The term 'renewable' is often used to indicate that a material (or a form of energy) originates from a non-fossil source (biomass for example). However to be 'renewed' the material must return to a form that can be considered as a feedstock again. To be 'recyclable' only implies that a material can be recycled, which may not actually be the case. Is it wrong to use this terminology in a 'cradle to gate' sense or is this a sensible approach because what happens after use cannot not be known before and during use?
Moving beyond regurgitating Wikipedia definitions ad nauseum, I am investigating indirect methodologies for renewability of bio-based products, which requires definitions to establish the scope of the study. We found current definitions in national standards (see http://shop.bsigroup.com/en/ProductDetail/?pid=000000000030262005) unsatisfactory because they are feedstock focused and don't consider what happens after use. However we want to be consistent with the opinions and perceptions of people in the field, hence the question.
- Badges
- Science topic