IndustrialSymbiosis

Industrial Symbiosis
Anna Wolf, PhD Environmental Technology and Management
The research field industrial ecology
Industrial Ecology
Facility or firm Inter firm Regional/Global
-Design for environment -Pollution Prevention -Green accounting -Industrial sector initiatives
-Product life cycles
-Industrial Symbiosis
-Industrial Metabolism
-Budgets and cycles
-MFA/SFA etc Sustainability
Adapted from Chertow, 2000
Historic development
”Strategies for manufacturing”1989
Sustainable developent
Alternative to ”end-of-pipe”
solutions 70es term apperars Japan,
Belgum Non-waste
technology of production Industrial Ecology
Dematerialization Conceptual IE
Eco-Industrial
Parks
Practical IE
What is industrial symbiosis?•Collaboration between different industries for
mutual economic and environmental benefit •”Win-win situation”
•Closing of material and energy flows
–The waste of one industry becomes the rawmaterial of
another
Example of exchanges
Product
Water Facility
1
Product
Raw
material
Fuel
Water
Facility
2
Water
Raw material Fuel Water
By-product Waste heat
Example of exchanges
Product
Raw
material
Fuel Facility
1
Product
Facility
2
Cleaning
Types of exchanges
•Type 1) through waste exchanges
•Type 2) within a facility, firm, or organization •Type 3) among firms co-located in a defined Eco-Industrial Park
•Type 4) among local firms that are not co-located
•Type 5) among firms organized “virtually”across a broader region.
Exchanges between different actors
O=C=O
”Eco-cooperation projects”
•Symbiosis/ By-product exchanges
–Based on physical exchanges of material and energy •Utility sharing
–Shared use of utility infrastructure between companies •Planning and management
–Common environmental mangagement and planning
strategies
Eco-cooperation projects
Source: van Berkel, 2006
Regional resource synergies for
sustainable development in heavy
industrial areas
Examples of documented eco-industrial parks
•Alberta, Canada, (Dias et al, 2001)
•Bien Hoa1 Industrial Zone, Vietnam (my Dieu, 2003)
•Brownsville Eco-Industrial Park, Texas, USA (Martin et al, 1996)
•Burnside Industrial park, Nova Scotia, Canada (Cote, 2001)
•Gladstone Industrial Area Network (GAIN), Australia (Bossilkov et al, 2005)•Golden Horseshoe, Canada (Dias et al, 2001), (Hatch, 2002)
•Guayama, Puerto Rico (Chertow, et al, 2004)
•Kalundborg, Denmark (Ehrenfeld et al, 1997)
•Kawasaki Zero Emission Industrial Park, Japan (Lowe, 2001)
•Kwinana Industrial Area (KIA), Australia (Bossilkov et al, 2005)•Map Ta Phut, Thailand (Homchean, 2004) •Mersey Banks Industrial Symbiosis Project, UK (North West Chemical
Initiative, 2003)
•Montreal, Canada (Nisbet et al, 1997)•National Industrial Symbiosis Programme (NISP), UK (Mirata, 2004)
•North Texas, USA (Dias, et al, 2001)•Ora Ecopark, Norway (Thoresen, 2000)•Quebec, Canada (Dias et al, 2001)•Rotterdam, The Netherlands (Baas, 1998)•Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada (Nisbet et al, 1999)
•Sarnia-Lambton, Canada (Venta et al, 1997)
•Styria, Austria (Schwarz et al,1997)•Tampico, Mexico (Young, 1999)
Criticism against IS
• A new way of thinking or simply common sense?
•Technological lock-in?
•Theories and conceptual development, but few applications
•Hard to evaluate
•Unhealthy dependencies?
•Fossil fuel based applications
•Local focus–industrial ecology or place promotion?
Example: Kalundborg IS
•About20 connections of material and energy flows
•Main actors:
–a coal fired power plant
–an oil refinary
–a medical/biochemistry industry
–a gypsum board manufacturer
–a soil cleaning company
–the municipality of Kalundborg
INDUSTRIAL SYMBIOSIS:STATUS 2007
The Symbiosis Institute
1996
Soilrem
Lake Tissø
Novozymes
Novo Nordisk
Farms
Fish farm
Asnæs Power Station
The Municipality of Kalundborg
Gyproc
Fertilizer industry
Re-use basin
Cement industry
Statoil Refinery
10Surface water 1987
12Yeast slurry 19894
Biomass/NovoGro 1976
13 Sulphur 1990Fertilizer 2001
5
Fly ash 1979
16Gypsum 1993
9Steam 1982
15Gas 199211Cooling water 19877Heat 1981
6 Heat
1980/89
8 Steam 1982
2Gas 197219Sludge 17Waste water 1995
1Surface water 1961
3
Surface water 1973
14Tech.water 1991
18 Drain water 1995
1998
Waste water treatment 20Fly Ash 1999
Collaboration with Noveren
21Deionized water 2002
Purifica-tion of water
22Water 2004
24 Sea water 2007 Recovery of nickel and vanadium
Pig farms
23Alko-holic residue
Savings in Kalundborg
•1,9 million m3ground water annually • 1 million m3surface water annually •200 000 ton natural gypsum annually •20 000 ton oil equivalents annually •...reduced emissions to air and water •Savings>15 million dollars annually
Advantages of IS from a company-perspective
•Access to resources
•Advantages of scale
•Sharing of risk and costs
•Access to markets
•Collective lobbying
•Learning and product development
•…and reduced costs and environmental pressure
So…..
…If industrial symbiosis is so great, why doesn´t everybody do it?
Disadvantages of IS from a company perspective
•Risk –economic and operational •Sensitive information could be spread •Many decisions can not be made on a company level
•Difficult to handle when many companies and cultures are involved
Barriers to co-operation
•Lack of information
•Lack of trust
•Lack of company interest •Environmental regulations (!)•Competition
•Conflicts regarding prices, profit sharing, contracts, goals and methods
Driving forces
•Willingness to act
•Need of expertise
•Need of financial means •Sharing of risk
•Possibility of green marketing
Success factors from Kalundborg
•Openness and trusting company culture •Company leaders already knew each other •Legislation in Denmark is flexible and more open than in other countries
•Dynamic system, open to change
•Each link has been separately negotiated •System has developed over years
•First co-operation successful –lead the way for a new way of thinking
Summary of lessons from KB
•Bottom-up approach
•Economic incentives •Communication more important than technique
•Companies must be
–Co-located
–Fit each other
–Be different (Diversity)
Success factors from other projects •Company engagement important –projects
initiated by government are seldom successful •Built up around an anchor tenant (large company, municipality, ESCO, eco-cycle company etc)
•Local roots and a positive attitude •Developing a platform for the companies to meet and exchange information
Development of IS
•Most existing projects have developed spontaneously over many years –not as a conscious strategy
•Kalundborg: “A non-project led by a non-organisation”
•Planning of IS/EIPs popular during the 90:s, but had little success
–Greenfield development
–Brownfield re-development
Development strategies
•The anchor tenant approach •The “uncovering approach”•The side-in approach
Anchor tenant approach
•Large company
•Municipality
•Company with a co-ordinating function such as an ESCO or Eco-cycle company
The uncovering approach
•By product synergies or “green twinnings”can be further developed to IS
The side-in approach
•Neither bottom-up nor top-down •Help companies organise IS synergies on their own conditions rather than presenting an overall suggestion •Who shall do it?
Technical aspect of implementation-IS tools
•Material flow analysis
•Energy flow analysis
•Input-output analysis
•LCA
•Computer models(Eg. DIET, CPS, MIND)
•Important to value technical possibilities •Provides data for decision-makers
Case study: the Swedish forest industry
46% pulp wood 36% pulp and
paper
23% heat
and energy
Pulp &Paper mills 46%timber 20%
sawn wood
16% heat and
energy
Heat production 15% wood chips
Saw mill and
board industry 8% wood for fuel 8% bark and
saw dust
IS Status
•Industrial symbiosis initiatives exist in the Swedish forest industry today
•Fifteen BPX networks were found in an inventory
•None of these networks were deliberately planned or labelled as IS
Mönsterås
•Exchanges between entities within the same company
•Exchanges between entities part of the same group of companies(Södra)•District heat delivery to the municipality
Mönsterås
Södra Cell, Pulp Mill Södra Timber,
Saw Mill Södra Cell,
Pellet Production
Municipality of
Mönsterås
Sawdust
District
Heating
Wood Chips Steam Electricity Steam
Bark Electricity
Sundsvall –Timrå
•Regional BPX-network
•The distances between the municipalities are: Sundsvall –Timrå, 15 km; Timrå–Härnösand, 40 km; and Timrå–Bollstabruk, 90 km •Exchanges between different companies, within one group and with municipality
Sundsvall -Timrå
Heating Heating Heating Heating Heating Chips Chips Chips Mreal SCA Östrands, Municipality SCA Ortviken SCA Tunadal, Municipality SCA Bollstabruk, Municipality SCA Bio Norr, Mondi Municipality of TimråWifsta, Paper Mill Pulp Mill
of
Sundsvall Pulp and Paper Mill Sawmill of
Bollstabruk
Sawmill
of Härnösand Bio Fuel Packaging,
Pulp and Paper Mill
District
District District
District
District Water Pulp Pulp
Steam
Bark
Bark Wood Sawdust Sawdust Sawdust
Wood Bark Sawdust Wood。