[雙語翻譯]外文翻譯--澳大利亞和比利時廢舊汽車回收的比較研究（英文）

1、 Procedia CIRP 61 ( 2017 ) 269 – 274 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com2212-8271 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://cre

2、ativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 24th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2016.11.222 ScienceDirectThe 24th CIRP C

3、onference on Life Cycle Engineering Comparative Study of End-of-Life Vehicle Recycling in Australia and Belgium Vi Kie Sooa*, Jef Peetersb, Paul Compstona, Matthew Doolana, Joost R. Dufloub a Research School of Engineer

4、ing, College of Engineering and Computer Science, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia bCentre for Industrial Management, KU Leuven, Celestijnenlaan 300A Box 2422, Leuven 3001, Belgium * Corr

5、esponding author. Tel.: +6-126-125-5941; fax: +6-126-125-0506. E-mail address: vikie.soo@anu.edu.au Abstract The increasing complexity of multi-material vehicle designs has created challenges for vehicle recycling. Many

6、countries have implemented different end-of-life vehicles (ELVs) treatment policies and guidelines. For example, the European Commission has set recycling and recovery targets for end-of-life vehicle (ELV). This paper

7、discusses a comparative study on the legislative boundaries and environmental performance of the current ELV recycling processes analysed between recycling companies in Australia and Belgium. It is shown that the strict

8、 implementation of the ELV Directive in Belgium has led to better environmental performance, by a factor of 7.9 in comparison to the Australian scenario. The enactment of strict ELV legislation, adoption of advanced re

9、cycling technologies, and improvement of the recycling efficiencies of revenue streams are identified as the major influencing factors for a sustainable ELV management system. © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsev

10、ier B.V. Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 24th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering. Keywords: end-of-life vehicles; vehicle recycling; Life Cycle Assessment; recycling efficiency

11、 1. Introduction The waste produced by the growing number of vehicles reaching end-of-life (EoL) has been a global concern due to its environmental impact. In 2010, there were about 40 million end-of-life vehicles (EL

12、Vs) globally [1]. ELVs are managed differently for different countries. Australia has no formal legislation specifically for end-of-life vehicle (ELV) disposal whereas Belgium enforces the strict ELV Directive of 95%

13、 reuse and recovery. In 2010, the numbers of deregistered vehicles in Australia and Belgium were about 600,000 units [1] and 400,000 units [2] respectively. From these numbers, only about 500,000 units [1] and 200,000

14、 units [3] of ELVs were treated within the aforementioned countries. The adoption of different ELV management systems can lead to different EoL treatment strategies. In Belgium, the strict legislative framework outline

15、d in the ELV Directive has forced recyclers to progressively improve their processes and ensures vehicle manufacturers take responsibility for the EoL treatment of their products. In this context, automotive shredder

16、residue (ASR) has been targeted for further recycling of valuable metals and non-metallic materials to meet the strict legislation. On the contrary, there are only voluntary based ELV recycling guidelines for Australi

17、an recyclers that are based on the European Union’s ELV Directive. This leads to ASR entering landfill without further treatment to reduce recycling cost. The choice of EoL treatment strategies has a major influence o

18、n the ELV environmental performance and recycling costs. For many years, high steel content in ELV has made them attractive to be acquired by recyclers. Shredding and magnetic separation are commonly used to retrieve

19、steel with high efficiency and low cost. However, the increasing use of lightweight materials in vehicle design has led to the importance of recovering other materials such as plastics. In Belgium, the market for hig

20、h quality secondary plastics is developed, and has encouraged recyclers to improve their post- shredder treatment technologies while restricted by the recycling costs. The lack of market for secondary plastics in Aust

21、ralia has discouraged further ASR treatment. © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-rev

22、iew under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 24th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering271Vi Kie Soo et al. / Procedia CIRP 61 ( 2017 ) 269 – 274 ELV legislations, the remaining ASR is further

23、treated through post-shredder technologies to achieve the set recycling targets. 3.1. Differences in ELV Collection and Recycling Systems One of the major differences during the collection stage in Australia and Belgi

24、um is the issue of certificate of destruction for ELV. This requirement is carried out to ensure ELVs are collected and disposed lawfully through an authorised recycling facility [23]. The number of ELVs collected int

25、o proper recycling facilities has an impact on the cost effectiveness of material recycling processes and further post- shredder treatments. As seen in the Australian scenario, the lack of a proper collection system g

26、ives opportunities for unauthorised recycling facilities to compete with legitimate recycling sectors in acquiring ELVs [4]. There is a lack of initiative among Australian legitimate recycling facilities to invest in

27、 better recycling technologies since they do not receive large volumes of ELV. In Australia, basic recycling processes are used in comparison to the more rigorous recycling technologies adopted in Belgium (Europe). T

28、he continuous development of high performance recycling processes, such as density media separation and energy recovery facilities, enables further retrieval of valuable materials and thus, reduces the amount of waste

29、 to be landfilled in Europe. Figure 1: Generic ELV process flow. 3.2. ELV Regulatory Impact on Treatment Strategies In Australia, the voluntary based ELV regulatory framework has led to a profit-driven automotive recyc

30、ling industry. The types of recovered materials are limited to high volume metals with low recovery cost such as ferrous scraps [5]. In contrast, Belgian recyclers also looked into the potential of recycling non-meta

31、llic materials such as plastics to achieve a higher recycled mass fraction. Although plastic recycling is not as lucrative as metal recycling, there is still great potential value for secondary plastic production. Mor

32、eover, it provides environmental benefits and allows further reduction of waste being produced for disposal [23]. The strict recycling targets and scarcity of available landfill space in Belgium have further encourage

33、d minimal ELV waste disposal due to high landfill costs. This is in line with the ambition of preventing waste to landfill while stressing reuse, recycling, and waste incineration in accordance to Lansink’s ladder [2

34、4]. Therefore, the implementation of advanced post- shredder technologies is continuously progressing since the associated recycling costs are still below the disposal cost. On the contrary, landfilling of untreated AS

35、R is cost effective for vehicle recyclers in Australia due to the large availability of landfill space. Moreover, the recyclers are not held financially accountable for the environmental and societal impact. The econo

36、mic incentives play a major role in the current ELV recycling; however, the implementation of strict legislation in Belgium is crucial to adjust the current ELV recycling procedures through the influence on recycling

37、costs, including fines. 4. Environmental Impact Assessment Method 4.1. Project Scope and System Boundary This paper evaluates the environmental impacts of different ELV recycling strategies based on a recycling facilit

38、y in Australia and Belgium. The analysis only considers the material recycling and recovery efficiencies after the depollution process, as highlighted in Figure 1. Although part reuse provides better environmental ga

39、in, it was not considered due to the complexity of gathering the data. While the different non-ferrous (NF) materials were not further recovered in the Australian recycling facility, the NF mixtures were exported to

40、developing countries and assumed to be further recovered via hand-sorting. 4.2. Functional Unit The functional unit for this study was the recycling of a depolluted car hulk with an average mass of 852kg. The material

41、composition of an average depolluted car hulk was based on the information provided by the Belgian recycling facility, as shown in Figure 2. Figure 2: Average material composition of a depolluted car hulk. 4.3. Life Cy

42、cle Inventory (LCI) The ELV recycling and recovery efficiencies for each material were gathered from two facilities, one located in Australia and one in Belgium. Data provided from the Belgian recycling facility were

43、calculated based on the average ELV material flows in the plant. The information was then used to infer the material efficiencies for an average depolluted car hulk. For the Australian recycling facility, material rec