industry data and trends
DESCRIPTION
Industry Data and Trends. Walter Alcorn, ISEE 2006. History. In 2001 SAIC developed a simulation model of the electronics recycling industry as a decision support tool for the Polymer Alliance Zone of West Virginia - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Industry Data and Trends
Walter Alcorn, ISEE 2006
History
In 2001 SAIC developed a simulation model of the electronics recycling industry as a decision support tool for the Polymer Alliance Zone of West Virginia
Model inputs were gathered from various recyclers, manufacturers and industry experts
2001 PAZ Simulation Tool Assumptions There was a lively, if precarious glass-to-glass
recycling market Remember Techneglas?
Mixed plastics was a cost to all electronics recyclers, not just the “no export” recyclers
Value of commodities were lower (steel, copper, aluminum)
SB 20 was just an idea
What’s up now?
DemandCommodity prices, especially metals, plastics
SupplyE-waste volumes
In regulated states (CA, ME) Everywhere else
Domestic recycling capacity Exports?
Demand: Commodity Pricing Trends CRB Metals Sub-Index of 5 markets:
Copper Scrap Lead Scrap Steel Scrap Tin Zinc
1947 – 1973 prices moved within a range 1974 – 2003 prices moved within a higher range 2004 – 2006 priced moved dramatically higher, a
new range???
Supply: Collection Volume Trends
Higher overall Driven by:
Policy/regulationFinanced collection programs (for
households) andVolume potentially available
Policy & Regulation Drivers of Supply State Mandates
CA, ME, MD, WA….. State & Local Collection Programs
Hennepin County, Delaware, Massachusetts, and hundreds of local government collections
Regulation of business e-waste Business users usually not allowed to dispose of old
equipment as regular trash Reuse patterns???
Mandatory State Program Volumes
California Collected about 65 million pounds in their first
program year (2005) Most was collected during the second half of the year
With a population of 36 million that’s about 1.79 lbs./capita
ME, MD, WA Amounts Still TBD Washington amounts TBD annually, plans to compete
to reach % share threshold
State and Local Collection Programs Hennepin County the most quoted Developed as an extension of “traditional”
recycling programs (bottles, cans, paper, etc.) Funding for these programs comes from a
variety of sources EOL fees are common Landfill tipping fees Bottle bill proceeds
Hennepin County Collected Units
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
Un
its
Volume of Electronics to be Recycled A primary question of U.S. EPA’s draft Baseline
Study Two approaches
Review actual return amounts from existing programs (lbs./capita)
Project amounts theoretically available from historic sales
EPA Baseline Study to focus on amounts theoretically at end-of-life based on historic sales
Actuals: Per Capita Calculations from the NCER’s CDR Massachusetts (2004)
2.94 lbs./capita (average for the 197 towns/cities reporting to the MA DEP)
California’s first program year (2005) 1.79 lbs/capita
Branford, CT (2004) 1.61 lbs./capita (CRTs only)
Kirkland, WA (2004, curbside program) 1.61lbs./capita
Snohomish County, WA (2004, transfer station) 1.71 lbs./capita
Hennepin County, MN (2004) 3.4 lbs./capita
Actuals vs. Projected
Actual returns from existing comprehensive electronics collection & recycling programs are less than half amounts projected from sales. Why? Electronics are not trade-in items like car batteries,
tires Reuse patterns not well documented nor understood,
particularly for business use products There is something seriously wrong with projection
models and/or data Export?
Data compiled by ERG for EPA Baseline Study. Data for desktops and portable PCs from IDC WW Quarterly PC Tracker in October 2005. Data for flat screen and CRT computer monitors were based on ERG analysis of US Census data on shipments, imports, and exports.
U.S. Sales of Electronics (IT) 1990-2004In 1,000s of Units
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
Un
its
Desktops
Portables
CRT Monitors
Flat Screen Monitors
Total U.S. TV Sales 1981-2004 (1,000s of Units)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Source: Data compiled by ERG for EPA Baseline Study 2006. TV data were obtained from Consumer Electronics Association Market Research, 2005. The number of flat screen TVs sold was derived from analyses of “Other TVs” (this category includes flat screen and monochrome TVs) in US Census data on shipments, imports, and exports, combined with CEA data on monochrome TVs.
A Clear Trend: the State Patchwork
Many “dead weight” costs being studied by the NCER as a NERIC initiativeNational Electronics Recycling Infrastructure
Clearinghouse Who incurs these dead weight costs?
IndustryGovernmentConsumers
State Patchwork Costs Being Studied Policing/excluding out-of-state e-waste Inherent state-level enforcement
limitations The “continuous start-up” for industry
compliance New requirements forcing changes to IT
systemsCompliance requirements trajectory unclear
State Patchwork Costs Being Studied (cont.) Redundant program staff Redundant brand counts (ME, WA) Redundant fund administration Redundant reporting, registration and
recordkeeping requirements Redundant program development
engagements
State Patchwork Costs Being Studied (cont.) Higher processing costs due to:
Lower economies of scale compared with national-scale volumes
Market fragmentation caused by state-restrictions on out-of-state processing
State Program Financing Overlap, Over-chargers and Free Riders
The “nexus” fee-collection problem in states with advance fees
State Patchwork Costs Being Studied (cont.) Additional patchwork costs? Ongoing survey of industry and
government officials The NCER seeks your input!
[email protected]: www.ecyclingresource.org
What We Need
A harmonized national-level financing system An efficient decentralized collection
infrastructure Systems that can evolve as needs evolve National ESM Standards Better data Demand for recycled materials
