A Systems Perspective

of Waste and Energy

Strengths and Weaknesses of the ORWARE Model

Ola Eriksson

Licentiate thesis

Royal Institute of Technology

Department of Chemical Engineering and Technology
Section of Industrial Ecology

Stockholm, November 2000

Title:
A Systems Perspective of Waste and Energy
- Strengths and Weaknesses of the ORWARE Model

Author:
Ola Eriksson

Registration:
ISSN 1402-7615
TRITA-KET-IM 2000:16

Published by:
Royal Institute of Technology
Department of Chemical Engineering and Technology
Section of Industrial Ecology
SE - 100 44 STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN
Phone: (+46) 8 790 87 93 (distribution)
(+46) 8 790 93 31 (author)
Fax: (+46) 8 790 50 34
E-mail: ola.eriksson@ket.kth.se

Printed by:
KTH/Högskoletryckeriet, Stockholm, Sweden, 2000.

ii
Abstract
Waste management of today in Sweden is a complex phenomenon that demands for a
scientific and systematic approach. The complexity is a result of a wide variety of actors,
technologies, and impact on the environment, health, and the economy. Waste management
also has a high relevance with respect to energy. There are direct connections as e.g. energy
recovery from waste, but also indirect as the systems complexity and the environmental and
economical impacts.

Helpful tools in the planning of waste management are different types of models of which
ORWARE is one. Based on principles from Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) and complemented with
a simple Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) ORWARE can provide some help in finding
environmentally sound solutions for waste management systems. The model does not answer
all questions raised by practitioners but can still be used for advisory purposes. The model
does not include sociological or political aspects but it covers the area of physical flows with
impacts on environment, society and economy. Other impacts have to be considered with
other methods.

The experiences from using ORWARE in Swedish municipalities during more than a half
decade clearly shows the advantages and disadvantages of the tool. The model is very flexible
when it comes to the possibility of site-specific adjustments of input data and process
functions. With help of the model the complexity of the studied system can be illustrated by
e.g. a map of the number of connections between different types of information. In this way
ORWARE supports dialogue between different stakeholders and collects knowledge in a unique
way. On the other hand, modelling such an extensive and complex system often leads to
errors that takes time to find and correct. The model can not be considered as user friendly
and does not cover all aspects wanted by the society. There are also educational problems with
different time frames and space boundaries in the analysis that make the results hard to
interpret.

As there are many similarities between waste management and energy management,
experiences from systems analysis of waste management can be used for planning of more
sustainable solutions in the energy management. That is why it is interesting to develop the
methodology used in ORWARE and adapt it to a partly new area like e.g. energy management.
One example of improving the methodology is to extend the number of impact categories.
Another example is to put the functions delivered in focus. ORWARE focuses at the waste
management system, and thus "treating waste from a certain area" is one fundamental
functional unit. Translated to energy that would mean to build a model of the energy supply
system. But to optimise the whole system that delivers a function ought to be a more efficient
way to head for sustainability than to study the supply system and the applications separately.
That would mean to put the end user functions provided by some kind of energy
transformation in focus instead.

In systems analysis it is also important to consider the alternatives to different options of

technologies or system designs. In order to understand and assess the influence from e.g.
waste management and energy on the environment and the socio-technical system called
society, a systems perspective is thus very important. The systems perspective should work at
all decision levels and with a life cycle perspective on the function.

iii
Summary in Swedish
Dagens svenska avfallshantering är en komplex företeelse som kräver ett vetenskapligt och
systematiskt angreppssätt. Komplexiteten bottnar i en rik flora av aktörer och tekniklösningar
inom avfallsområdet. Avfallshanteringen påverkar såväl miljö och hälsa som ekonomi.
Avfallshantering är också starkt knuten till energi. Den uppenbara kopplingen sker genom
energiutvinning från avfall men påverkan på miljö och ekonomi förenar också de bägge.

I planeringsarbetet med avfallshantering kan olika typer av verktyg i form av modeller

användas, där ORWARE utgör en av dessa modeller. ORWARE baseras på principer från
livscykelanalys (LCA) och är kompletterad med en enkel kostnads/nytto-analys. Genom att
använda modellen kan en del av de problem lösas som uppstår när avfallshanteringssystem
med goda miljöprestanda skall utformas. Modellen svarar inte på alla frågor som aktörer vill
ha svar på, men kan ändå utgöra ett beslutsstöd. Modellen inbegriper inte sociala eller politiska
parametrar utan fokuserar på fysiska materialflöden med påverkan på miljö, samhälle och
ekonomi. Annan påverkan från avfallshantering får lösas separat med andra metoder.

Efter att ha använt ORWARE under mer än ett halvt decennium visar erfarenheterna tydligt på
modellens för- och nackdelar. Modellen är väldigt flexibel vad gäller platsspecifika
anpassningar. Med hjälp av modellen kan ett systems komplexitet belysas genom att t.ex. ge en
bild av hur olika typer av information beror av varandra. På detta vis är ORWARE ett stöd i
diskussionen mellan olika aktörer och ett instrument för att på ett unikt sätt sammanställa,
bearbeta och presentera kunskap. Å andra sidan leder modelleringen av ett så omfattande och
komplext system ofta till olika typer av felaktigheter som tar tid att upptäcka och åtgärda.
Modellen är inte heller användarvänlig och täcker inte in alla aspekter som samhället ställer
krav på. Pedagogiska problem föreligger också genom olika tids- och rumsgränser i modellen
som gör resultaten svåra att tolka.

Då avfallshantering och energihantering uppvisar många likheter kan erfarenheter från

systemanalys av avfall användas för planering av mer hållbara lösningar i energihanteringen.
Därför är det intressant att utveckla metodiken som används i ORWARE och anpassa den till
bitvis nya områden som t.ex. energihantering. Ett exempel på hur metodiken kan förbättras är
att utöka antalet påverkanskategorier. Ett annat exempel är att sätta systemets funktioner i
fokus. ORWARE har avfallshanteringssystemet, och därmed ”behandla avfall från ett visst
område”, som en grundläggande funktionell enhet. Översatt till energisystemet skulle det
betyda att en modell över energiförsörjningen skulle byggas. Men att optimera hela systemet
fram till nyttiggjord funktion borde vara ett effektivare sätt att arbeta för hållbarhet än att
studera tillförsel och användning separat. Det betyder att fokus istället skulle läggas på den
funktion som uppfylls genom någon form av energiomvandling.

I en systemanalys är det också viktigt att betrakta alternativen till olika tekniklösningar eller
systemutformningar. För att kunna förstå och uppskatta påverkan från till exempel
avfallshantering och energi på miljön och det socio-tekniska system vi kallar samhälle, är
systemperspektivet således mycket viktigt. Systemperspektivet skall verka på alla beslutsnivåer
och ha ett livscykelperspektiv på uppfylld funktion.

iv
Acknowledgements
So, after almost three years of discussing, calculating, programming, simulating, writing,
mailing, calling, supervising, travelling, talking, reading, learning and understanding (and
drinking some cups of coffee too) this is what has become of my efforts. Does this thesis give
a correct picture of everything I have been through? Of course not! But with great helpful
guidance of kind people I have managed to write a licentiate thesis about something I knew
nothing about for three years ago. This has been accomplished without knowing which were
the questions to be answered. In other words, it was about time to find the questions to the
many answers from my research. This is what I call jeopardy research.

First of all I would like to thank the Swedish National Energy Administration
(Energimyndigheten, STEM), Stockholms renhållningsnämnd (former known as Skafab) and
Birka Energi (former known as Stockholm Energi) for funding my work.

Former and present members of the ORWARE group were and are of great importance,
without them this thesis would not have been possible to write.

I am very thankful to my supervisor Björn Frostell. During these three years, which also
encompasses my diploma thesis, he has always supported me in all activities I have been
involved in and taught me a lot about life in general and environmental research in particular.
I also highly appreciate my ORWARE colleague at the department, Anna Björklund, for fruitful
discussions and making the work a lot more fun.

People involved in the research project "Energy from waste" (performed with ORWARE) and
master students using ORWARE in their theses deserve to be mentioned. The local participants
of the research project from Stockholm, Uppsala and Älvdalen are remembered for improving
the outcome of the project, and the students (Axel Fliedner, Getachew Assefa, Francis
Ongondo, Sara Jonsson and Charlotta Skoglund) have contributed directly and indirectly to
the production of this thesis.

Colleagues and friends within the Research school of Environmental Management are also
acknowledged. Maria Johansson helped me to refine my writing for which I am very grateful.

v
List of appended papers
A summary of the papers included is presented in chapter 3.

Paper I
Eriksson, O., Olander, J., Frostell, B., (1999) Simulations of Material Flows in a District
Heating System - Influence of Solar Heating and Flue Gas Condensing, In proceedings of
R'99, Volume 1 pp 304-309, 2-5 February, 1999, Geneva, Switzerland.

Paper II
Eriksson, O., Frostell, B., Björklund, A., Assefa, G., Sundqvist, J. -O., Granath, J., Carlsson,
M., Baky, A., Thyselius, L. (2000) ORWARE - A simulation tool for waste management,
Submitted to Resources, Conservation and Recycling.

Paper III
Fliedner, A., Eriksson, O., Sundqvist, J. -O., Frostell, B. (1999) Anaerobic treatment of
Municipal Biodegradable Waste. Submitted to Waste Management and Research.

vi
Table of contents
ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................III

SUMMARY IN SWEDISH..........................................................................................................IV

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...........................................................................................................V

LIST OF APPENDED PAPERS ................................................................................................VI

TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................... VII

1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................................1
1.2 A IMS OF THE THESIS...........................................................................................................4
2 METHODS AND CONCEP TS ........................................................................................... 5
2.1 W HAT IS ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS?..........................................................5
2.2 TOOLS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS........................................................6
2.3 M ODELS FOR SYSTEMS ANALYSIS OF WASTE MANAGEMENT ......................................8
3 SUMMARY OF INCLUDED PAPERS ..........................................................................13
3.1 PAPER I ..............................................................................................................................13
3.2 PAPER II.............................................................................................................................13
3.3 PAPER III............................................................................................................................16
3.4 COMMENTS ON THE PAPERS............................................................................................17
4 DISCUSSION.........................................................................................................................19
4.1 W ASTE MANAGEMENT AND THE IMPORTANCE OF A SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE ..........19
4.2 ORWARE OF TODAY - STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES .............................................20
4.3 RELIABILITY OF ORWARE............................................................................................24
4.4 ORWARE OF TOMORROW - NO TIME TO WASTE........................................................25
4.5 FUTURE RESEARCH ..........................................................................................................29
5 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................31

vii
1 Introduction

In this chapter some statistics about energy from waste in Sweden are presented and
also legislation on national and European level. Predictions about the energy
potential from waste in Sweden are displayed together with the aims of this thesis.

1.1 Background
In 1999 the total amount of household waste in Sweden was 3 794 000 tonnes (RVF, 2000).
The distribution of this amount between different fractions and treatments is displayed in
Table 1.

Table 1 Amounts and treatments of household waste in Sweden 1999 (RVF, 2000).
Waste type/treatment Amount (ktonnes) Part of tot. (%)
Hazardous waste 20 0.5
Incineration 1 440 38.0
Biological treatment 320 8.4
Landfill 920 24.3
Material recycling* 1 034 28.8
*) Metal scrap 100 2.6
Waste paper 437 11.5
Packaging 497 13.0

Hazardous waste is normally not discussed as having a potential for energy recovery from
waste. Energy can be recovered from waste by
¤ heat and power generation from incineration,
¤ biogas production from anaerobic treatment in digesters,
¤ landfill gas extraction, or indirectly by
¤ recycling of products and material and thus saving energy.

It is worth mentioning that, as the recycling of materials not is eternal; sooner or later multi-
recycled combustible materials will end in the incinerators. Therefore the annual figures could
differ from figures for a longer period of time.

The most common method in Sweden for energy recovery from waste is incineration. In 1999
an amount of 1 440 ktonnes household waste together with 700 ktonnes of industrial waste
was incinerated giving 6.4 TWh, mostly as district heating (see Figure 1). District heating from
waste covers 10 % of the total need in Sweden. Incineration takes place in 22 plants
corresponding to a total fuel power of 740 MW.

1
 Quantities of incinerated waste
and recovery of energy in Sweden 1980-1997
7 6.4

6
5.2 5.1
5
5 4.4 4.3

4 3.4

3
2.3 2.1
1.8 1.9 1.8
2 1.5 1.7 1.7
1.4
1.1
0.9
1

0
1980 1983 1986 1991 1994 1995 1996 1997 1999
Waste (Mtonnes) Energy (TWh)

Figure 1 Quantities of incinerated waste and recovery of energy in Sweden 1980-1997 (RVF,
1998)

Since 1980 (cf. Figure 1), the quantity of waste incinerated for energy purposes has more than
doubled in Sweden. At the same time, the energy production has more than quadrupled. This
is partly because the waste used for incineration has become higher in energy content, but
above all it is due to more efficient energy recovery.

Another way of utilising energy in waste is to combust methane gas generated in landfills and
anaerobic digesters. In 1999, biocells at landfills generated 435 GWh from combustion of
methane of which 405 GWh for heating purposes and 30 GWh for electricity generation
(RVF, 2000). All new landfills are constructed to collect landfill gas. A more efficient method
for generating methane from biodegradable organic waste is treatment in anaerobic digesters.
Anaerobic digestion has been used for over 60 years in Sweden to stabilise sludge from
municipal sewage treatment. In recent years, digesters specifically aimed at treatment of solid
organic waste have been built in several Swedish cities, such as Uppsala, Borlänge, Kalmar and
Linköping. The biogas is mostly used as a fuel for busses and cars.

Recycling often reduces the use of energy and is thus a method for indirect energy recovery
from waste. The Swedish Environmental protection Agency's studies regarding material flows
in society show that increased recycling can yield great profits, mainly by reducing energy use.
Reclamation of metals, for example, saves not only natural resources, but also energy.
(Naturvårdsverket)

The national borders do not limit emissions and thus waste management. Political decisions
concerning the circumstances in Sweden are more and more taken within the EU. In waste
management, the EU waste directives are incorporated into Swedish legislation. A few legal
restrictions in Sweden and EU are displayed in Table 2.

2
Table 2 Important steps in existing and coming waste treatment legislation at the Swedish and
European level (RVF, 2000).
Year Type of legislation measure
1999 The new environmental law (Miljöbalken) is in force.
EG directive regarding landfilling.
2000 Tax on waste to landfill with 250 SEK/ton.
2001 Evaluation of producers’ responsibility will be presented.
Regulation about producers’ responsibility for electronic waste will be introduced.
2002 Combustible waste must be sorted. Ban on landfilling of sorted combustible waste.
2003 EG directive about electronic waste (preliminary).
2004 Planned evaluation of the consequences of the landfill tax.
2005 Ban on landfilling of organic waste.
Compared to the level of 1994 the total amount of landfilled waste must be cut by half.
2008 Sweden: All landfills should fulfil the standard requirements restricted in the EG directive.

How may waste contribute to the energy supply in the future? In Sweden, the expectations
vary widely. Some expect the waste amount to decrease and recycling to increase to such an
extent that waste incinerators will become short of waste fuel. Another opinion is that
Swedish incinerators are very well designed and operated, and have a high environmental
standard. Therefore, Sweden could import waste from abroad for energy recovery purposes
and by doing so also decrease landfilling.

In a study made by a project group with members from the Swedish National Energy
Administration (Energimyndigheten), the Swedish District Heating Association
(Fjärrvärmeföreningen), the Swedish Power Association (Kraftverksföreningen) and the
Swedish Environmental protection Agency (Naturvårdsverket), some calculations for a future
Swedish sustainable energy system were made (Naturvårdsverket, 1999). Today, the energy
production from waste is 6.4 TWh/year (cf. Figure 1). The future theoretical potential of
energy from waste is assumed to be 21 TWh/year. A low estimate gives a potential of 7
TWh/year and a high estimate 13 TWh/year. In the report estimates of the future energy
potential from waste are conservative. That is because the transport sector will need
significant amounts of biogas in the future. The uncertainties depend on an expected increase
in generation and import of industrial waste, especially building and demolition waste. Table 3
summarises the estimates from the study.

Table 3 An estimate of the energy potentials from waste in Sweden 2050 (Naturvårdsverket, 1999).
Energy source [TWh] Low level High level
Industrial waste 3 6
Unsorted household waste, central incineration 2 3
Household waste, local biogas production 0 1
Landfill gas 1 1
Incineration of sludge 1 2
Total 7 13

3
1.2 Aims of the thesis
Earlier theses published within the ORWARE project (Mingarini, 1996; Björklund, 1998;
Sonesson, 1998; Dalemo, 1999; Björklund, 2000) have focused on the hypothesis that there is
a need for a holistic approach to waste management, supported by environmental systems
analysis and computer modelling. In different projects the Ph. D. students have built and
evaluated submodels of different processes and the hypothesis has been tested. This thesis will
focus on systems analysis of waste and energy. The four main objectives - formulated as
questions- of this thesis are:

1. What is environmental systems analysis in general and the computer model

ORWARE in particular?
Environmental systems analysis is described in chapter 2 and the computer model is briefly
described in chapter 3.2. A more detailed model description can be found in Paper 2.

2. Why is the systems perspective important in the planning of waste management?

This part can be found in the first part of the discussion, chapter 4.

3. Which are the strengths and the weaknesses with the current ORWARE approach?
As a second part of the discussion, the advantages and disadvantages with the existing
ORWARE as a method for analysing impacts of waste management on the environment, the
energy turnover and the economy, is discussed.

4. How can the experiences of ORWARE be developed to an approach to

sustainability assessment of technology chains?
Some ideas of how to develop the model to meet new demands, predominantly in the energy
field, are explained at the end of the discussion part.

The research, and thus the content of this thesis, is aimed to be useful for practitioners.
Important target groups are persons in waste managing companies, authorities and other
researchers within the field. The readers are assumed to have a background in natural science
and/or technology with interests in waste, energy, environment and systems thinking.

4
2 Methods and concepts

The term Environmental Systems Analysis is described in this part. Tools for
environmental systems analysis in general and waste management in particular are
surveyed.

2.1 What is environmental systems analysis?

One of the first applications of systems analysis was military. In order to provide the troops
with enough food, ammunition, fuel etc. and at the same time consider actions like taking care
of the wounded and fight the enemy, a systems approach had to be used. A clear definition of
the military systems analysis is hard to produce but a guess would be that an overall aim with
the systems analysis was to bring "the right man on the right place at the right time with the
right equipment". Today, systems analysis is used in a number of areas. The world of software
programming is perhaps one of the most widely used, but also for city planning and designing
of factories, systems analysis is helpful.

It is not entirely easy to define systems analysis in general terms, but an attempt could be to
use definitions from a thesaurus (Malmström et al, 1994). Here, a "system" is defined as:

“Methodical or naturally ordered connected entirety”

The meaning of "analysis" is described as

“Deep investigation of the connections between different parts in a phenomenon”

Combining these two definitions, a somewhat complicated description of systems analysis is

“Deep investigation of the connections between different parts in a methodical or

naturally ordered connected entirety”

Another way of describing systems analysis can be found in the literature. Systems analysis is
discussed in detail in “Handbook of systems analysis (Miser & Quade, 1995). In the book no
clear definition of the term is given, but a rather extensive discussion on what it contains. It
states that

“…a systems analysis commonly focuses on a problem arising from interactions

among elements in society, enterprises and the environment; considers various
responses to this problem; and supplies evidence about the consequences-good, bad,
and indifferent-of these responses” (Miser & Quade, 1995).

Whether the broad explanation or the more precise by Miser and Quade is used, it is
understood that systems analysis is a method to understand complex connections between
different entities by working systematically.

As the meaning of systems analysis now is described, an explanation of the more narrow term
environmental systems analysis is to be found. Adding the word “environment” to the
complicated definition from the thesaurus above gives following explanation of
environmental systems analysis:

5
“Deep investigation of the connections between different parts in a methodical or
naturally ordered connected entirety and their impact on the environment"

The term “environmental systems analysis” has been used at the Division of Industrial
Ecology, Department of Chemical Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) since
1996 as a common name for the analytical and assessment work gradually being built up since
1993. The term “environmental” is used to emphasise the purpose of the systems analysis,
environmental improvements. We define environmental systems analysis as:

“…models and methods for integrated quantification and presentation of material and
energy flows in different sub-systems of nature and society and the evaluation of the
future sustainability of different alternatives of action”.

In our definition of environmental systems analysis at KTH (which also is the definition to be
used in this thesis), several common analytical approaches fit in, such as

¤ Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA; Petts, 1999),

¤ Life Cycle Assessments (LCA; ISO 1997),
¤ Material Flow/Flux Analysis/Assessments/Accountings (MFA; Baccini & Brunner, 1991;
Burström, 1998),
¤ Substance Flow Analysis (SFA; van der Voet et al, 1995; Udo de Haes et al, 1997),
¤ Ecological Footprints (EF; Wackernagel & Rees, 1996),
¤ Ecological Economy (Costanza et al, 1993) and to some extent
¤ Environmental Economics (Turner et al, 1994).

Different scopes (and therefore different system boundaries) are being used in the above-
mentioned analyses. Some include social, economical and ecological issues, while others are
strictly used for one aspect of sustainability only. The methods are developed individually for
different purposes, which explains the difference. Each method shows strengths and
weaknesses and by combining and adapting two or three of them it is possible to "do more
with less".

The ORWARE approach, which will be described further on, combines LCA, MFA, SFA and
to some extent environmental economics to a tool for environmental systems analysis of
waste management. All strengths and weaknesses with ORWARE, as described in chapter 4.2,
are inherited from these existing methods.

2.2 Tools for environmental systems analysis

With the aim to place ORWARE on the map of environmental systems analysis, some examples
of environmental systems analysis tools will be given. The tools will only be shortly discussed.
For more information on the subject, reference is made to Moberg (1999).

The comparison includes four different tools, namely Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), Cost-
Benefit Analysis (CBA), Exergy Analysis (EA) and Risk Assessment (RA). These tools are
then compared with ORWARE. The selection of these methods can be considered subjective
but also based on tools from which ORWARE originates (LCA and CBA) and tools that I
believe could add a substantial value to the type of analysis performed with ORWARE. The
comparison made here is not so detailed and some of the originally compared categories have
been left out. For more information about the compared categories, see Moberg (1999).

6
Table 4 Comparison of different tools for environmental systems analysis (LCA = Life Cycle
Assessment; CBA = Cost/Benefit Analysis; EA = Exergy Analysis; RA = Risk Assessment).
LCA CBA EA RA ORWARE
PURPOSE communication communication
decision decision decision decision decision
support support support support support
learning learning learning
OBJECT products products chemical waste
functions projects projects substance management
strategies economies
PERSPECTIVE lifetime lifetime
prospective prospective prospective prospective prospective
retrospective retrospective retrospective
SYSTEM core-extension economic population core-extension
BOUNDARIES function geographical geographical area function
time time
REFERENCE yes yes (zero) yes tolerable yes
level
UNIT emissions monetary Joule of exergy probability emissions
extraction MJ primary
impacts monetary
impacts
EFFECTS economical human economy
environmental environmental environmental health environment
social peace of energy
mind
QUANTITATIVE quantitative quantitative quantitative quantitative quantitative
/QUALITATIVE qualitative
STANDARD yes rough no within EU no
guidelines
FREQUENCY high high low medium Low

Note to Table 4:
Overall purpose of the tool?
Describes the main reason for the development of the tool.
Which object is being analysed?
In which perspective may the analysis be used?
The tool may be used for monitoring/accounting as well as keeping record of progress
(retrospective). The tool may be used to predict future situations (prospective). The tool may also
cover the whole time frame wherein a product or project has an impact (lifetime).
Which are the system boundaries?
Which are the temporal, spatial and functional boundaries?
Is there a need for a reference object?
Does the result stand on its own or is a comparison with a reference object necessary?
What is the unit of the result?
Gives a hint about how the results are presented.
What kinds of effects are considered?
Are environmental, economical and /or social effects included?
Is the method quantitative or qualitative?
Is the method standardised/harmonised?
Where and how frequently is it being used?

7
As can be seen in Table 4 the similarities between ORWARE and LCA are quite obvious. A
combination of column 1 (LCA) and 2 (CBA) reflects ORWARE very well. From this one could
say that ORWARE is an LCA for the function of waste management extended by a simplified
cost-benefit analysis.

Exergy analysis as well as risk analysis is hard to interpret in this context. Exergy is another
way of communicating energy balances where the quality of energy plays an important role. In
an LCA of an energy system (not just electricity) it could be wise to include exergy analysis. As
the emissions are valued with respect to different potential environmental impacts the energy
also could be valued with respect to potential applications. That means that it does not have
to be a conflict between exergy analysis and e.g. ORWARE.

Risk analysis is more of estimating the probability and the consequences of accidents and does
not fit in with the other methods with respect to using almost the same input data. But the
result of a risk analysis can be valuable in the interpretation of the results from the other
methods. Impact on human health is probably the uniting factor between risk analysis and the
other methods.

2.3 Models for systems analysis of waste management

ORWARE is a tool for environmental systems analysis of waste management. It is a computer-
based model for calculation of substance flows, environmental impacts, and costs of waste
management. It was first developed for systems analysis of organic waste management, hence
the acronym ORWARE (ORganic WAste REsearch), but now covers inorganic fractions in
municipal waste as well. ORWARE consists of a number of separate submodels, which may be
combined to design a waste management system for e.g. a city, a municipality or a company.
Each submodel describes a process in a real waste management system, e.g. waste collection,
waste transport, or a waste treatment facility (e.g. incineration).

But ORWARE is not the only computer model for systems analysis of waste management. A
literature survey on different environmental waste models has been done in order to compare
ORWARE with similar models. The models were chosen because of not being compared to
ORWARE before and for their significant similarities with ORWARE.

EUGENE
A French model for regional planning of solid waste management.
MARKAL
A model developed by several countries for energy purposes. Extended to include material flows like
waste.
MWS
A Swedish model developed from the model MIMES/Waste to cover the national level.
ETH
A Swiss model for comparison of different incineration alternatives. The model has no name but is
developed at ETH in Zürich.
FMS
A Swedish model developed during the last two years using ORWARE as a pattern for some parts of
the model. The model has no name but is developed by the Swedish research group FMS
(Forskningsgruppen för Miljöstrategiska Studier; Environmental Strategies Research Group)

Abbreviations and additional information to Table 5 (adapted from Björklund, 1998):

8
Decision areas
Area about which information is provided by the model: waste generation prediction (WG), facility
site selection (FS), facility capacity expansion (FC), facility operation (FO), vehicle routing (VR),
manpower assignment (MA), over-all system operation (not including waste collection) (OS), system
scheduling (SS), waste flow (WF), environmental performance (EP), technology selection (TS)
Model type
Key model features: static, dynamic, simulation, optimisation, multi criteria optimisation (MCO),
scenario comparisons, input-output analysis (IO), multiple criteria analysis (MCA), geographic
information system (GIS)
Objective
Parameters in goal function in optimisation models, or other aim with the model
Environmental aspects
Environmental aspects covered by the model.
Costs
Financial and/or environmental costs covered by the model.
LCI
Data on the life cycle inventory available from the model.
Impact assessment
Impact categories covered by the model.
Optimisation
Optimisation parameters covered by the model.
Waste types
Characterisation of waste types handled by the model.
Waste descriptors
How the waste is described in the model.
Waste management processes
Different types of waste management processes included in the core system of the model.
Other processes
Upstream, downstream and complementary processes covered by the model.
Functional units
Functional units covered by the model.

9
Table 5 Comparison of different waste models.
EUGENE MARKAL MWS ETH FMS
Authors Berger et al (1998) Gielen, D. J (1998) Ljunggren, M. (1997) Hellweg et al (1998) Finnveden et al (2000)
Decision areas FS, FC, OS, TS WG, FC, OS, SS, EP, OS, SS, WF, EP, TS WG, EP, TS OS, SS, WF, EP, TS
TS
Model type Dynamic, optimisation, Dynamic Static, simulation, Dynamic, scenario Static, simulation,
scenario comparisons scenario comparisons comparisons, IO scenario comparisons
Objective Decision support system Calculates least cost Minimise the total Dynamic calculation of Evaluate environmental
for regional decision system configuration annualised cost for the waste inventory data as impacts and total energy
makers Selection of national waste a first step of life cycle turnover for different
improvement options management system. assessment treatment options and
waste fractions.
Environmental aspects None Emissions (NOz, SOx, Emissions (CO2, NOx, Emissions (CO, VOC, Air, water and soil
CO2), resource use, SOx, CH4, CO, HC, Hg, dioxins and furans), emissions, energy
land use, waste volume Pb, Cd, Zn) resources and energy turnover, use of
resources
Costs Yes Yes Yes. No No
LCI No Yes No Yes Yes
Impact assessment No No No Yes Yes
Optimisation Total discounted net Costs Costs No No
system cost Emissions
Total cumulative
landfilling
Waste types Regional solid waste Municipal solid waste Household waste, non- Inert and combustible Municipal solid waste
specific industrial waste, wastes
construction and
demolition waste
Waste descriptors Waste fractions1 Waste fractions2 Waste fractions3 and Waste fractions4 , inert or Waste fractions5 ,
substances combustible, elements elements and
and compounds compounds

1 Paper, cardboard, containers, HDPE, LDPE, PET, sewage sludge, sawdust and even more
2 30 categories e.g. Paper and board, kitchen waste, garden waste, glass, metals, plastics, textiles, wood products

10
Waste management Collection, transports, Different recycling Source separation, Collection, transports Collection, transports,
processes material recycling options and thermal collection, transports, incineration, landfilling material recycling,
composting, treatment options, central separation, of slag and incineration anaerobic digestion,
incineration, landfilling landfilling transfer stations, residues composting,
anaerobic digestion, incineration, landfilling
composting,
incineration, landfilling
Other processes Markets for energy and None. None. Production of process Heat production,
recyclable materials. additives, infrastructure, electricity production,
transportation production of different
additives, production of
recycled materials from
virgin raw materials,
production of fertilisers,
production of
impregnated wood,
production of biogas
and fossil vehicle fuel
Functional units Treatment of waste from Treatment of waste from Treatment of waste from 1 kg waste Treatment of the
certain area. certain area. certain area. amount of the included
District heating. waste fractions collected
in Sweden during one
year

3 Paper, glass, cardboard, metal, plastics, wood, combustible fraction, non-combustible fraction, compostable fraction
4 Paper, glass, metals, ceramics, PVC and even more
5 Food waste, newspaper, mixed cardboard, corrugated cardboard, PE, PP, PS, PVC and PET.

11
The comparison is based on the principles presented by Björklund (1998) where four different
computer models were compared with each other from a number of perspectives (Table 3, p.
18 in Björklund, 1998). As other models have arisen on the arena since 1998 and ORWARE has
been updated and extended, an updated version of the survey was necessary.

A continuous modernisation of ORWARE has been made since 1998. The functional units in
ORWARE have today been extended to also include recycled material (cardboard and HDPE
from packaging) and transports by bus and/or car. Some new processes in the waste
management system and the complementary system have also been added, see paper 2. In an
ongoing project, ORWARE is being complemented with emissions and primary energy
consumption for the construction phase in those cases the discrepancies between the waste
processes and the complementary processes regarding these impacts are considerably large.

Taking into consideration the survey made by Björklund and the survey made here some
conclusions can be drawn. The number of models is still increasing. Sweden is a small country
where two models, MIMES/Waste (from which the MWS model is based upon) and
ORWARE, are constructed. Despite that, a third model from Sweden has arrived on the arena.
How come? Are Swedes more concerned about the environment and more skilled in waste
management and modelling than others? The models already existing ought to be “good
enough” as many people have worked them out for many years, constantly refining them. The
answer is perhaps that the apprehension about how to assess the problem and the variety of
aims with the assessment gave birth to still another model. Following the curve of invention
(growth-stagnation-regression) it seems that the modelling approaches are still in the growth
phase.

In the survey of Björklund the model of US-EPA, the British model by White and
MIMES/Waste can be considered to be “ORWARE -alike”. In this survey the two outstanding
models are MWS and FMS as they are most “ORWARE -alike”. The other models lack e.g.
economy or cover less fractions of waste. The MWS model is a development of
MIMES/Waste from a regional model to a national one. ORWARE can also be developed and
adjusted in that way by using statistical data. If environmental impact assessment would be
included in MIMES/Waste and the MWS models they could be of interest to be compared
more in detail with ORWARE, e.g. in a case study. Then also the FMS model could be
evaluated against the others.

It is worth mentioning that large parts of the world like South America, Asia and Africa are
not represented here. Asia is perhaps the most important of these as the population growth
rate is very high and the society development is very rapid. Developing ORWARE to Asian
conditions is probably harder than to Swedish, but also probably more challenging.

12
3 Summary of included papers

This chapter presents a summary of each appended paper. The summaries are
followed by a part about the personal experiences from the studies and the
consequences for the following research.

3.1 Paper I
Simulations of Material Flows in a District Heating System -
Influence of Solar Heating and Flue Gas Condensing
A study of material flows of carbon, sulphur, nitrogen and phosphorous for different kinds of
fuels was conducted for the district heating system of the southern part of the city of
Stockholm. Different scenarios were set up for the year of 2000. The reference scenario
describes a system according to the present plans at Stockholm Energi (today Birka Energi),
the main supplier of district heating for Stockholm. From this reference, some technical
solutions were introduced; large scale solar heating and flue gas condensing.

3.1.1 Aim of the study

The aim of the study was to describe how different material- and energy flows would decrease
during operation time with the introduction of solar heating or flue gas condensing or a
combination of the two in a district heating system in Stockholm. The system studied is
comparatively large and complex; therefore emphasis was put more on trends in changed
material flows than on exactness.

3.1.2 System boundaries

The geographical area was the southern system of district heating in Stockholm corresponding
to a need for about 3000 GWh of heat. The time frame was one year although the calculations
were made month by month. The functional units were district heating and electricity.

3.1.3 Results
The combination of flue gas condensing, solar heating and long-term heat storage may
decrease the flows of the studied materials with 15 - 20 %. To accomplish such a decrease, a
total solar panel area of 540 000 m 2 would be required. A solar plant of this size will have a
heat production of 204 GWh, which corresponds to about 7 % of the delivered heat from the
Southern net. To store enough with heated water for the winter period, twelve long-term heat
storage tanks with a total volume of approx. 1.2 Million m 3 would be needed. A long-term
storage for heated water gives a large decrease of material flows since it reduces original
production in the winter when the emissions reaches a maximum.

3.2 Paper II
ORWARE 2000 - a calculation tool for waste management
ORWARE is a tool for environmental systems analysis of waste management. It is a computer-
based model for calculation of substance flows, environmental impacts, and costs of waste
management. It was first developed for systems analysis of organic waste management, hence
the acronym ORWARE (ORganic WAste Research), but now covers inorganic fractions in
municipal waste as well.

13
ORWARE consists of a number of separate submodels, which may be combined to design a
waste management system. Each submodel describes a process in a real waste management
system, e.g. waste collection, waste transport, or a waste treatment facility (e.g. incineration).

3.2.1 Methods and general description of the model

All submodels in ORWARE calculate the turnover of materials, energy and financial resources
in the process. Processes within the waste management system are e.g. waste collection,
anaerobic digestion or landfill disposal. Materials turnover is characterised by the supply of
waste materials and process chemicals, and by the output of products, secondary wastes, and
emissions to air, water and soil. Energy turnover is the use of different energy carriers such as
electricity, coal, oil or heat, and recovery of e.g. heat, electricity, hydrogen, or biogas. The
financial turnover is defined as costs and revenues of individual processes.

A number of submodels may be combined to a complete waste management system in any

city or municipality (or other system boundary). Such a conceptual ORWARE model of a
complete waste management system is shown in Figure 2.

Waste Waste Waste Waste Waste

source 1 source 2 source 3 source 4 source n

Transport Transport Transport Transport Transport Products

Materials

Materials Thermal Anaerobic Sewage Energy

Incineration Composting
recovery gasification digestion treatment

Energy
Transport Transport Transport Transport Transport Transport
Revenues

Costs
Landfilling
Emissions

Organic fertiliser Biogas

usage usage

Figure 2 A conceptual model of a complete waste management system comprising a number of

processes described by different submodels.

At the top of the conceptual model in Figure 2 there are different waste sources, followed by
different transport and treatment processes. The solid line in Figure 3 encloses the waste
management core system, where wastes are treated and different products are formed.

3.2.2 Life Cycle Assessment in ORWARE

The material flow analysis carried out in ORWARE generates data on emissions from the
system, which is aggregated into different environmental impact categories. This makes it
possible to compare the influence of different waste management system alternatives on e.g.
the greenhouse effect, acidification, eutrophication and other impact categories.

The system boundaries are of three different types; time, space and function. In an analysis of
a certain system, the temporal system boundaries vary between different studies (depends on

14
scope) and also between different submodels. Most of the process data used are annual
averages but for the landfill model and the arable land long-term effects are also included.

There is a geographical boundary delimiting the waste management system as shown in Figure
2, whereas emissions and resource depletion are included regardless of where they occur. The
system boundaries in ORWARE are chosen with an LCA perspective, thus including in
principle all processes that are connected to the life cycle of a product (in this case a waste
management system). Our coverage of life cycle impacts covers raw material extraction,
refinery, production and use. Construction, demolition and final disposal of capital equipment
are not included regarding energy consumption and emissions but are included for economy.

Another aspect of the LCA perspective in ORWARE is the use of functional units. In the ISO
standard (ISO, 1997) a functional unit is defined as “the quantified performance of a
product”. It is thus a measure of the function a product (or a system) is able to fulfil, and is
important to define clearly in comparisons of different systems. The main function of a waste
management system is to treat a certain amount of waste from the defined area. Today, many
waste management systems provide energy supply in addition to waste treatment. In other
cases, they provide fertiliser, or in most recent years recycled products or materials. In order
to achieve a just comparison between different waste management alternatives, functions not
present in a certain system have to be compensated for, as mentioned in e.g. (Finnveden,
1998). The compensation of functional units in ORWARE is achieved by expanding the system
boundaries to include different so-called compensatory processes (cf. Figure 3).

Compensatory systems also have up-stream and down-stream processes. Therefore, each
treatment alternative in ORWARE has its own unique design of core system as well as different
compensatory systems. This has been illustrated in Figure 3.

Upstream systems

Material and
energy flows

Waste
management Functional Compensatory
system units system

Material and
energy flows

Downstream systems

Figure 3 Conceptual model of the total system in ORWARE (cf. Eriksson & Frostell, 2000).

15
The total system comprises:
¤ the waste management system with different submodels i.e. the core system of the waste
management system
¤ key flows of material and energy connected to up-stream and down-stream systems
¤ the compensatory system with core system as well as up- and downstream systems.

Either the waste management system or the compensatory system (cf. Figure 3) provides the
functional units.

The different submodels are (cf. Figure 2):

¤ Waste sources and waste fractions, which act as input of material to be treated.
¤ Transports that takes waste or material from the sources to and between the treatment
facilities. Transport vehicles are predominantly different kinds of trucks.
¤ Incineration.
¤ Thermal Gasification is a submodel not primarily developed for ORWARE purposes.
¤ Landfilling is one of the more complicated models, since the fate of different compounds
differs a lot, and the environmental effects depend very much on the time span included
in the analysis The model separates surveyable time (within 100 years) from long-term
(>1000 years) emissions.
¤ Material Recycling, or material recovery, covers containers made of polyethylene (PE)
and cardboard and is based on data from Swedish facilities.
¤ Anaerobic Digestion.
¤ Composting can be performed in three ways: large-scale reactor, large-scale windrow or
private garden composting.
¤ Sewage Treatment.
¤ Gas Utilisation is a downstream process for usage of the methane gas (biogas) and/or the
synthesis gas.
¤ Organic fertiliser usage is a downstream process that includes spreading of residues and
arable land. It calculates the emissions from the soil compared with the use of mineral
fertiliser.
¤ The Compensatory System consists of upstream and compensatory systems to the waste
management system.

3.3 Paper III

Anaerobic treatment of Municipal Biodegradable Waste
The aim of the study was to assess the feasibility of using biocells for anaerobic treatment of
the organic fractions in municipal solid waste. A submodel of a biocell was constructed in
ORWARE and a case study performed where organic waste treatment in biocells, an anaerobic
digester and in a landfill was simulated. The organic waste was divided into a high quality part
collected from e.g. restaurants and trade and a medium/low quality part from households.
The parameters considered were energy turnover, treatment costs, global warming potential,
eutrophication and the fate of heavy metals.

The study showed that with available information and assumptions made, the biocell could be
an alternative to the use of an anaerobic digester. The important difference to the digester
alternative is the significantly lower treatment and investment costs. However, if
environmental aspects are very important, the anaerobic digester is the preferable solution.
The results from data and information inventory indicated that further research concerning

16
the application of organic waste processed in a biocell and used as fertiliser has to be
implemented to increase the knowledge and development of this procedure. Further
knowledge with respect to the control of biocells and the total amount of biogas that can be
recovered is also essential.

A subgoal in this study was to test a new ORWARE application. Instead of evaluating a
complete waste management system, the system boundaries were set around the treatment of
the waste. Compensation for loss of electricity, nutrients to soil etc. were accounted for, but
treatment options and waste fractions were fewer and parts of the waste management system,
like waste transports, were cut out. Therefore an important result of the study was that
ORWARE is feasible even on a lower system level for assessing the selection of different
technologies.

3.4 Comments on the papers

3.4.1 Paper I
I made this study as my Master thesis together with Johanna Olander (Olander et. al, 1997).
The study can be categorised as a pioneer study as it was the first material flow analysis to be
made as a diploma thesis on this system level at the department of Industrial Ecology. An
earlier study of nitrogen flows in the municipality of Varberg (Burström, 1996) was performed
but now four substances were considered simultaneously, and the degree of detail was higher.
It was also the first time that both a computer program and a case study was performed at the
same time.

The M. Sc. project was my first contact with systems analysis, something I missed from my
undergraduate studies. With this analytical method, I got a much more expanded picture of
energy conversion and environmental impact problems. To include also economy in the
analysis was desired by Stockholm Energi, but there was not sufficient time to examine the
costs for the different scenarios. The relation between environmental importance and time
consumption for the inventory, especially for transports, was evident and something we
pointed out as an important factor to see to in the work planning of a material flow analysis.

The connection to the work with ORWARE is evident. A large part of the district heating
emanated from the incineration of household waste. As flue gas condensing depends on
moisture content and the amount of wet fuel (e.g. waste) combusted, and solar heating does
not fit with the temperature levels of the district heating, an increase of the incineration could
be of interest. This idea is supported by the assumption that 25 % of the carbon in the waste
is fossil carbon. Thus, I realised that a more detailed analytical approach to energy from waste
would be of general interest. This was how I came to start as a Ph. D. student and switched
from energy technology, via energy and systems analysis to energy from waste and systems
analysis.

3.4.2 Paper II
While the Ph. D. students of ORWARE previously were focused on development of submodels
and testing the models in case studies, I have been working with the model on a more run-
and-go basis. When I started in 1998, there was a lack of detailed documentation of the
different submodels, as well as documentation of how to run the model. The present ORWARE
group decided to produce a comprehensive documentation. This has later been done and the
current ORWARE model is described in terms of conceptual models and brief descriptions of
the different submodels in paper 2 which is an update of (Dalemo et al, 1997).

17
In each case study there is always a need to connect the submodels used with each other and
to adjust the models to the local conditions. Except for some minor developments, like
introducing a brand new structure for the compensatory system and improving the
presentation of results by "new" types of diagrams and standardised LCI data sheets, my work
has been focused on facilitating the simulation process from data inventory and model
adjustments to digestible results. Starting with a model of Uppsala models for the waste
management systems in Stockholm and Älvdalen (Sundqvist et. al, 2000a-2000d) have been
built. To create a new system-model from scratch is often made by cutting out submodel by
submodel from an existing ORWARE model. In this way a model of the future organic waste
treatment system in Jönköping was built (Eriksson & Svanblom, 2000). I have also been
involved in the model construction of the municipality of Värmdö, which has been examined
in two diploma theses (Jonsson, 2000 and Skoglund, 2000).

New application areas for the systems approach in ORWARE have been discussed for a long
time. There is still more to do in the waste sector, in Sweden and also abroad, with a tool like
ORWARE. The interest for using ORWARE in case studies or for educational purposes is also
increasing. Despite this, new applications always seem interesting and challenging. That was
how I came to the vision of adapting ORWARE to deal with energy systems. Looking closer at
the existing models of energy systems I realised that energy systems analysis is a world with
many models, many stakeholders and also strong political influence. Instead of seeing that as a
challenge, I changed my mind and restricted myself to correct the inconveniences with the
existing ORWARE model and to incorporate some new aspects besides the aspects of the
environment, energy and economy. By doing so it would be possible not just to go from waste
to energy, but to a more wide range of applications. Evaluating technical solutions with a
systems perspective and putting the focus on the function delivered by a technology chain
(following the function from the cradle to the grave) came up as something interesting. This
idea, displayed in paper 3 and 4, gave me information about gaps in the methodology and the
need for further development.

3.4.3 Paper III

The work was made in co-operation with a M.Sc. student and the full report can be found in
(Fliedner, 1999). The existing ORWARE landfill submodel comprised submodels for mixed
waste, slag, ash and sludge and as biocells were introduced to some real landfills the research
group wanted to have a submodel for this as well. Other aims were to gain some more insight
into (i) the possibilities to an increased biogas production compared to ordinary landfilling, (ii)
the environmental performance of biocells and (iii) the economical aspects of biocell
operation. But, as mentioned above, a sub goal also was to use ORWARE in a new way. This
work gave a first hint about how the model could be used to compare different technical
solutions. In another master thesis project, more high-tech technical solutions were studied to
investigate the potential of ORWARE as a tool for environmental technology assessment
(Assefa, 2000).

18
4 Discussion

The discussion is divided into five different parts. First (1) the complexity of waste
management is described and the importance of a systems approach is explained.
After these general issues the discussion focuses (2) on the simulation model
ORWARE as it is used today. The strengths and weaknesses are presented and
discussed. In a separate part (3) the reliability of the results and the analysis is
discussed. After that (4) follows a section with some conceptual ideas of how to
combine different systems engineering tools with new ideas of method
improvements. Last (5) are some thoughts about future research.

4.1 Waste management and the importance of a systems

perspective
The challenge to treat different wastes in an optimal way is extremely complicated. An
important aspect of this complexity is the large number of actors, or stakeholders, involved in
society's discussion of how the waste should be treated in the best way. A number of these
actors in Sweden are:

¤ The households who generate large amounts of mixed waste and are paying a fee for the
waste management. The households may also work as consumers of the services and the
products generated by the waste management, e.g. district heating and recycled paper.
¤ The companies, like the households, generate different types of wastes. Household waste is
heterogeneous from each source but quite homogenous for different sources. Business
and industrial waste is more homogenous from each source but varies more between
different sources.
¤ The private waste companies that are included in the group above, but also are managers or
entrepreneurs of different services in the waste management sector. Examples are
companies who collect waste and run different treatment facilities.
¤ The municipality which is responsible for the waste management on behalf of the citizens.
Municipal authorities in this field are offices for fresh water supply, sewage collection,
waste treatment, energy supply, traffic control, environmental protection, Agenda 21 etc.
¤ The energy companies that often were owned by the municipality but have more and more
become independent profit earning companies. Because of the importance of energy
supply they are often dominating in the discussion.
¤ The agriculture that is the end user of the products generated in nutrient recycling from
organic waste. Agriculture has a strong connection to the food industry and hence to the
consumers, predominantly the households.
¤ The material companies defined as the companies acting on a market for recycled materials.
¤ The authorities with the task to monitor the fulfilment of legal requirements. Examples of
these actors are the Environmental Protection Agency (Naturvårdsverket), The Labour
Inspectorate (Yrkesinspektionen), the National Chemicals Inspectorate
(Kemikalieinspektionen) and the Swedish Institute for Infectious Disease Control (SMI)
(Smittskyddsinstitutet).
¤ The Non Governmental Organisations that often are very active in the environmental field and
also scrutinise the ongoing activities. Examples are Greenpeace, the Field Biologists, the
Engineers for the Environment, and the Green Drivers to the Environment.
¤ Media that works as a forum for discussions but also scrutinise and pull opinion.

19
Besides the actors, there are a large number of technical solutions to consider, shown by the
following examples:

¤ Collection (front loader, pack-packer, vacuum truck etc.)

¤ Treatment option (product recycling, material recycling, incineration, gasification,
biological treatment, landfilling)
¤ Use of products (new paper, new plastic, different fuels, nutrients to soil)

A third factor is the different impacts the waste management causes the society and the
environment:

¤ Impact on the environment as contribution to acidification, eutrophication, global

warming potential etc.
¤ Impact on the energy turnover as the energy in the waste can be recovered and utilised.
¤ Impact on the economy for different actors.

The amount and combination of different actors, technical solutions and different kinds of
impacts, result in waste management often being heavily discussed and criticised. Often,
demands on a new- and reorientation are raised. As examples can be seen:

¤ New regulations are coming from authorities at all levels.

¤ Waste is changing character and amount over time.
¤ New effects on health and environment are discovered all the time.
¤ Markets are de-regulated.
¤ New technologies are constantly developed.

Facing this background, it is clear that the need for a systems approach is great and that
different stakeholder perspectives have to be discussed and highlighted. Using a systems
approach can be helpful in this work. Environmental systems analysis is often focused on
tools for describing a complex problem and to find solutions. By using a tool that is aimed at
systematically illuminate an object from different angles, both the socio-technical problem, the
environmental problem and the financial problem can be discussed simultaneously.

Computer models that have the ability to handle large amounts of information can be used as
practical tools to execute calculations supportive in making decisions. The rapidly improved
information technology creates new possibilities to collect, calculate and present information.
With the help of models, different actors can be brought closer to each other as more
complete and foreseeable information is "on the table". At the same time, the faith in these
tools should not be overestimated. There are several aspects that are not included in computer
models and therefore it is important that they are used with sense and that the conclusions
drawn are well established.

4.2 ORWARE of today - strengths and weaknesses

The benefits of (the strengths) and the problems (the weaknesses) that normally occur, when
using ORWARE, will be hereby be presented and explained. For the weaknesses some ideas of
how to resolve them are also suggested. This survey is based on practical experiences from
three years of research work with ORWARE, and reflects my own point of view.

20
4.2.1 Strengths

ENABLES FLEXIBILITY
One of the strengths with ORWARE is the flexibility. The model is unique in its capacity to be
adapted to local conditions. In the beginning of a case study ORWARE consists of a data set of
statistical and empirical data, also called "default data". Together with the customer a list of
the most important parameters is discussed. After test simulations, some data on the list may
have to be adjusted and maybe some not on the list have to be added. This procedure takes
time, but is a necessary step. It supports the gradual education of the project team and if time
and resources allow, new questions may be discovered, new scenarios constructed and new
simulations run. This however takes time and that is often seen as a disadvantage. Another
problem is, that the when the practitioners realise the level of details that the model provides,
they tend to get in more and more detail of the system, not considering the necessity of
changing every figure at the micro level.

ILLUSTRATES COMPLEXITY
Another strength is that ORWARE illustrates the complexity of the system. The complexity as
described in 4.1 (many actors with different opinions and interests, different treatment
options, waste sources, impacts and functional units), is best described by making a systems
analysis. With a systems approach, it is possible to map all these actors and assess the
complexity. The environmental impacts of the LCA, however, are very complex to determine
and altogether the model may appear quite complex. The complexity is also a weakness and
will therefore be discussed further on.

SUPPORTS DIALOGUE
One positive aspect of systems analysis is that it brings different stakeholders together to
discuss theirs and other stakeholders problems from a systems perspective. More efficient
solutions are to be found when not just talking one stakeholder to another. In the ORWARE
group, there has been an improved dialogue between the researchers themselves and between
researchers and waste managers. Having to speak the same language and understand each
other’s positions, have had a positive effect on the mutual understanding of the system. Thus,
it is not only the results from ORWARE that are achievements but also the process of gradually
understanding different aspects of a very complex system. The dialogue has also resulted in
demands from the customers (waste companies and waste managers) to produce legible and
more easily understandable results that can be implemented in the planning process.

COLLECTS KNOWLEDGE
Sustainability demands expertise from various areas and disciplines. Interdisciplinary research
is not easy to work out but often desired by society. This is e.g. mentioned in the research
proposition from the Swedish government: The environmental research is another area, which
to a higher and higher degree incorporates researchers from in principle all disciplines.
Garbage separation and waste recycling can only be achieved if all aspects of the process are
considered, from sociological and economical factors that drive the interest for waste
separation to technical solutions in order to recycle the waste. (Regeringens proposition
2000/2001:3, p. 48, my translation):

In ORWARE there are scientists from different areas like mechanical and chemical engineering,
as well as people with agricultural skills (agronomists) and an economist. In the current
ORWARE project, a sociologist is also involved in the work. In this way, the research work of
ORWARE is interdisciplinary.

21
Much knowledge is also found in the actors ball court. People with long-time experience are
being mixed with people with new and fresh ideas. In a waste company, there may not be the
time or financial resources available to work on a strategic basis as the problems of today and
tomorrow have to be resolved first. Research, on the other hand, is focused on gaining
knowledge for the future. It is therefore a well-weighted combination of practicians and
researchers that often ends in the most fruitful solutions.

Building up a model like ORWARE results in an enormous amount of collected and organised
data. The database in ORWARE is not built up on data from own measurements. Data is
collected and compiled from literature as well as reports and documents obtained from
different waste management actors. Other LCA databases are also used. The collected data is
something unique and can be valuable if handled in the right way, e.g. in other LCA studies
and for regional material flow accounting.

SHOWS CONNECTIONS
Connections between different types of information are hard to understand without a systems
perspective. Interesting in ORWARE, is e.g. the coupling or lack of coupling between
environmental impacts and economical outcome. With a material flow analysis and a cost-
benefit analysis side by side, it is possible to study the system from two perspectives, namely
the ecological and (financial) economical perspective. To finally decide between different
viewpoints, politics is necessary. As much as possible, however, political issues are excluded
from ORWARE, except perhaps for setting up scenarios and system boundaries. The analysis
should be used as a decision support tool together with political weightings. One of the first
ORWARE projects was about to evaluate waste management plans for Uppsala and Stockholm,
but that was mainly due to the fact that the main task was to evaluate the reliability of the
model and not to say something about new smart system solutions. The MIMES/Waste-
model (Ljunggren, 1997), on the other hand, has been used as a tool for evaluating political
decisions like taxes and prohibitions.

4.2.2 Weaknesses

ERRORS
When dealing with complex items with many people involved, errors often occur. By errors is
not meant errors beyond our control like incorrect measurements etc., but errors caused by
combining a large number of data in the model is a weakness connected to ORWARE. That is
mostly due to the large amount of data that has to be incorporated (with failures in typing and
checking the calculations) and also the lack of understanding about what is needed and
wanted (which leads to misunderstanding and the use of wrong data). The different
stakeholders also have different customs and cultures, something that leads to problems and
sometimes even to failures.

Even if the input data is satisfactory, there are other things that can fail in the calculations.
This problem is sometimes discovered by the model itself and sometimes by penetrating the
results. The potential errors represent a problem, since the time needed to control such a big
system as ORWARE, is considerable. This must, however, be seen as a necessary evil.

Building functions into the model to monitor what is happening can solve some of the
problems with errors. Introduction of searchable databases would also make the error
handling easier.

22
SERVICE – NOT A PRODUCT
People belonging to the waste management companies often wish to have the model installed
on there own computers for every day use. At present, this is not possible if all the strengths
should be achieved. A model easy enough to be used by a non-expert would not be as site-
specific and the possibilities to lead fruitful discussions would be lost if people would use the
model and simulate scenarios on their own.

Solving sustainability problems like waste management, transportation, and energy supply etc.
demands for an interdisciplinary approach as mentioned under "strengths". But
interdisciplinary research is also a weakness when discussing the time it takes from
formulating the problem until it is solved. It takes time to (i) get the project participants to
understand each other's objectives and way of handling and solving problems, (ii) discuss
common problems from all aspects and finally (iii) to unite and go for one solution.

The addressed problem of ORWARE as a service and not a product is not a serious problem as
I can see it. But for the sake of understanding and acceptance, the model needs to exist in
several versions. One master version as it exists today, designed for experts, one model for
educational purposes and one for illustrating the systems analysis just by visualising system
effects without using Matlab/Simulink.

TIME
In ORWARE there are many time perspectives. The landfill submodel is divided into surveyable
time (about one hundred years) and remaining time (cf. Paper 2). The biocell, as a part of the
landfill submodel, has a time frame of 10-20 years and a hypothetical infinite time. A
submodel of the arable land with a nitrogen pool would work on a basis of 1-3 years and then
long-term effects. Emissions from treatment plants, complementary energy and spreading
conditions varies from season to season. The different time frames are solved
methodologically but are sometimes hard to explain when evaluating the results. Constructing
a dynamic model would solve some of these problems but then, on the other hand, input data
would have to be more detailed. As some important factors are assumptions about the future,
the analysis would be inconsistent and not useful to anyone. The time frame problem will
remain for these types of systems but it is always good to minimise it.

Problems with different time perspectives must be explained and further investigated. In an
ongoing project "Energy from waste" - funded by the Swedish National Energy Authority -
this will be done.

SPACE
An important aspect is information about where the impacts on environment, energy and
economy are situated. Sometimes it is the clue to understand the existing situation (waste
imported and exported over municipal borders), sometimes the solutions give rise to new
geographical problems (more recycling of plastic containers reduces the emissions in the
studied municipality but the emissions increases at the recycling plant). Some space functions,
like how the incineration plant interacts with the local environment such as dwelling areas and
road systems, are not considered at all.

The geographical aspects could perhaps be better taken care of by a GIS (Geographic
Information System) extension, which has been tested in a project (Sivertun et al., 1998).

23
INSUFFICIENT
ORWARE does not cover all aspects of waste management and is not meant to. Issues that are
possible to account for, like material and financial flows, are more or less included but there is
still more to deal with for a complete environmental management. When designing a waste
management system there are many questions to be considered. It is therefore understandable
that when many of these questions can be solely or partly answered by ORWARE, people ask
for more parameters to be included. As environmental issues gradually change to sustainability
issues, there is of course a will to broaden the ORWARE model or ORWARE approach to fit
into the discussion of sustainable waste management. As this thesis is being written, new
impact categories are investigated to be included or not. A suggestion on new tools to be
included is discussed further on.

The strengths and weaknesses are summarised in Table 7.

Table 7 Strengths and weaknesses with the ORWARE simulation model

Strengths
High degree of site specific adjustment
Shows the complexity of the system/problem
Encourages to a dialog between actors
Collects competence, information and skills
More easy to find economy/ecology connections
Weaknesses
Errors due to complexity and scope
Not a user-friendly computer program
Different time perspectives
Different space perspectives
Do not cover everything

4.3 Reliability of ORWARE

The reliability due to choice of method, modelling approach, data uncertainty etc. will not be
discussed any further here as these issues have been discussed in earlier ORWARE theses and
the issues of concern have not been dramatically changed since then. Some of the parameters
of greatest importance for the result of the analysis will be discussed in this thesis. The
parameters can be divided into general assumptions and more site-specific ones. In general,
there are three parameters in Swedish waste management that are of importance:

1 Everything that concerns incineration (degree of efficiency, emissions etc.).

A great part of the waste studied can be incinerated and with scenarios of treating the waste
with one method or another, the incineration becomes important. Including flue gas
condensing or not or using different approaches to modelling of emissions are crucial. It is
very seldom that incineration is not included in the projects carried out with ORWARE. If more
studies were done abroad, the assumptions for the landfill would tend to be crucial.

2 Choices of fuels for compensatory energy especially heat generation.

This follows as a logical consequence of the importance of incineration.

3 Choice of system boundaries

Including or excluding waste streams, treatment options or up-stream and down-stream
effects are most crucial which is shown in e.g. (Björklund and Bjuggren, 1998).

The site-specific assumptions vary a lot. In particular financial costs are crucial. If the
municipality already has digestion capacity in an over-dimensioned wastewater plant, the cost
for source separation and anaerobic digestion of organic waste could be several times less than
for a municipality in a sparsely populated area with no investments made. On the energy and
environment results the differences are often less crucial.

24
Reliability is also about establishing confidence to the model and to the results. Both the
customers (e.g. municipalities) and the researchers must be confined. The customers’
confidence is achieved by

1 Regular discussions with the actors involved.

2 Accurate accounts of input and output data.
3 Interpretation of the results and formulation of conclusions in mutual understanding.

The researchers' faith in their own work is achieved by

1 Documentation of everything (establishing routines and responsibilities)

2 Comparing the model with reality and the model with other models
3 Working individually and constantly checking each other.

4.4 ORWARE of tomorrow - no time to waste

4.4.1 Aspects of energy, waste and environment
A couple of conclusions from the coupling between energy, waste and environment can be
drawn:

Waste production and energy consumption are linked to each other. They are linked in a chain
also including standard of living and environmental impact. As the standard of living raises, so
do the other factors.

Energy can be recovered from waste, and energy generation produces waste. The incineration
results in ashes and slag, that to some extent could be used, but still landfilling has to be used.
Even with a high degree of recycling, some materials can not be recycled forever and will then
have to be incinerated which causes waste for landfilling. Does a sustainable society accept
landfilling?

Energy generation (e.g. combustion) causes environmental impact mostly at the global level,
while waste management causes direct environmental impact at a local level and indirect
impact at a national and a global level. This difference is probably one explanation to the low
understanding for and thus lacks of systems thinking. As a consequence, incineration has a
bad reputation among certain groups. People tend to see the smoke and feel the smell from
the incineration plants instead of thinking about the alternative (that often is a quiet and
peaceful landfill on the countryside). Often the incineration plants were built several years ago
and are now situated almost in the middle of the city. Energy plants are often located further
away from populated areas and fossil CO2 does not smell. The fact that energy is needed
where the waste already is, is in this way both positive (short way from fuel to heat sink) and
negative (all types of waste management seem to disturb people).

When discussing energy recovery from waste most people probably think of district heating or
electricity generation. Or, in other parts of the world, district cooling and/or electricity
generation. But there can be other ways of using the energy recovered from waste with a
higher environmental efficiency. A large contribution to the global warming potential comes
from transports. Producing district heating and electricity from other, more sustainable
sources does not seem to be an as big problem as the challenge to substitute petrol and diesel
oil. Today hydrogen is seen as the most promising alternative to oil. Hydrogen can be

25
produced from waste using either thermal gasification (where synthesis gas is formed that can
be transformed into hydrogen) or biogasification (anaerobic digestion) followed by steam
reforming (a process to generate synthesis gas from biogas). Today hydrogen is mostly
produced from natural gas but in the future more sustainable alternatives should be used.

Using the experiences from environmental systems analysis of waste management a

methodology for assessment of energy management can be set up. From this it is possible to
create a tool for decision-making with emphasis on environmental impact. Already existing
models at different levels should be used whenever it is suitable but the systems perspective
comes with the new ORWARE.

The conceptual idea is based on the fact that all anthropogenic activities start with extraction
of natural resources and end with functions and emissions. The method of attack is, while
keeping the functions constant, to minimise the negative impact to sustainability by designing
the system in between in different ways.

By sustainability is here meant:

¤ Environmental impact (as defined in LCA by resource use and emissions/impact

categories)
¤ Economical impact (on a welfare basis)
¤ Social impact (e.g. provide the services, actors satisfaction, risks etc.)

In the following some improvements of the methodology used in ORWARE are suggested.

4.4.2 Extension of the number of impact categories

In the future, ORWARE could be developed into a concept for assessment of the sustainability
of technological activities in society. It may combine several existing environmental systems
analyses and systems approaches as

¤ LCA,
¤ Systems engineering,
¤ Cost-benefit analysis,
¤ Actors (stake-holders) analysis and
¤ Risk assessment

to a strong tool for decision-making in the selection of technology options.

Impacts on the environment are almost always connected to impact on human health. With
the substance flow analysis that comes with ORWARE (up to 50 parallel flows) it should be
possible to include a simple risk (health) analysis/assessment. Perhaps an exergy analysis, as an
evaluation of the energy turnover, would be fruitful. The emissions are evaluated in terms of
environmental impact categories and environmental economy. Energy is so far just evaluated
in terms of emissions from the energy generation but not in terms of energy quality. Finally
the social attitudes need to be included if the full meaning of sustainability should be covered.

4.4.3 Functions in focus

Functional units are defined as something useful that should be kept constant for all studied
scenarios. In the framework of a new model approach, a new way of looking at functional
units by dividing them into three types is introduced.

26
¤ Upstream functional units that describe the system input. For a waste management system a
typical upstream functional unit would be a certain amount of waste treated. Another
example could be to consider the fate of the resources saved. When paper is recycled,
forest is saved but what happens with the trees that are not being cut? Are they left to
decompose or will they be used for other purposes e.g. fuel? These thoughts have been
brought up to discussion by Göran Finnveden (Finnveden et. al, 2000), but have still not
been considered in ORWARE. I consider the upstream functional units to those being
empowered by the systems ability to influence them.
¤ Core functional units that describe something within the system boundaries. In ORWARE
something called constant plant capacity has been used which could follow this
description. For a treatment plant already built it is almost an economical systems
condition to run the plant at full capacity.
¤ Downstream functional units are the ones we know from before as something useful
provided by the system to the outside. For waste management it is typically district
heating, electricity, recycled materials etc.

From now on the application illustrated will be as a tool for energy management but other
applications (in general term technology chains) are also possible. ORWARE of today includes
the supply side of downstream functions and may therefore be used as a tool for minimising
the relative impact, measured as emission/function provided. On the supply side there are
natural resources in the form of fuels (in ORWARE of today the fuel is waste) which is
transformed to e.g. energy. The demand side of the downstream functional unit covers the
chain from energy to a function but that is not modelled in ORWARE. This is shown in the
following figure:

WASTE CONVERSION ENERGY CONVERSION OTHER

maximised minimised FUELS
constant constant
variable

CONVERSION
constant

FUNCTION
constant

Figure 4 Picture of the current environmental optimisation in ORWARE .

As can be seen in Figure 4 only the supply side is modelled. A constant amount of waste is
optimised to maximise the amount of energy delivered (or rather minimising the consumption
of primary energy). The energy conversion for other fuels is constant but the amount varies at
compensation. Energy conversion to the function is left out.

By extending the system down-stream it is possible to go from electricity, heat, hydrogen etc.
to end user services as light, mechanical work, cooling etc. In the future, it may be much more
fruitful to express a functional unit as a function and not in terms of energy or material. Hence
we must examine the arrow from energy to function in the figure above.

27
 GOOD BAD
CONVERSION ENERGY CONVERSION
ENERGY ENERGY
maximised minimised
minimised
sustainable
variable

CONVERSION
maximised

FUNCTION

constant

Figure 5 Picture of a future environmental optimisation.

In Figure 5 both supply and demand sides are included. The energy conversion to a proper
function is maximised implicating a minimising of energy available. The available energy is a
function of maximised energy conversion from environmentally sound energy resources used
at a sustainable level. This means that environmentally bad energy is minimised when
compensating. With "good energy" is meant such energy forms that are harmless or less
harmful to the environment e.g. solar, waste (could be doubted but landfilling is really bad)
and "bad energy" covers energy from fossil and non-renewable fuels.

This extension of the ORWARE tool - when used for an energy system - will allow the double
optimisation of both supply and demand sides to be done simultaneously. Thus it may be
possible to find solutions for which the functional fulfilment can be achieved with less energy
than before and thus with an increased overall efficiency. What is important is that the chain
from resource to service is followed.

4.4.4 How can the approach be used in practise?

When analysing waste management different treatment options can be tested. That is what
ORWARE does already today. If the approach is expanded to other process related activities
one may consider bio-productive land in a specified area and try to find a combination of
technologies that fulfil a certain need (functional unit) as well (from a sustainable point of
view) as possible.

In Sweden, the energy market is presently deregulated. Thus different energy companies
compete on an open market. For an energy company it is of interest to investigate the
possibilities to increase profits. Until recently it has been of most interest to invest in
increased production capacity and sell the product electricity. With the emerging demands for
more sustainable energy systems, different options to produce the same function to a
customer, but at a lower environmental impact (and thus costs!) will be of greater and greater
importance. The most common, and thus important, functions delivered by an energy system
are:

¤ Heating (predominantly in housing)

¤ Cooling (housing, food)
¤ Light
¤ Mechanical work

28
A further developed ORWARE model could be used to analyse how a new approach to deliver
a certain function would perform both with respect to economy, ecology and social values.

Another way to use an extended approach would be to start with an organisation and a certain
amount of financial resources instead of a technical system or a function. Which measures should
be introduced in order to achieve as much ecological sustainability and social values as
possible at a certain cost? Should a condominium association make a change at the energy
supply side or at the energy demand side? Is the most appropriate measure a change of
refrigerators, new 3-glass windows, or the start-up of a car pool? What are the costs and
benefits on the social, financial and ecological side of increasing the amount of people
working from home? Social aspects of this issue could be the life quality and comfort.
Financial aspects could be a higher market value of the apartment.

A fourth way to use an extended ORWARE could be in a broader context in the local society,
e.g. to compare results from this type of technology chain assessment with regional material flow
accountings. A regional material flow accounting system is presently introduced in the City of
Stockholm, as a result of the work with an integrated environmental information system (cf.
Frostell et al, 1999). In such comparisons, results from the energy sector could be evaluated in
a larger context of a whole local community. This would help in the discussion and the
identification of priorities on a higher political level in the local society, e.g. municipalities and
cities.

4.5 Future research

Which are the needs for further development of the current ORWARE model? From the
beginning ORWARE was built for systems analysis of organic waste. Now the model covers all
kinds of solid and liquid waste (sewage) with focus on household waste. An expansion to
cover industrial waste would be interesting, in order to fully evaluate the energy potential from
waste. Also metal scrap would then have to be incorporated. Doing this is just a matter of
time for building new submodels. I do not believe that enormously interesting research results
could be achieved, but for the sake of creating a tool to be used and accepted by the society it
is important.

A combination between including industrial wastes and introducing new research areas would
be to use ORWARE within the industry. Industrial sectors with a clear process structure and a
strong influence of material flows are easy to “translate” into the world of ORWARE. In
Sweden the pulp and paper industry as well as the mining and steel sector seem interesting.
Today the industry works with tools like LCA for their products and CER (Corporate
Environmental Reporting) for the whole company. Hopefully ORWARE could fit in and link
the existing tools to each other.

ORWARE is presently being further developed, now also trying to include analysis of the
stakeholders, upstream activities (like the efforts made by the households) and also a
qualitative analysis of the social impact. I would also like to see a development that combines
the skills of the research group in Industrial Ecology at KTH. The research is roughly divided
into systems analysis of buildings and construction, municipal/regional material flow analyses,
environmental management in industry and risk assessment. It would be of great interest to
combine these four parts into something called "Environmental Decision Support".

29
Finally, it would be of interest to compare the existing Swedish models for systems analysis of
waste management along the same scale. That could be done by e.g. a peer review or by a
common case study.

30
5 References

Assefa, G., (2000) Environmental Systems Analysis of Waste Management - Prospects of Hydrogen Production from
Waste for Use in Fuel Cell Vehicles, Master of Science Thesis, Division of Industrial Ecology, Dep. of
Chemical Engineering and Technology, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden (ISSN
1402-7615, TRITA-KET-IM 2000:03).
Baccini, P. and Brunner, P.H. (1991) Metabolism of the Anthroposphere, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Berger, C., Chauny, F., Langevin, A., Loulou, R., Riopel, C., Savard, G., Waaub, J. -P. (1998) EUGENE:
An Optimization-based Decision Support System for Long-term Integrated regional Solid Waste management
Planning, In proceedings of "Systems Engineering Models for Waste Management" International
workshop in Göteborg, Sweden, 25-26 February 1998, AFR-report 229, part I.
Björklund, A., (2000), Environmental systems analysis of waste management - Experiences from applications of the
ORWARE model, Doctoral Thesis, Division of Industrial Ecology, Dep. of Chemical Engineering and
Technology, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden (ISSN 1402-7615, TRITA-KET-IM
2000:15).
Björklund, A., (1998), Environmental systems analysis of waste management with emphasis on substance flows and
environmental impact, Licentiate Thesis, Division of Industrial Ecology, Dep. of Chemical Engineering
and Technology, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden (ISSN 1402-7615, TRITA-
KET-IM 1998:16, AFR-Report 211).
Björklund, A. and Bjuggren, C. (1998) Waste Modelling Using Substance Flow Analysis and Life Cycle
Assessment, Paper 98-A431 in proceedings of the Air & Waste Management Association’s Annual
Meeting, June 14-18, San Diego, CA, USA.
Burström, F. (1998) Municipal Materials Accounting and Environmental Management, Licentiate Thesis in
Industrial Ecology, Dept of Chemical Engineering &Technology, Royal Institute of Technology,
Stockholm.
Burström (1996) Material flow analysis as a tool in environmental monitoring at the local level: Nitrogen flows in the
municipality of Varberg in 1994, Diploma thesis, Department of Environmental Technology and Work
Science, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
Costanza, R., L. Wainger, C. Folke, K. -G. Mäler (1993) Modelling Complex Ecological Economic Systems –
Toward an evolutionary, dynamic understanding of people and nature, BioScience 43: 545-555.
Dalemo, M., (1999), Environmental Systems Analysis of Organic Waste Management - The ORWARE model and
the sewage plant and anaerobic digestion submodels, Doctoral thesis, Dep. of Agricultural Engineering,
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden (Agraria 146; AFR-Report No. 239).
Dalemo, M., Frostell, B., Jönsson, H., Mingarini, K., Nybrant, T., Sonesson, U., Sundqvist, J. -O.,
Thyselius, L., (1997) ORWARE - A simulation model for organic waste handling systems. Part 1: Model
description, Resources, Conservation and recycling 21, 17-37.
Eriksson, O., Frostell, B. (2000) An approach to sustainability assessment of energy systems, Manuscript to
chapter 14 in "Energy in Sweden" to be published by the Swedish National Energy Administration
Eriksson, O., Svanblom, L. (2000) Framtida behandling av lättnedbrytbart organiskt avfall i Jönköpings
kommun - En systemstudie av effekter på miljö, energi och ekonomi, Project report, Division of
Industrial Ecology, Dep. of Chemical Engineering and Technology, Royal Institute of Technology,
Stockholm, Sweden (ISSN 1402-7615, TRITA-KET-IM 2000:20)
Finnveden, G., (1998) On the possibilities of Life-Cycle Assessment, Doctoral thesis in Natural Resources
Management, Department of Systems Ecology, Stockholm University (FMS Report 73, IVL Report
A 1199, AFR Report 222, ISBN 91-7153-815-1)

31
Finnveden, G., Johansson, J., Lind, P., Moberg, Å. (2000) Life Cycle Assessments of Energy from Solid Waste,
(FOA-rapport B--00-00622-222--SE. ISBN 91-7056-703-6. ISSN 1404-6520). The report is available
at www.fms.ecology.su.se. (in Swedish)
Fliedner, A., (1999) Organic Waste treatment in Biocells - A Computer-based modelling Approach In the Context of
Environmental Systems Analysis, Master of Science Degree Thesis, Division of Industrial Ecology and
Division of Land and water Resources, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden (TRITA-
KET-IM 1999:5)
Frostell, B., Broman, D., Cramér, M., Ekstrand, S., Freland, M., Hansson, H. -C., Jonsson, U.,
Mohlander, U. and Wastenson, L. (1999) MONITOR – an integrated environmental information system,
Proc. ConAccount Workshop on Ecologizing Societal Metabolism – Designing Scenarios for
Sustainable Materials Management, November 21st 1998 Amsterdam, The Netherlands, CML report
148, Leiden University.
Gielen, D. J. (1998) The MARKAL systems engineering model for waste management, In proceedings of
"Systems Engineering Models for Waste Management" International workshop in Göteborg,
Sweden, 25-26 February 1998, AFR-report 229, part I.
Hellweg, S., Binder, M., Hungerbühler, K. (1998) Model for an environmental evaluation of waste treatment
processes with the help of life cycle assessment, In proceedings of "Systems Engineering Models for Waste
Management" International workshop in Göteborg, Sweden, 25-26 February 1998, AFR-report 229,
part II.
ISO (1997) Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Framework. ISO 14040:1997
European Committee for Standardisation CEN, Brussels, Belgium.
Jonsson, S. (2000) Utvärdering av olika sätt att hantera avloppsslam i Värmdö, Diploma thesis, Division of
Industrial Ecology, Dep. of Chemical Engineering and Technology, Royal Institute of Technology,
Stockholm, Sweden (ISSN 1402-7615, TRITA-KET-IM 2000:11).
Ljunggren, M. (1997) A systems engineering approach to national solid waste management, Licentiate thesis,
Energy Systems Technology Division, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden
(Report 1997:2, ISSN 1103-4513, ISRN CTH-EST-R--97/2--SE, AFR-report 162)
Ljunggren, M. (1998) The MWS model a systems engineering approach to national solid waste management, Paper
presented at "Systems engineering models for waste management" International workshop in
Göteborg, Sweden, 25-26 February 1998.
Malmström, S., Györki, I., Sjögren, P., (1994) Bonniers svenska ordbok, Stockholm, Sweden (ISBN 91-34-
51570-4) (in Swedish)
Mingarini, K. (1996) Systems Analysis of Organic Waste with Emphasis on modelling of the Incineration and the
Landfill Processes, Licentiate thesis, Department of Environmental Technology and Work Science,
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
Miser, H.J. & Quade, E.S. (1995) Handbook of Systems Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England
Moberg, Å. (1999) Environmental Systems Analysis Tools: Differences and Similarities, Diploma thesis 1999:8,
Institution of Ecology systems, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Naturvårdsverket (1999) Hållbar energiframtid? Långsiktiga miljömål med systemlösningar för el och värme, (ISBN
91-620-4965-8, ISSN 0282-7298) (in Swedish)
Naturvårdsverket SUMMARY Action Plan Waste, Report 4603 (ISBN 91-620-4603-9, ISSN 0282-7298)
Olander, J. and Eriksson, O. (1997) Solvärme och rökgaskondensering - hur påverkas materialflöden i ett
fjärrvärmenät?, Master thesis work, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden. (in Swedish)
Petts, J. (1999) Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment – Vol. 1: Environmental Impact Assessment (Ed.
Judith Petts), Oxford: Blackwell Science, 484pp.
Regeringens proposition 2000/2001:3 Forskning och förnyelse (in Swedish)

32
RVF (1998) Swedish Waste Management 1998, Annual booklet from The Swedish Association of Waste
Management (RVF - Svenska Renhållningsverksföreningen)
RVF (2000) Svensk Avfallshantering 2000, Annual booklet from The Swedish Association of Waste
Management (RVF - Svenska Renhållningsverksföreningen) (in Swedish)
Sivertun, Å., Le Duc, M. (1998) A Systems Analysis of Pollutants Flow in an Area and their Environmental Impact
Modelled by a Geographic Information System (GIS), Paper presented at "Systems engineering models for
waste management" International workshop in Göteborg, Sweden, 25-26 February 1998.
Skoglund, C. (2000) Utvärdeing av olika sätt att behandla organiskt avfall på Värmdö, Master thesis,
Department of Biology and Environmental Science, University of Kalmar, Kalmar, Sweden
(Examensarbete 2000:M13) (in Swedish)
Sonesson, U., (1998), Systems Analysis of Waste Management – The ORWARE Model, Transport and Compost
Sub-Models, Doctoral thesis, Dep. of Agricultural Engineering, Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden (Agraria 130).
Sundqvist, J. -O., Baky, A., Björklund, A., Carlsson, M., Eriksson, O., Frostell, B., Granath, J., and
Thyselius, L. (2000a) Systemanalys av energiutnyttjande från avfall – utvärdering av energi, miljö och ekonomi.
Översiktsrapport, Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Stockholm, Sweden (IVL report 1379)
Sundqvist, J. -O., Baky, A., Björklund, A., Carlsson, M., Eriksson, O., Frostell, B., Granath, J., and
Thyselius, L. (2000b) Systems Analysis of Energy Recovery from Waste – Evaluation of Energy, Environment and
Costs. Case study Uppsala, Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. (IVL report
1380)
Sundqvist, J. -O., Baky, A., Björklund, A., Carlsson, M., Eriksson, O., Frostell, B., Granath, J., and
Thyselius, L. (2000c) Systems Analysis of Energy Recovery from Waste – Evaluation of Energy, Environment and
Costs. Case study Stockholm, Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Stockholm, Sweden (IVL
report 1381)
Sundqvist, J. -O., Baky, A., Björklund, A., Carlsson, M., Eriksson, O., Frostell, B., Granath, J., and
Thyselius, L. (2000d) Systems Analysis of Energy Recovery from Waste – Evaluation of Energy, Environment and
Costs. Case study Älvdalen, Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Stockholm, Sweden (IVL report
1382)
Turner, R.K., Pearce, D. & Bateman, I. (1994) Environmental Economics – An Elementary Introduction,
Harvester Wheatsheaf, London.
Udo de Haes, H., van der Voet, E. & Klein, R. (1997) Substance Flow Analysis (SFA), an analytical tool for
integrated chain management, In Proceedings of From Paradigm to Practice of Sustainability,
ConAccount Workshop, 21-23 January 1997, Leiden, The Netherlands.
van der Voet, E., Klein, R., van Oers, L., Huele, R. & Mulder, P. (1995) Substance Flows Through the
Economy and the Environment, Part I: Systems Definition, Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 2
(2), 89-96.
Wackernagel, M. & Rees W. (1996) Our Ecological Footprint – Reducing Human Impact on the Earth, New
Society Publishers Canada.

33
 Paper I
Simulations of Material Flows in a District Heating System
- Influence of Solar Heating and Flue Gas Condensing

34
 Paper II
ORWARE 2000 - a calculation tool for waste management

35
 Paper III
Anaerobic treatment of Municipal Biodegradable Waste

36