Inadequate raw materials policy - recycling rate for rare earths sometimes below one percent
09.04.2012/750/XNUMX - Germany lacks a unified raw materials policy. But without a fundamentally new approach to raw materials, Germany's competitiveness will be damaged. That says Peter Kurth, President of the Federal Association of the German Waste Management, Water and Raw Materials Management, BDE, an interest group of around XNUMX private industry companies of all sizes.
At the end of March, 51 lawyer called on politics and business to initiate a turnaround in raw materials in Germany and Europe. Industrial growth and the resulting increase in raw material consumption would have to be decoupled from each other. Why this is necessary and how this can work, explains Kurth in an interview.
Mr Kurth, you say that a new way of dealing with raw materials determines the future competitiveness of Germany. In what way?
Germany used raw materials worth almost 140 billion euros last year. As commodities become scarcer and more expensive - and all forecasts point to that - we need to use these resources more efficiently and efficiently in the future and reuse them in the best possible way. We have to tackle this systematically.
Is not Germany already recycling world champion?
That always depends on the fabrics. Take, for example, the rare earth that we need for many high-tech products: the recycling rate is here in part below one percent, with many other materials such as silicon, the rate is not palpable.
Where does it come from?
This has to do with the costs of recycling. High-quality recycling can not be had for free. Despite large price jumps in the rare earths about their recycling is not yet worthwhile. Waste incineration is often cheaper than recycling - but not an alternative that we can afford in the face of increasing scarcity.
Should the waste incineration plants close their doors?
Not in general, but the question is whether we want to burn as much garbage in the future as before. In my view, that would be the wrong way. There are studies that say 60 to 70 percent of households' small electrical appliances end up in waste incineration - because people throw these devices into the trash. That's right, every year 15.000 tons of copper go into the burn, which we then have to try to regain through the slags. These raw material losses alone amount to a three-digit million amount.
What speaks against acute supply bottlenecks for copper ...?
Still, most commodities are actually available as primary deposits and still affordable, despite attractive prices. Their use pays off. Recycling pays off today only if the policy makes raw material consumption more of a cost factor. Where this happened, the industry has improved recycling: For example, in the case of packaging we save around 400.000 tons of material per year through the product responsibility of the manufacturers.
For most other substances, this product responsibility does not exist.
Just. At the moment it only exists in sales packaging, old small electrical appliances and batteries. Anyone who places them on the market pays fees for their collection and processing. As a result, manufacturers have an interest in marketing little materials to keep their costs down. But those responsible can easily escape this system. The state controls them too little. That's why we're calling for a central office that records and keeps track of the corresponding flow rates.
Is tighter monitoring and expansion of product responsibility sufficient?
We also need more research. For example, to clarify how aluminum can become more interesting as a secondary raw material for the industry in demand. The aluminum industry in North Rhine-Westphalia says it can save up to 80 percent of its energy costs if it could completely switch to the secondary raw material aluminum. Your customers would have to be able to work with the secondary raw material just as well as with the primary raw material. That could be organized relatively easily. But we need the necessary framework conditions.
The 100-owned circular economy - is it feasible?
I'm skeptical. Our goal is to recycle 100 percent of recyclable materials back into circulation. For bulk goods such as glass or paper, we already have recycling rates ranging from 80 to 90 percent. But we also have pollutants or contaminants in the waste streams, which preclude the complete circulation. Thermal utilization will therefore continue to play a role in the future. But it can not be that our industry has to work against overcapacity in waste incineration.
Waste incineration makes recycling difficult?
Not all fabrics are easy to recycle today. For example, there are a few plastics where recycling works well. For others, the process is more expensive. High overcapacities in refuse incineration of several million tons per year ensure low incineration prices. As a result, they are partly at 40 to 45 Euro per tonne. Plastic recycling costs about twice as much. Even with decreasing recycling costs, we can hardly compete with these overcapacities.
Is the Federal Government doing enough in terms of raw material recycling?
We would like to see more activity and consistency. In implementing the European Waste Directive into the German Recycling Management Act, Germany has repeatedly fallen short of the possibilities: For example, we have softened the precedence of recycling prior to incineration prescribed by the EU Commission. If combustion promises a certain energy yield, it is now equal to recycling. That's the opposite of priority. And the German recycling targets for the year 2020 actually describe the status quo we have already reached 2011. That is not very ambitious.
Can the new resource efficiency program counteract ProgRess? This relies on more recycling and the expansion of product responsibility.
If implemented consistently, it could counteract. But this is opposed to the circular economy law. Our problem is that the federal government sends quite different signals to commodity policy relatively quickly. We would like a commodity policy from a single source. We are still a long way from that.
(Council for Sustainable Development)
