workpackage 3 economic aspects
Post on 13-Jan-2016
37 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
WORKPACKAGE 3
Economic aspects
AWAST WP 3
Participants
Cemagref (France)Water and environmental engineering departmentResearch Unit : Livestock and municipal wastes Management – Rennes
Universitaet Stuttgart (Germany)
Institute for Sanitary Engineering, Water Quality and Waste Management : ISWA
AWAST WP 3
Objectives
Providing the economic aspects of the decision support system which will help decision makers to know which kind of system should be developed, respective of the local conditions.
A more accurate undestanding and control of municipal waste management service costs will be available and proposed to decision-makers.
Help waste management authorities maximize long term efficiency of MSW management system by minimizing its costs.
AWAST WP 3
Work description
Task 1 : state of the art and data acquisition (Month 3 to 24)
Task 2 : definition of production cost models (Month 6 to 14)
Task 3 : calibration and validation of the models (Month 13 to 19)
AWAST WP 3
Production costs by facility
Thematic approach by facility - MSW Operations
Data acquisition (production factors : Quantity, Unit costs)
Collection Sorting Landfill
WP 4
Biological
Treatment
WP 5
Thermal
Treatment
WP 6
Economic modelling
Facility
Direct costs
Inputs Outputs
MSW
Production factors
• Operating : - Labour - Energy - Supplies
• Maintenance
Revenues(compost, energy, sale materials)
Residus treatment
Diagram of economics models
Cases studies
Mathematical modelling (writing)
Bibliography
Mathematical equations estimated
Questionnairesurvey
Definition of components costs
Methodology of modelling costsMethodology of modelling costsP
has
e 1
Ph
ase
1P
has
e 1
Treatment plant
CN
Nominal capacity(tph, tpd, tpy)
Operating costsCo
Residues disposal : D
Q : Flow waste
Capital cost CK
Product sales revenue : S
- Labour : L- Energy : E- Reagents : R- Maintenance : M
1
6
4
2
5
3
Flowsheet of economic evaluation
Direct plant costs (DPC) Indirect plant costs (IPC)
(Equipment costs) (Land, start- up, supervision)
(Building and civil works costs)
Total capital cost = CI = DPC + IPC
CI = Fonction (CN, process)
Existing models costs Model cost Data acquisition on plants
and actualisation
Annual capital cost = Ck = CI /T T : life plant
/
Estimation of capital costs
Capital cost of incineration plantCapital cost of incineration plant
CI = 275,7 x CN + 18 277 000
CN : tpy
CI : in euros h t
Source data :
France : 15 plants
Norway : Trondheim
Austria : Vienna
Factor method : relation between component costs and basic variables
Co = fonction (CN, Q, process)
Co = aL + bE + cR + d.IE
L : direct labour costs L, E, R, IE : basic variablesE : energy costsR : reagent costs
IE : equipment costs a, b, c, d, : processing factors are summed
d. IE : maintenance costs
Estimation of operating costs
Incineration : decomposition of the operating costs(Dry scrubber)
Operating cost model
Co = F + P + M – S
or
Co = (1,36 x L + 0,005 x IE) + 1,10 x R + (0,023 x IE + 20 x Q) – 620 x PU x Q
Incineration : symbols explanationL Labour cost, which is supposed to be a function of the installation nominal capacity.
Dry scrubber Semi-wet scrubberReagents Ratio in kg/t
Lime 12 -Bicarbonate ofsodium
- 22
Active charcoal 0,35 to 0,65Lignite coke 0,625 to 1,03Urea 2,2
R
R represents the APCS reagentscosts. With ratios and a reagentunitary costs, it is possible todetermine the APCS reagents costs.
Ammoniac 3,3
Furnace boilerAir Pollution Control System (APCS) - StackTurbo generatorWaste handling equipmentSolid residue storageElectricity equipment
IE
Equipment capital cost
Automation
Q Annual quantity of incinerated waste
Standards et variables localesStandards et variables locales
Variables locales par défautChaux 600 F/t de chauxEau 1 F/m3 d'eauCharbon actif 4000 F/t de charbon actif
CRi
Ammoniac 1000 F/t d'ammoniacCénergie (Pf inclus) 50 F/MWh d'eau chaudeCMIOM 150 F/t de MIOMCREFIOM 1520 F/t de REFIOM
StandardsBélec 80 kWh/t de déchets incinérés 80%PREFIOM 40 kg/t de déchets incinérés
Chaux 17 kg/t de déchets incinérésEau 300 kg/t de déchets incinérésCharbon actif 1 kg/t de déchets incinérés
Ri
Ammoniac 10 kg/t de déchets incinérés
TYPES OF MRFsTYPES OF MRFs
(1) Design capacity is determined for 3 000 hours per year running
(2) Type 4 is particular to american regions
Type Design Capacity (t/y) (1)
Level of technology
Effective output
(t/h)
Collected flow Flow Separation Sorting Conveyor
1 1 000 –5 000 low 1.5 – 2 Two-flows: magazine + light
Two flows alternated sorting
1 conveyor > 70 mm
5 000 –10 000 medium 3 – 4 Mixed Fibres/container 1 fibres line > 180 mm 1container line: 70–80 mm
2
10 000 –15 000 medium 2 2 – 2.5
Two-flows: magazine + light
Fibres/container
1 magazine line > 50 mm 1 fibres line 1 container line
3 10 000 –20 000 high 7 Mixed Trommel 200 Fibres/container Separator
1 fibres line > 200mm 1 fibres line< 200mm 2 container lines
4 (2) 20 000 –100 000 high 18 - 30 Mixed Fibres/container Mechanical equipment
Trondheim - 20/21 June 2002 - Cemagref - ISWA
MRFMRF CAPITAL COSTSCAPITAL COSTS
Methods for fixed-capital cost estimation1st method :
CFC = k. IEC
2nd method :
CFC = h. CN, , h is a cost in € / 1000 t/y
Type design capacity (t/y) k h f1 1 000 - 5 000 1.77 167 500 € 107 000 €
2.1 5 000 - 10 000 2.80 290 000 € 99 000 €2.2 10 000 - 15 000 1.81 243 500 € 132 500 €3 10 000 - 20 000 1.88 200 000 € 112 000 €4 20 000 - 100 000 2.43 159 000 € 66 000 €
IEC, the installed equipment cost, can be: calculated as a sum of equipment items costs, IEC = Σ iIECi
estimated as IEC = f. CN , f is a cost in € / 1000 t
CN is the design capacity.
Trondheim - 20/21 June 2002 - Cemagref - ISWA
MRF OPERATING COSTS MRF OPERATING COSTS
Methods for operating costs estimation:1st method : CO= k (α. L + β. CFC)
2nd method : CO=λ L
k is > 1, it accounts for overhead expensesα. L represents Direct Cost, that includes Labour, utilities and repairs β. CFC represents Maintenance
This method is used when no sufficient data are available (types 3,4)
Type k αL βCFC λL 1 1.14 1.03 0.032 1.25
2.1 1.17 1.11 0.04 1.24 2.2 1.14 1.06 0.038 1.16 3 2,74 4 2,43
L is labour cost, it depends on type of MRF and number of shifts per day.L= Σk wklk where k= sorters, conductors, foreman, etc. l = number of k workers w = unit cost of a k worker
Trondheim - 20/21 June 2002 - Cemagref - ISWA
Flowsheet to calculate the collection costFlowsheet to calculate the collection cost
Trondheim - 20/21 June 2002 - Cemagref - ISWA
AWAST WP3
Waste collection on area
Requirements : vehicles crews containers
Waste quantityQs
COST ANALYSISLOCAL AUTHORITIESTECHNICAL ANALYSISWASTE STREAM
Collection databy collection system
Components costsby data processing
Collection cost modelCp = Cc + Co
Collection dataFrance / Germany
Crew efficiencyRc = f (CL)
Vehicle efficiency
Residual wasteDry recyclables
Biowaste
TOTAL PRODUCTION COSTUNIT PRODUCTION COST
(per waste stream)
1
Cost determining factorsCost determining factors
Parameters Symbol Performances Formula Unit
Crew size : driver + collector
Daily work time Tj Collection rate Rc = Qj / Tc t / h
Collection time / day Tc
COLLECTIONRATE
Daily tons per crew Qj
Vehicle capacity Vv Specific weight Mv = Qv / Vv Kg / m3
Quantity per vehicle Qv Loading time / vehicle Tv = Qv / Rc hVEHICLELOADING
TIMECollection distance Dc Linear loading road CL = Qv / Dc t / km
RC = f (waste stream , crew size, linear loading road)
CL = f (waste stream, density of population, collection frequency, collection system)
Trondheim - 20/21 June 2002 - Cemagref - ISWA
AWAST WP3
2
Work time and number of trips to facility Work time and number of trips to facility assessmentsassessments
1. Definition of the work time per day :
Tc : collection available time
Tj = Tc + (Nt x Th) + Tb Th : haul time
Tb : break time
2. Definition of the work per week and per year :
T = Tj = j x Tj (France : T = 5 x 7 = 35)
3. Number of trips per day determination :
Nt = Tc / Tv Tv : vehicle loading time
Trondheim - 20/21 June 2002 - Cemagref - ISWA
AWAST WP3
3
The different collection systems The different collection systems
4
WP3AWAST
Collection system Waste stream Type of vehicle Required containers
Type 1 KERBSIDE Commingled dry recyclables Mono-compartment
Type 2 KERBSIDECommingled dry recyclables
(+ residual waste)
Bi-compartment
(residual + packaging)
Plastic bags
Boxes
Wheelie bins (mono-compartment)
Type 3 KERBSIDE2 flows :
Dry recyclables : light / heavy
Bi-compartment
(packaging only)+ Wheelie bins (bi-compartment)
Type 4 KERBSIDE Multi flows : dry recyclables Multi-compartment Boxes
Type 5 BRINGDry recyclables
(1 container / waste stream)
Specific vehicle :
skip + crane
Wheelie bins
Containers
Areas fenced off with wire netting
Trondheim - 20/21 June 2002 - Cemagref - ISWA
Crew efficiency graphsCrew efficiency graphs
Trondheim - 20/21 June 2002 - Cemagref - ISWA
AWAST WP3
5
Rc = f (CL)
BRING COLLECTION
t
Mr Vr 60 Re Emptying rate :
t = emptying time / container (2 - 6 min)
Qj = Re x Tc
KERBSIDE COLLECTION
Model of waste collection costModel of waste collection cost
Capital cost : CC = Iv / d
Operating cost : CO
Production cost :
CP = CC + CO
Wages : L = Σ lk wk
Energy : E = Ce Dy
Collection follow-ups : determination of , ,
Breakdown of operating cost itemsCOST DESIGNATION FACTEUR COST (€/year)
Wages L
Social charges 1
1.L
Bonus + longevity 2
2.L
Absence 3
3.L
Uniform + safety equipment 4
4.L
Insurance + taxes 1
1.Iv
FIXED COSTS FC = (1+1+2+3+4)L + 1Iv
Fuel E
Oil, lubricants, batteries, tires 1.E
DIRECT COSTS DC = (1 + 1) E
MAINTENANCE M = 2 Iv
OPERATING COSTS CO = .L + .E + .Iv
1 = 0.48
2 = 0.08
3 = 0.25
4 = 0.0272
1 = 0.287
1 = 0.0165
2 = 0.064
Trondheim - 20-21 June 2002 - Cemagref - ISWA
AWAST WP3
6
PRODUCTION COSTSPRODUCTION COSTS
COLLECTION : CP = 1.7572 L + 1.287 E + (0.0805+1/d) Iv
Take into account the utilization rates for :
- the vehicle : d = (35 7) / (Tj j)
- the crew : full-time : L
share-time : L1, L2 L1 + L2 = L
under-time : L [ T / (Tj j)]
PRECOLLECTION : C’P = Nw I’r (2’ + 1/n’)
required containers / week / crew: Nw = (Nj j) / f = (Nr Nt j) / f
Trondheim - 20/21 June 2002 - Cemagref - ISWA
AWAST WP3
7
Example of collection costs calculationExample of collection costs calculation
City data Crew data Vehicle data
Annual waste quantity : Qs Daily work time : Tj
Weekly waste quantity : Qs / 52 Collection time / day : Tc
Daily waste quantity : Qs / (52 x j) Collection rate : Rc
Haul distance to facility : Dh Linear loading road : CL
Payload : Qv
Hypothesis : - vehicle : Vv ; n = 7 ; Nt = 1
- crew : full-time work ; Rc
- one waste stream of annual quantity : Qs
- number of vehicles = number of crews = Ns
Collection data :
Equipment / crews required : - collection time : Ts = Qs / (52 x j x Rc)
- number of crews : Ns >= Ts / Tc
Annual production cost : Cp = .Ns.L + .Ce.Dy + .Ns.Iv
Trondheim - 20/21 June 2002 - Cemagref - ISWA
AWAST WP3
8
AWAST WP 3
Full cost of MSW Service
Global approach – Integrated MSW management
Collections Sorting
CompostingIncineration
Landfill
General administrationExecutive oversight
Indirect costsDirect costs
Local Authority
+
OMR79 347,4
DEM1 500,53
JM7 718,9
OM93 568,07
OM tri5 001,24
Déchetteries51 252,61
DAS2 161,98
DIB3 942,72
Verre6 083,89
Graisse669,28
Compostage5 001,24
IncinérationCentre de tri
sélectif
Compost2 000,5
REFIOM1 414,08
Mâchefers20 289,52
Acier2 824,82
Al47,82
Energie35 254 MWh
Papier4 628,48
Carton etTetra-pack
2 168,1
Flaconnagesplastics578,76
Acier526,42
Al17,46
CET1
Verre6 083,89
Eaux traitées495,41
?40
?1 300,21
Evaporation1 101,08
Maturation20 289,52
Verre849,379
Tout venant14 961,65
Végétaux14 175,01
Gravats16 186,49
Papiers874,56
Cartons1 313,6
Ferrailles2 503,46
Plastiques23,8
Huiles120,07
D.M.S154,33
Pneus55,6
Batteries34,66
2 824 val.
47,82 val.
28 944 à EDF
6 310 MWh auto-consommation
-3 192,48stocks
23 482 val.
4 356,44 val.
272,04 stocks
1 908,93 val.
259,16 stocks
477,75 val.
101,01 stocks
494,04 val.
32,38 stocks
14,24 val.
3,52 stocks
Refus = 1 899,66
Refus = 261,45
2 161,98 + 3 942,72 +133,87 = 7 238,57
79 347,4
AWAST WP3
Materials flow’s synoptic : the case of Orléans
Trondheim -20/21 June 2002 - Cemagref
AWAST WP3
Method of knowledge costs
Trondheim -20/21 June 2002 - Cemagref
Waste collection
Incineration plantQ1+Q2
Q1
Q2Other authorities
Local authority
A
Stream
Activity
Bottom Ash
Fly Ash Landfill 1
Landfill 2
Illustration with the thermal path
Level Boundaries Costs
A Plant Production cost
by activity
B Stream Production cost
by stream
C Local authority Providing cost
of local authority
B
C
AWAST WP3
Production cost per activity (Level A) : the case of Orléans, year 2000
Trondheim -20/21 June 2002 - Cemagref
Sorting plant Composting plant Incineration plantMaturation of bottom ash
Civic Amenity sites
TOTAL REVENUES in francs 8180736,75 105828,65 7514286,62 ? 0
REVENUES/ton in francs 887,34 21,16 85,64 ? 0
NET PRODUCTION COSTS in francs
70,04 1998,21 472,88 #VALEUR! 246,94
Civic Amenity sites: CostsGuarding 2461334
Ordinary stuff contribution 5732088Plant-like contribution 2614398
Special household waste 65164Rubble (gravats) contribution 1095903
Paper contribution 49108Card-board contribution 461552Container (corps creux) 14586
Glass contribution 162319TOTAL 12656452
Tonnage 9219,43 5001,24 87747,08 ? 51252,61Depreciation and
amortisationLeases' dues 1197802,227 6235255,79 22202977,66 ?
Part of fixed costs (buildings,personnel…) 5844424,601 3638541,68 13322576,72 ?
Part of proportional costs (energy, supplies…) 1784223,25 225566,64 13482580,80 ?
GROSS OPERATING COSTS in francs
8826450,07 10099364,11 49008135,18 12656452
GROSS OPERATING COSTS/ton in francs
957,37 2019,37 558,52 #VALEUR! 246,94
AWAST WP3Cost per path or stream (level B) : the case of Orléans
(France), year 2000
Trondheim -20/21 June 2002 - Cemagref
Organic stream Thermal stream Recycling streamLINES TO TAKE INTO
CONSIDERATION:tonnage
cost/revenues in francs
tonnagecost/revenues
in francstonnage
cost/revenues in francs
Annual employees' wages and salaries
- - -
Vehicles and operating expense - - -Containers: bin, bags… - - -
Depreciation cost of capital outlays - - -Payments for rent and leases - - -
Purchase of non-capital goods and furniture
- --
Contracted services for collection - - -Indirect costs:operationnal and
administrative costs- - -
TOTAL COLLECTION - 0 - 0 - 0
Household refuses 5001,24 79347,4 9219,43Banal industrial waste - 3942,72 -
Medical waste - 2161,98 1451712,645 -Grease - 133,87 153245,0771 -
Treatment refuses 1899,66 261,45 65370,26313Refusal treatment 0 2161,11 61394,06
TOTAL WASTE 5001,24 87747,08 1666351,782 9219,43 65370,26313
Leases' dues (buildings) 6235255,79 22052407,26 1197802,227Part of fixed costs 3638541,68 12247036,96 5794344,442
Part of proportional costs 225566,64 12419870,54 1768939,678Electricity profit-sharing 150570,4 -TOTAL OPERATING COSTS 10099364,11 46869885,16 8761086,348
Compost revenues 2000,5 45813,65 - 0 - -Energetic revenues - 28944 6734912,94 1090726,95
Clinker revenues - 23482 65212,27 - -Incinerated steel revenues - 2824,82 195948 -
Incinerated aluminium revenues - 47,82 98213,41 -Premium, subsidy 2000,5 60015 420000Paper revenues - - 4356,44 1743717,58
Non-incinerated steel revenues - - 494,04 276470,03
Non-incinerated aluminum revenues - - 14,24 56440,95
Card-board revenues - - 1840,01 3903392,84Tetrapack (briques) revenues - - 68,93 120241,33
Plastic bottles revenues - - 477,75 989747,07TOTAL REVENUES 2000,5 105828,65 26354,64 7514286,62 7251,41 8180736,75
NET PRODUCTION COST 9993535,46 41021950,32 645719,8614Ultimate residues cost - 1909,49 471898,2386
Platform of bottom ash maturation TOTAL NET PRODUCTION COST 9993535,46 41493848,56 645719,8614
TOTAL NET PRODUCTION COST/ton
1998,211536 472,8801068 70,0390
AWAST WP3Full cost providing for local authority (level C) : the case of Orléans,
year 2000
Trondheim -20/21 June 2002 - Cemagref
Collection Composting Recycling unit Incineration Landfill Civic Amenities PrestationTransport
activityTransfer station
activity Facility activity: Net production
costs (c.f level A)Final residues
costs
Total indirect costs :General
administative overhead costs
Billing costsFinancial interest
Post-closure care costs
Full cost providing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Revenues:By-product salesSubsidy, grantPrivate firms
Other authorities
SCIENTIFIC ACHIEVEMENTSSCIENTIFIC ACHIEVEMENTS
STEP Task 1 : State of artDataacquisition Task 2 : Cost models
Methodology
Chemical processes (USA) R.Turton and al (1998) S.Peters, D.Timmerhaus(2002)MSW : D.C.Wilson (1981)
/ Capital cost model Operating cost modelProduction cost model
CollectionCOSEPRE(World bank)2001 P&R : Ontario (1996)Ecotec (Europ Com 2002)
17 followingup in France Stuttgart ( ?)
Cp = L+ E+ IV :collection C’p = NW IR : precollection
Incineration
European Commission(1997) Juniper survey (2001)D.A.Tillman,A.Rossi (1989)
Trondheim Vienna 15 plants inFrance
Cc = a + b CN
Co = L + E + R + IEa,b,,,, = Cte
Sorting
ETSU (1999) Eco-Emballages (2002) Proctor&Redfern Ltd (1997)WDO (2001) CRIQ (2000)
11 plants inFrance Cologne ( ?)Augsburg (?)
Cc = K in € /tpy per type or Cc = IIEC
Co = L+ IE, : different for each type
Full cost Full cost accounting for MSW(EPA)
Orleans(partial)
Framework definition :accounting costs according to activity, MSW paths, authority
AWAST WP3
Trondheim - 20 - 21 June 2002 - Cemagref
PROBLEMS ENCOUTEREDPROBLEMS ENCOUTERED
Requirements : available actual data, updated data, updatable data Modelling waste collection : limited to main waste stream(residual, packaging, biowaste)
Sorting, composting : necessary to define a typology of the technologiesLandfill, anaerobic digestion : available data from only litterature review
Full cost : identification of indirect costs components on case studies
Difficulty to obtain data : in spite of the achievement of questionnaire of collection data ( operating plant by private firms )
Deliverable D6 ( Methodology ) : we have a delay on the deliverable D6 (provisional draft)
Full cost of the service : will be achieved in year 3 (with the analysis of case studies)
Trondheim - 20 - 21 June 2002 - Cemagref
AWAST WP3
7
ECONOMIC ASPECTS - FOR THE NEXT 6 MONTHSECONOMIC ASPECTS - FOR THE NEXT 6 MONTHS
Collection : validation of the model of waste collection with data of Stuttgart ( urban area)
Composting : data costs collection in France, Portugal, Germany ( in waiting)
: Modelling production cost Landfill and transfer station : modelling production cost ( with litterature review )
Deliverable D6 : achievement the writing « Methodology of production cost models and the full cost providing by local authority »
Beginning the transfer of models for WP7 ( integration simulator)
Beginning the determination of the full cost on case studies :
( Orleans with BRGM, Lisbon with LQARS, Stuttgart with USTUTT )
Trondheim - 20 - 21 June 2002 - Cemagref
AWAST WP3
7
top related