving/100,000 Tonnes
4460
1360
230
987
1878
1800
600
1640

Carbon Footprint and Savings Expressed in Kilotonnes of CO2 (ktCO2)/100,000 Tonnes
Material
Aluminium
CopperFerrous
Lead
Nickel
Tin
Zinc
Paper

Primary
383
125
167
163
212
218
236
0.17

Secondary
29
44
70
2
22
3
56
0.14

Saving/100,000 Tonnes
354
81
97
161
190
215
180
0.03

Using these data, the total saving in annual carbon dioxide emissions for the production of thesecondary materials that are the subject of this report is calculated to be approximately 500Mt.
The savings for the individual materials are listed in the following table.

Page 42

Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling

Estimated Annual Savings in CO2 Emissions
Material
Aluminium
CopperFerrous
Lead
Nickel
Tin
Zinc
Paper
Total

Secondary Production
(Mt)
16
6
440
3
0.35
0.05
1
168
634

Emission by Primary
Production (Mt CO2)
61.3
7.5
734.8
4.9
0.7
0.1
2.4
0.286
812

Emission by Secondary
Production (Mt CO2)
4.6
2.6
308.0
0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.6
0.235
316

Savings/100 000tonnes(% savings CO2 in parentheses)
56.6
(92%)
4.9
(65%)
426.8
(58%)
4.8
(99%)
0.6
(90%)
0.1
(99%)
1.8
(76%)
0.05
(18%)
496

The benchmark figures extracted from the primary literature in this work represent (i) data for situations that aresaid to be achievable and (ii) values that are the most acceptable and justifiable. To account for any variations arisingfrom differences in processes, however, sensitivity analyses can be carried out on any of the input data in order to show
how differences in process parameters would be reflected in the overall energy saving and carbon footprint results.
Sensitivity analysis can be carried out on any input parameter but the following are given as examples:(i) the variation in secondary production energy requirement data compared with the primary benchmark;(ii) the variation in primary production energy requirement data from the benchmark;(iii) the variation in the carbon footprint data for secondary recovery compared with the primary benchmark;(iv) the variation in the carbon footprint data for primary production from the primary benchmark;(v) the variation in energy and carbon footprint data expressed for different countries or regions dependingon their fuel/energy balance.
Except for variations by country and region, variations have been calculated for deviations of -10, -5, +5, +10, +15,
+20, +30, +40, +50, +90 and +100%, or -10, -5, +5, +10, +15, +20, +30, +40, +50 and +100%. This provides
a rapid method of comparing data from real production processes with the benchmark values used in this work.
The concept of benchmarking is a novel approach to calculating environmental parameters such as carbon footprints
and carbon dioxide savings, and combined with the provision of sensitivity analyses provides a means of obtaining
the best available calculated data for individual situations.

Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling

Page 43

Bibliography

Primary and Secondary Aluminium Production
1. Blomberg, J. and Hellmer, S. Short-run demand and supply elasticities in the West European market for secondary aluminium.
Resources Policy 26 (2000) 39-50
2. Xiao, Y., Reuter, M. A. Recycling of distributed aluminium turning scrap. Minerals Engineering, 15/11 (2002) 963-970
3. Developments in Mineral Processing, 16 (2005) 391-451
4. Energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction potentials in the aluminium industry. A workshop in the framework of the G8 Dialogue
on climate change, clean energy and sustainable development. International Aluminium Institute. 2007
5. Aluminium story. International Aluminium Institute. Online access 05 April 08. http://www.world-aluminium.org/About+Aluminium/Story+of
6. Samuel, M. A new technique for recycling aluminium scrap. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 135/1 (2003) 117-124
7. Schwarz, H. G. Technology diffusion in metal industries: driving forces and barriers in the German aluminium smelting sector.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 16/1 (2008) 37-49
8. Coal to remain top energy source for China. Shenzhen Daily/Agencies. Updated: 2005-03-30 [Cited 04/04/08]. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/
english/doc/2005-03/30/content_429544.htm
9. Life Cycle Inventory data for aluminium production and transformation processes in Europe. Environmental Profile Report for the European
Aluminium Industry. European Aluminium Association. [cited 15/04/08]. Available online www.eaa.net/upl/4/en/doc/EAA_Environmental_
profile_report_May08.pdf
10. Norgate, T. E., Rankin, W. J. Greenhouse gas emissions from aluminium production – a life cycle approach. CSIRO Minerals. [cited 14/04/08]
Available online: www.minerals.csiro.au/sd/CSIRO_Paper_LCA_Al.htm
11. Aluminium production: an example calculation of the energy saved by recycling. Department of Materials Science and Metallurgy, Universityof Cambridge. Online accessed: 23 Feb 2008. www.doitpoms.ac.uk/tlplib/recycling-metals/aluminium_production.php
12. Norgate, T. E. Metal recycling: An assessment using Life Cycle Energy Consumption as a sustainability indicator (Report), CSIRO Minerals, 2004.
13. Life Cycle Assessment of aluminium: inventory data for the primary aluminium industry. Year 2005 update. International Aluminium Institute.
September 2007.
14. Norgate, T. E., Jahanshahi, S., and Rankin, W. J. Assessing the environmental impact of metal production processes.
Journal of Cleaner Production 15/8-9 (2007) 838-848
15. Logozar, K., Radonjic, G. and Bastic, M. Incorporation of reverse logistics model into in-plant recycling process: A case of aluminium industry.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 49/1 (2006) 49-67
16. Choate, W. T. and Green, J. A. U.S. Energy requirements for aluminium production: Historical perspective, theoretical limits
and new opportunities. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy efficiency and renewable energy. February 2003.

Primary and Secondary Copper Production
1. Ayres, R. U., Ayres, L.W., et al. The life cycle of copper, its co-products and by-products. Mining minerals and sustainable development.
International Institute for Environment and Development and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. 2002.
2. Reprinted from Outokumpu News February 1998. [cited 16/04/08] Online: http:// www.copper.org/innovations/1998/06/outokumpu.html
3. Laboy, C. and González, E. Map and table of world copper smelters. US Geological Survey Open File-Report 03-75. U.S. Geological Survey, 2003.
4. Bordia, S. General activity of LCA in developing countries and in Papua New Guinea. Department of Mining Engineering. Papua New Guinea
University of Technology. Paper presented at the Gateway to Life Cycle Impact Assessment for APEC Member Economies. Group report. 2002.
Accessed online: http://unit.aist.go.jp/lca-center/asianetwork/symposium/report/2002/81.pdf
5. Jolly, J. L. The US copper-base scrap industry and its by-products. An overview 2006. Technical report. Seventh edition. February 2007.
Copper Development Association Inc.
6. Xueyi, G., Yu, S. Substance flow analysis of copper in China. Resources, Conservation and Recycling (2008) 52(6), 874-882
7. Spatari, S., Bertram, M., Fuse, K., Graedel, T. E., Rechberger, H. The contemporary European copper cycle: 1 year stocks and flows.
Ecological Economics 42 (2002) 27-42
8. U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries, January 2008. Accessed online: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/
copper/ [cited 14/04/08]
9. Norgate, T. E., Jahanshahi, S., Rankin, W. J. Assessing the environmental impact of metal production processes.
Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (2007) 838-848
10. Gaballah, I. and Kanari, N. Recycling policy in the European Union. Journal of Metals 53/11 (2001) 24-27
11. Norgate, T. E, and Rankin, W. J. The role of metals in sustainable development. Green Processing 2002, (the AusIMM), Caims, 49-55
12. The copper recycling media tour, Waalwijk (Netherlands), June 2003. Copper Benelux & European Copper Institute. [cited 16/04/08]
Available online: http://www.eurocopper.org/doc/uploaded/File/Recyclage2_ EN.pdf
13. Kellogg, H. H. Sizing up the energy requirements for producing primary metals. Engineering and Minerals Journal, 178/4 (1977) 61-65

Page 44

Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling14. Lipowsky, H. and Arpaci, E. Copper in the Automotive Industry. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmBH & Co, KgaA. Weinheim ISBN:978-3-527-31769-1
15. Bruch, H., Gohike, D., Kruger, C., Reuter, M., Roepenack, I. V., Rombach, E., Rombach, G., Winkler, P. LCI of copper production
and processing. Metall 49/4 (1995) 252-257
16. Landner, L., and Lindstrom, L. Copper in society and the environment. Swedish Environmental Research Group. 1999.
17. Norgate, T. E. and Rankin, W. J. Life Cycle assessment of copper and nickel production. Proceedings, Minprex 2000,
International Conference on Minerals Processing and Extractive Metallurgy. September 2000, 133-138
18. Kuckshinrichs, W., Zapp, P., and Poganietz, W-R. CO2 emissions of global metal industries: the case of copper. Applied Energy 84 (2007) 842-852.

Primary and Secondary Ferrous Production
1. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC). Best Available Techniques Reference Document on the Production of Iron and Steel.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION. December 2001. [cited 28/04/08] Available online: http://www.elaw.org/system/files/eu.isp_bref_1201.pdf
2. BlueScope Steel Corporate: Steelmaking. [cited 14/04/08] Available online: http://www.bluescopesteel.com/go/about-bluescope-steel/studentinformation/steelmaking
3. Price, L., Sinton, J., Worrell, E., Phylipsen, D., Xiulian, H., Ji, L. Energy use and carbon dioxide emissions from steel production in China.
Energy 27 (2002) 429-446
4. Iron and Steel Statistics Bureau. Accessed online on 9 April 2008: http://www.issb.co.uk/
5. Steelmaking raw materials. The International Iron Steel Institute. [cited 14/04/08] http://www.worldsteel.org/pictures/programfiles/Fact%20
sheet_Raw%20materials.pdf
6. Report World Steel in Figures 2007. The International Iron Steel Institute. [cited 14/04/08] Online:http://www.worldsteel.org/index.
php?action=newsdetail&id=198
7. Norgate, T. E. Metal recycling: An assessment using life cycle energy consumption as a sustainability indicator. CSIRO Minerals 2004
8. Wei, Y. M., Liao, H., Fan, Y. An empirical analysis of energy efficiency in China’s iron and steel sector. Energy 32 (2007) 2262-2270
9. Gielen, D., Moriguchi, Y. CO2 in the iron and steel industry: an analysis of Japanese emission reduction potentials. Energy policy 30 (2002) 849-863
10. Hidalgo, I., Szabo, L., Ciscar, J. C., Soria, A. Technological prospects and CO2 emission trading analyses in the iron and steel industry:
A global model. Energy 30/5 (2005) 583-610
11. Hu, C., Chen, L., Zhang, C., Qi, Y., Yin, R. Emission mitigation of CO2 in steel industry: current status and future scenarios.
Journal of Iron and Steel Research, International 13/6 (2006) 38-42
12. Kim, Y., Worrell, E. International comparison of CO2 emission trend in the iron and steel industry. Energy policy 30 (2002) 827-838
13. Ozawa, L., Sheinbaum, C., Martin, N., Worrell, E., Price, L. Energy use and CO2 emissions in Mexico’s iron and steel industry.
Energy 27 (2002) 225-239
14. Bhaktavatsalam, A. K., Choudhury, R. Specific energy consumption in the steel industry. Energy 20 (1995) 1247-1250
15. Choudhury, R., Bhaktavatsalam, A. K. Energy inefficiency of Indian steel industry – scope for energy conservation.
Energy Conservation and Management 38/2 (1997) 167-171
16. Worrell, E., Price, L., Martin, N., Farla, J., Schaeffer, R. Energy intensity in the iron and steel industry: a comparison of physicaland economic indicators. Energy policy 25/7-9 (1997) 727-744
17. Quoted by Choudhury et al (1997) from Energy data for steel plants – 1993-94. Energy conservation group, research and development centre
for iron and steel, Ranchi 1991
18. Andersen, J. P., Hyman, B. Energy and material flow models for the U.S. steel industry. Energy 26 (2001) 137-159
19. Wei, Y. M., Liao, H., Fan, Y. An empirical analysis of energy efficiency in China’s iron and steel sector. Energy 32 (2007) 2262-2270
20. Wang, K., Wang, C., Lu, X., Chen, J. Scenario analysis on CO2 emissions reduction potential in China’s iron and steel industry.
Energy policy 35 (2007) 2320-2335
21. Sakamoto, Y., Tonooka, Y., Yanagisawa, Y. Estimation of energy consumption for each process in the Japanese steel industry:a process analysis. Energy Conservation and Management 40 (1999) 1129-1140
22. Ertem, M., Gürgen, S. Energy balance analysis for Erdemir blast furnace number one. Applied Thermal Engineering 26 (2006) 1139-1148
23. Norgate, T. E., Jahanshahi, S., Rankin, W. J. Assessing the environmental impact of metal production processes. Journal of Cleaner
Production 15 (2007) 838-848
24. Norgate, T. E. Metal recycling: An assessment using life cycle energy consumption as a sustainability indicator. CSIRO Minerals 2004
25. Norgate, T. E., Rankin, W. J. The role of metals in sustainable development. Green Processing 2002, (The AusIMM), Caims, 49-55
26. Gaballah, I., Kanari, N. Recycling policy in the European Union. Journal of Metals, (2001) 24-27
27. Grant, T., James, K., Lundie, S. Sonneveld, K. Stage 2 report for life cycle assessment for paper and packaging waste management
scenarios in Victoria. 2001. Ecorecycle Victoria
28. Johnson, J., Reck, B. K., Wang, T. Graedel, T. E. The energy benefits of stainless steel recycling. Energy policy 36 (2008) 181-192

Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling

Page 45

29. Das, A., Kandpal, T. C. Iron and Steel manufacturing technologies in India: estimation of CO2 emission. International Journal of Energy
Research 21 (1997) 1187
30. Das, A., Kandpal, T. C. Energy demand and associated CO2 emissions for the Indian steel industry. Energy 23/12 (1998) 1043-1050
31. Phylipsen, D., Blok, K., Worrell, E., Beer, J. Benchmarking the energy efficiency of Dutch industry: an assessment of the expected effecton energy consumption and CO2 emissions. Energy policy 30 (2002) 663-679
32. Sakamoto, Y. and Tonooka, Y. Estimation of CO2 emission for each process in the Japanese steel industry: a process analysis. International
Journal of Energy Research 24 (2000) 625-632
33. Das, A., Kandpal, T. C. Energy demand and associated CO2 emissions for the Indian steel industry. Energy 23/12 (1998) 1043-1050
34. Das, A., Kandpal, T. C. Iron and Steel manufacturing technologies in India: estimation of CO2 emission. International Journal of Energy 21(1997) 1187-1201
35. Orth, A., Anastasijevic, N., Eichberger, H. Low CO2 emission technologies for iron and steelmaking as well as titania slag production.
Minerals Engineering 20 (2007) 854-861
36. Ho, J. C., Chandratilleke, T. T. Thermodynamic analysis of an electric arc furnace. Energy Conversion and Management 31/2 (1991) 179-186
37. Rynikiewicz, C. The climate change challenge and transitions for radical changes in the European steel industry. Journal of Cleaner
Production 16/7 (2008) 781-789

Primary and Secondary Lead Production
1. Chapter 5: Recycling of Lead. p. 71-80 [Cited 14/04/08] http://www.ila-lead.org/factbook/chapter5.pdf
2. Mao, J. Industrial flow of lead in China. Zhong Guo You Se Jin Shu Xue Hui Hui Kan (Ying Wen Ban), 2007. 17(2): p. 400-411
3. Norgate, T. E. and Rankin W. J. An Environmental Assessment of lead and zinc production processes. Green Processing, 2002. 2002(May):
p. 177-184
4. Campbell, M. C. Non-Ferrous Metals Recycling: A Complement to Primary Metals Production. 1996, International Council on Metals
and the Environment: Ottawa.
5. Norgate, T. E. Assessing the environmental impact of metal production processes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2007. 15(8-9): p. 838-848
6. Siegmund, A. The International Symposium on Zinc and Lead Processing. JOM, 1999. May: p. 33-34
7. Kreusch, M. Technological improvements in automotive battery recycling. Resources, Conservation, and Recycling, 2007. 52: p. 368-380
8. Wernick, I. K. and Themelis, N. J. Recycling Metals for the Environment. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ., 1998. 23: p. 465-97
9. Kang, H.-Y. and Schoenung, J. M. Used Consumer Electronics: A Comparative Analysis of Materials Recycling Technologies. 2004: p. 226-230
10. Schupp, N. D. Operations at the Doe Run company’s Herculaneum primary lead smelter. Zinc-Lead 2000, 2000: p. 117-125
11. Siegmund, A. Primary lead production - A survey of existing smelters and refineries. Lead-Zinc 2000, 2000: p. 55-66
12. Moriya, K. Achievement of lead smelting during a quarter century at Mitsubishi-Cominco’s Naoshima smelter. Primary and Secondary
Lead Processing, 1989. 15: p. 71-86.
13. Norgate, T. E. Metal Recycling: An Assessment Using Life Cycle Energy Consumption as a Sustainability Indicator, C. Minerals, Editor. 2004.
14. Profile of the Nonferrous Metals Industry, in EPA Office of Compliance Sector Notebook Project. 1995, Office of Compliance,
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
15. Daniel, S. Applying life cycle inventory to reverse supply chains: a case study of lead recovery from batteries. Resources, Conservation,
and Recycling, 2003. 37(4): p. 251-281
16. Gaballah, I. and Kanari, N. Recycling Policy in the European Union, in JOM, R.a. Regulation, Editor. 2001: Vandoeuvre.
17. Norgate, T. E. and W. J. Rankin. The role of metals in sustainable development. CSIRO Minerals 2002. [cited 1404/08] Available from:www.minerals.csiro.au/sd/CSIRO_Paper_LCA_Sust.pdf
18. Robertson, J. MIM primary lead production: a life-cycle approach to identification and management of the environmental effects.
Transactions. Section C, Mineral Processing & Extractive Metallurgy, 2001. 110: p. C33-C42.

Primary and Secondary Nickel Production
1. U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries, January 2008: Nickel. [cited 28/04/08] Available from: http://minerals.usgs.gov/
minerals/pubs/commodity/nickel/mcs-2008-nickel.pdf
2. Nickel Production Statistics. International Nickel Study Group. [cited 28/04/08] Available from: http://www.insg.org/stats.aspx
3. Recycling of Nickel Containing Products. International Nickel Study Group. [cited 28/04/08] Available from: http://www.insg.org/recycling.aspx
4. Campbell, M. C. Non-Ferrous Metals Recycling: A Complement to Primary Metals Production. 1996, International Council on Metals and theEnvironment: Ottawa.
5. Norgate, T. E., Assessing the environmental impact of metal production processes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2007. 15(8-9): p. 838-848.
6. Handbook of Extractive Metallurgy, in Volume 2, Primary Metals; Secondary Metals; Light Metals, F. Habashi, Editor. 1997, Weinham: Cambridge.

Page 46

Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling7. Norgate, T. E. and Rankin, W. J. Life Cycle Assessment of Copper and Nickel Production in MINPREX 2000, International Congresson Mineral Processing and Extractive Metallurgy. 2000. Melbourne, Australia: RMIT University.
8. Kellogg, H. H. Sizing up the Energy Requirements for Producing Primary Materials. Engineering and Mining Journal, 1977. 178(4): p. 61-65.
9. Chapman, P. F. and Roberts, F. Metal Resources and Energy. Butterworths Monographs in Materials. 1983, Thetford: Butterworth and Co.
10. Norgate, T. E. Metal Recycling: An Assessment Using Life Cycle Energy Consumption as a Sustainability Indicator, C. Minerals, Editor. 2004.
11. Norgate, T. E. and Rankin, W. J. The role of metals in sustainable development. CSIRO Minerals 2002. [cited 14/04/08] Available from:www.minerals.csiro.au/sd/CSIRO_Paper_LCA_Sust.pdf
12. Johnson, J., et al. The energy benefit of stainless steel recycling. Energy Policy, 2008. 36(1): p. 181-192.
13. Taylor, J. C. The Recycling of Non-Ferrous Metals. Extractive Metallurgy of Copper, Nickel and Cobalt, 1993. 1: p. 1199-1209

Primary and Secondary Tin Production
1. U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries, January 2008: Tin. [cited 7/04/08] Available from: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/
pubs/commodity/tin/mcs-2008-tin.pdf
2. Tin Use Survey 2007. International Tin Research Institute. [cited 7/04/08] Available from: http://www.itri.co.uk/pooled/articles/BF_TECHART/
view.asp?Q=BF_TECHART_297350. Accessed April 2008.
3. Indonesia’s Koba Tin smelter shut. 2008. [cited 14/04/08] Available from: http://uk.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/
idUKJAK3160320080129
4. Chapman, P. F. and Roberts, F. Metal Resources and Energy. Butterworths Monographs in Materials. 1983, Thetford: Butterworth and Co.
5. Handbook of Extractive Metallurgy, in Volume 2, Primary Metals; Secondary Metals; Light Metals, F. Habashi, Editor. 1997, Weinham:
Cambridge.
6. Kekesi, T., Torok, T. I., Kabelik, G. Extraction of tin from scrap by chemical and electrochemical methods in alkaline media. Hydrometallurgy,
2000. 55: p. 213-222
7. Kellogg, H. H. Sizing up the Energy Requirements for Producing Primary Materials. Engineering and Mining Journal, 1977. 178(4): p. 61-65
8. Morris, J. Comparative LCAs for Curbside Recycling Versus Either Landfilling or Incineration with Energy Recovery. Int J LCA 2005. 10(4):p. 273-284

Primary and Secondary Zinc Production
1. Profile of the Nonferrous Metals Industry, in EPA Office of Compliance Sector Notebook Project. 1995, Office of Compliance,
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
2. Norgate, T. E. and Rankin, W. J. The role of metals in sustainable development. CSIRO Minerals 2002. Available from: www.minerals.csiro.au/
sd/CSIRO_Paper_LCA_Sust.pdf. Accessed April 2008.
3. Norgate, T. E. and Rankin, W. J. An Environmental Assessment of lead and zinc production processes. Green Processing, 2002(May): p. 177-184
4. Viklund-White, C. C. The use of LCA for the environmental evaluation of the recycling of galvanised steel. ISIJ International, 2000. 40(3): p. 292
5. Siegmund, A. The International Symposium on Zinc and Lead Processing. JOM, 1999. May: p. 33-34
6. Hassall, C. and Roberts, H. Market Fundamentals and The Evolution of lead and zinc supplies. Lead-Zinc 2000, 2000: p. 3-16
7. Zinc Recycling. American Galvanisers Association. [cited 2008 15/04]; Available from: http://www.galvanizeit.org/aga/galvanized-steel-in-use/sustainable-development/zinc-recycling/
8. Guidelines on Best Available Techniques (BAT) and provisional Guidance on Best Environmental Practices (BEP) relevant to Article 5
and Annex C of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. United Nations Environmental programme. December 2004.
[cited 28/04/08] Available online: http://www.dioksyny.pl/files/Draft-BAT-BEP-Dec-2004.pdf
9. Campbell, M. C. Non-Ferrous Metals Recycling: A Complement to Primary Metals Production. 1996, International Council on Metals
and the Environment: Ottawa.
10. Zinc: Industry Usage. London Metal Exchange [cited 14/04/08]; Available from: http://www.lme.co.uk/zinc_industryusage.asp
11. Gaballah, I. and Kanari, N. Recycling Policy in the European Union, in JOM, R.a. Regulation, Editor. 2001: Vandoeuvre
12. Wernick, I. K. and Themelis, N. J. Recycling Metals For The Environment. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ., 1998. 23: p. 465-97
13. International Lead and Zinc Study Group. Statistics. Table 5: ILZSG Lead and Zinc Statistics. [cited 14/04/08] Available from www.ilzsg.org
14. Tolcin, A. C. Zinc. 2006 Minerals Yearbook. U.S. Geological Survey. February 2008. [cited 28/04/08] Available from: http://minerals.usgs.gov/
minerals/pubs/commodity/zinc/myb1-2006-zinc.pdf
15. Martin, M., Wildt, R. Closing the loop: An introduction to recycling zinc-coated steel. International Zinc Association 2001.
16. Higgins, S. Galvanised for action. World Zinc Report. International Mining. January (2007) pp1417. U.S. Geological Survey 2005. Zinc End-Use Statistics in Kelly, T. D. and Matos, G. R. compilations, Historical statistics for mineral and material
commodities in the United States. U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 140, available online: http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/2005/140/ April 2008

Report on Environmental Benefits of Recycling

Page 47

18. Uses of Zinc. International Zinc Association. [cited 21/04/08] Available at: www.iza.com/uses.html
19. Moriya, K. Achievement of lead smelting during a quarter century at Mitsubishi-Cominco’s Naoshima smelter. Primary and Secondary
Lead Processing, 1989. 15: p. 71-86
20. Kellogg, H. H., State Of Nonferrous Extractive Metallurgy. Journal of Metals, 1982. V 34(N 10): p. 35-42
21. Dove, W. and Boustead, I. The Effect of sulphur on primary zinc ecoprofile calculations. Third international conference on ecobalance. 1998. Japan
22. Reuter, M. A. The simulation of industrial ecosystems. Minerals Engineering, 1998. 11(10): p. 891-918
23. Gediga, J., Florin, H. and Eyerer, P. Life Cycle Assessment: A case study in zinc production. Heavy Metals, 1997: p. 87-92
24. Xiao, X. X., et al. LCA Case Study of Zinc Hydro- and Pyro-Metallurgical Process in China. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,
2003. 8(3): p. 151
25. Kellogg, H. H. and Krumb, H. Energy Use in Zinc Extraction. Journal of Metals, 1979(10): p. 21
26. Martchek, K. J. Importance of recycling to the environmental profile of metal products. 2000. 19
27. Norgate, T. E. Metal Recycling: An Assessment Using Life Cycle Energy Consumption as a Sustainability Indicator, C. Minerals, Editor. 2004.

Primary and Secondary Paper Production
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Paper Industry Statistics. [cited: 18/04/08] Available from: http://www.conservatree.org/learn/EnviroIssues/paperindstats.shtml
Paper Recycling Association of South Africa. [cited: 18/04/08] Available from: http://www.prasa.co.za/statistics.html#fibre
Blanco, A. A. et al. The challenges of sustainable papermaking. Environmental Science & Technology, 2004. 38(21): p. 414A-420A
Confederation of European Paper Industries [cited 18/04/08] Available from: www.cepi.org
Monte, M. C., Fuente, E., Blanco, A., and Negro, C. Waste management from pulp and paper production in the European Union.
Waste Management, 2009, 29(1) 293-308
6. UK Wood Production and Trade. 2007 [cited 2008 18/04/08].
7. Leach, M. A., Bauen, A. and Lucas, N. J. D. A Systems Approach to Materials Flow in Sustainable Cities: A Case Study of Paper.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 1997. 40(6): p. 705-724
8. Bloemhof-Ruwaard, J. M., et al. An environmental life cycle optimization model for the European pulp and paper industry. Omega, 1996.
24(6): p. 615-629
9. Recycling Paper & Glass. 2006 [cited 2008 18/04/08]; Available from: http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/saving/recycling/solidwaste/
paperandglass.html#SavingEnergy
10. Hart, A. A., et al. Use of life cycle assessment to develop industrial ecologies - A case study graphics paper. Process Safety and Environmental
Protection, 2005. 83(4 B): p. 359-363
11. Villanueva, A. and Wenzel, H. Paper waste - Recycling, incineration or landfilling? A review of existing life cycle assessments.
Waste Management, 2007. 27(8): p. S29-S46
12. Schenk, N. J., Henri, C. M. and Potting, J. The nonlinear relationship between paper recycling and primary pulp requirements.
Journal of Industrial Ecology, 2004. 8(3): p. 141-161
13. Lifecycle Environmental Comparison: Virgin Paper and Recycled Paper-based Systems, prepared by The Paper Task Force: White Papers,
T.E.D. Fund, Editor. 1995, 2002, Environmental Defense New York. Accessed: http://www.edf.org/documents/1618_WP3.pdf
14. An Independent Assessment of the Environmental Benefits of Recycling at Aylesford Newsprint Compared with Incineration, prepared by the
Ecobilan Group, commissioned by Aylesford Newsprint 2003. Accessed: http://www.aylesford-newsprint.co.uk/ReportFiles/lcs.pdf
15. Beer, J. D., Worrell, E. and Blok, K. Long-term energy efficiency improvements in the paper and board industry. Energy, 1998. 23(1): p. 21-42
16. Farla, J., Blok, K. and L. Schipper, L. Energy Efficiency Developments in the Pulp and Paper Industry. Energy Policy, 1997. 25(7-9): p. 745-758
17. The Environmental Consequences of Pulp and Paper Manufacture. Available from: http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/consequence_
pulp_paper.html [cited 18/04/04]

Sensitivity Analyses
1. Herold, A. Comparison of CO2 emission factors for fuels used in GHG inventories and consequences for monitoring and reporting
under the EC emission trading scheme. European Topic Centre on Air and Climate Change Technical Paper 2003/10. July 2003
2. National Inventory report, 1990-2004: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada. Annex 4. Environment Canada. [cited 21/04/08]
Available online: www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventory_report/2004_report/ta4_2_e.cfm
3. Energy value and greenhouse emission factor of selected fuels. The Australian Institute of Energy. [cited 23/04/08] Available online:
http://aie.org.au/Content/NavigationMenu/Resources/EnergyData/Energy_Value_Greenh.htm
4. Appendix F: Foreign Electricity Emission Factors 1999-2002. Form EIA-1605 (2007). Energy Information Administration.
U.S. Department of Energy 2007. [cited 08/03/08] Online: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/pdf/Appendix%20F_r071023.pdf
5. US Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries, January 2008. [cited 14/04/08] Accessed online: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/
pubs/commodity/copper/

Page 48

Report on Environmental Benefits of RecyclingThis report has been printed on 100% recycled paper.

Bureau of International Recycling (aisbl)
Avenue Franklin Roosevelt 241050 Brussels
Belgium
T. +32 2 627 57 70
F. +32 2 627 57 73
bir@bir.org
http://www.bir.org