Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

The Strategic Evaluation of Technology Innovation Opportunities in Waste Strategy Planning

By Peter P. McHenry

Abstract

Technology innovation is needed to support sustainable waste management systems and innovation should be viewed as a central focus of policy design. The difficulty is that policy is designed at a single point in time where as the environment and the processes of innovation are dynamic. The research investigates the extent to which the design of European Union waste policy and its implementation in the UK stimulates the opportunity for technology innovation. The research investigates how understanding of the relationships between EU waste policy, the process of innovation and technology assessment technique affect the opportunity for technology innovation. The research reviews the development of integrated waste management system models highlighting their limitation in evaluating waste technology options within the wider policy context in an uncertain environment over time. The review identifies their failure to consider the interaction between the financial, environmental, social and operational objectives of new technology. The research describes how failure to simulate system characteristics such as waste process operational demands/constraints, varying spatial resolutions, flexible system boundaries and the uncertain environment over time can affect the opportunity for technology innovation. The research describes the development of a modelling tool addressing these limitations in SIMILE Process Simulation Modelling Software. The model uses the Bedfordshire sub-region of the UK as a case study mapping the flow of waste from generation to disposal. The model calculates a single cost function based on economic, environmental and social costs through, wherever feasible, attributing monetary values to all impacts of any technology. Scenarios are modelled to investigate the extent to which ED waste policy and its implementation affects the opportunity for technology innovation. The model is used to investigate the extent to which relationships between the financial, environmental, social and operational objectives of technology create barriers to new technology. The research identifies how the design, development and application of waste strategy assessment models can influence the opportunity for technology innovation. The research identifies how policy imposes additional cost burdens on the opportunity for technology innovation in the Bedfordshire region. The research concludes by suggesting how policy might be designed to stimulate and support technology innovation

Publisher: Cranfield University
Year: 2004
OAI identifier: oai:dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk:1826/4613
Provided by: Cranfield CERES

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (2006). (iv) The timing oftechnology change - Figures 6.1 to 6.5 have identified when the available processing capacity of technology in the Bedfordshire sub-region will be exceeded. Two timings of exceeding technology capacity are identified: - Time (i) at
  2. (1997). 1.1 Introduction - The Evolution ofEuropean Union Waste Policy Haigh
  3. (2003). 1.2 Limitations ofEuropean Union Waste Policy Various limitations and weaknesses in EU Waste policy have been identified (EFIEA,
  4. (2003). 1.3 The Implementation ofEuropean Union Waste Policy in the UK In 2000/1 approximately 28 million tonnes of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) was produced in England with almost 80% sent to landfill and just 12% recycled (Environment Agency,
  5. (2000). 110Scenario 8.1 - Time horizon for the one phase technology change through the development of..*400ktpa EtW facilities
  6. (1989). 125Figure 9.1 - The portrayal of components for the identification of AAEV (Adapted from White et al.,
  7. 146Greater London Authority (2003) 'New and Emerging Technologies for Sustainable Waste Management",
  8. (2003). 153Appendix - A Chronology of Environmental Policy affecting the Waste industry in the European Union (adapted from Haigh,
  9. 170Year Capital Cost (Residual Discounted Capital value)
  10. (2000). 173AAEV Curve for a £30,000 vehicle with a lifetime of8 years
  11. 199~) 'Linear Programming for Analysis ofMaterial Recovery Facilities',
  12. (1988). 1A The Process ofTechnology Innovation It is important to identify a definition for technology innovation given the different concepts of innovation. Dosi
  13. (1993). 2...1 A Review ofWaste Management Models Barlishen,
  14. (1998). 2.2 Integrated Waste Management Systems Wilson
  15. (2001). 2.5 Summary Despite the developments in computer technology and waste industry knowledge, waste strategy models have not been widely adopted by waste managers (Aumonier,
  16. (2004). 200··n 'Second prosecution looms for Britannia over fridge recycling'
  17. (2002). 22Table 3.1 - Average Composition ofHousehold Waste 2000/1, (Parfitt,
  18. (1994). 2Table 1.1 - European Union Directives affecting Municipal Solid Waste -Continued Council Directive
  19. (2003). 3.4.4.1 Ecodeco - Introduction Ecodeco is a MBT technology originating from Italy and developed by Sistema Ecodeco SpA (Greater London Authority,
  20. (2000). 30Figure 3.1 - Typical separation of MSW by the Ecodeco MBT technology (Sistema Ecodeco,
  21. (2003). 35Figure 4.1 Potential Approaches to Integrated Waste Management System Assessment (EFIEA,
  22. (2001). 37Figure 4.2 - Waste Strategy Planning Regions in England and Wales (Environment Agency,
  23. (1999). 5.4.1 Data acquisition In attempting to acquire the data for the model, flaws in UK waste data collection and recording techniques were exposed (Environment Agency R&D Technical Reports P240,
  24. (2001). 5Table 1.2 Waste planning, strategy and implementation responsibilities in England. (Adapted from Environment Agency,
  25. (2003). 61Table 5.1 - Land Requirements by technology (source:
  26. (2003). 68Table 5.2 - The Allocation of Disamenity Cost (in £ per tonne) to an Mechanical Biological Treatment facility adapted from Hogg,
  27. (2006). 7.4.1 Analysis ofLong-term technology options to achieve the need to pre-treat all waste prior to disposal to landfill The cost ofcompliance to the waste policy is identified as around £14/5m between
  28. (2002). 88The capital cost of a 20ktpa Composting facility is estimated at £500 000 the unit c~st (opera:ing and maintenance cost) for a 20ktpa composting facility 'is set at £_6.40p\ with compost sold. to mar~et at an .average value of £7pt (Hogg,
  29. (2001). 89% of MSW in the England was household waste (Defra,
  30. (1973). 9.2 Annual Average Equivalent Value AAEV supports comparative assessment ofdifferent technology options over time. It was adapted from Susamms
  31. (2006). 927.2A Analysis of Short-term options to achieve
  32. (2000). 97Scenario 7.6 - Time horizon for single phase technology change through the development ofa 2"-Oktpa MBT 'Ecodeco" technology with on or off-site incineration of Refused Derived Fuel pellets with 50% diversion
  33. (2003). A - The net unit costs for processing the unsorted collected waste increase by approximately £20pt i.e. from £20 pt in 2006 to £40 pt at
  34. (2001). A comparison oftwo waste stream qualification and characterisation methodologies'.
  35. (1991). A Comprehensive Costing Methodology for the Assessment ofSolid Waste Management Alternatives',
  36. (2007). A lower annual cost increase compared to early scenarios. For example between
  37. A more preventative approach e.g. the elimination of hannful substances.
  38. (1997). A review ofthe United Kingdom household waste arisings and compositional data', Final report.
  39. (2011). A shows that ifdistance to market is changed to western Europe the net unit cost of paper recycling will increase from £21 to £34 at
  40. (2001). A sustainable Europe for a Better World: A European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development', Commission's proposal to the Gothenburg European Council, COM ~2001) 264 final.
  41. (2003). A system tradeoffmodel for processing options for household plastic waste',
  42. (1992). Act 'Environmental protection requirements should be a component of the Communities other policies'. Key objectives ofboth. standards for msw particularly emissions. The identification of incineration plants
  43. (2006). After the capital investment in the EfW technology, net annual costs are approximately stable between
  44. (2000). Aggregation and emergence in ecological modelling: integration ofecological levels',JournalofEcological
  45. (2003). allows comparison ofa single dramatic technology change with the 3 phased incremental technology change scenario 7.5.
  46. (1998). An assessment ofthe cost ofrecycling household waste In Britain and Ireland',
  47. (2003). An example ofLong-term Planningreduce frequency oftechnology change to accommodate long-term technology options such as EfW Figure 7.1 - Technology change through the diversification ofthe Plastic waste stream at the MRF net unit cost at
  48. (2000). An example ofShort-term Planning - Multiple technology change through short-term technology options such as variation to MRF diversification
  49. (1998). An introduction to Household Waste Management',
  50. (2002). An optmusation model for regional integrated solid waste management 1. Model Application and Sensitivity Analysis',
  51. (2002). Analysis ofProcesses by Integrating Process and Simulation Modelling Paradigms', MSc thesis,
  52. (1994). Analytical and Strategic Justification Techniques Oeltjenbruns
  53. (2001). Analytical and Strategic Justification Techniques Technology that is evaluated economically, analytically or strategically is often not implemented due to other external decision factors (MacDougal,
  54. (2001). Analytical Justification Methods The most widely used analytical techniques are Cost Effectiveness Analysis and Cost Benefit Analysis (Office ofDeputy Prime Minister,
  55. (2006). and 2013 annual costs are relatively stable at around £21m pa. Between
  56. (2000). Anew paradigm for waste management',
  57. Animal by-products Act (EC) No 1774/2002.
  58. (2000). AppendixFigures Figure 3.1 - Typical separation ofMSW by the Ecodeco MBT technology (Sistema Ecodeco,
  59. (2006). As demonstrated by scenario 7.7 the development of a 200ktpa EfW facility in the Bedfordshire sub-region produces the lowest net unit annual cost off 18/19m between
  60. (2000). As described in Chapter 4 this is identified from the Environment Agency's Strategic Waste Management Assessment reports
  61. (2003). As identified earlier the lTIOSt significant event in the base condition graph IS \\'he~ land~ll capacity is exceeded at 2012. But like the MRF, in reality landfill spac~ IS cont~nuall y being regenerated (Lowe,
  62. (1992). assessment criteria - Policy dictates that technology needs to meet BATNEEC and BPEO requirements (as identified in the IPPC directive) but these are 'weak' criteria for the evaluation oftechnology. Jeffrey
  63. (1997). Background material for presentation on 'Messages for the future', European Parliament's Committee on Environment: Public Hearing Improving European Waste Management',
  64. (2001). Ballooning waste volumes spell trouble ahead',
  65. (2006). Base Conditions (BC) A r.
  66. BC with increasing Green waste collection - • A ~ BC with increasing Green waste collection and the development of a 20ktpa Composting facilit.y at
  67. (2006). BC with Plastic Diversification at MRF and 20ktpa Composting Facility at
  68. BCwith increasing Green waste collection and Plastic - ......... Diversification 00 _ 70 Co '-'l ": 6U u; Cl u ~ 50 ~ CD 5" 40 "!:l CD ~ 30 e ~ ..!!!
  69. (2004). Bedford Borough Council's Best Value Performance Plan Summary',
  70. Bedfordshire County Council (2000a) 'Baseline Report: Developing a sustainable waste strategy for Bedfordshire and Luton', Enviros Aspinwall,
  71. Bedfordshire County Council (2000b) 'Analysis ofWaste Management Options: Developing a Sustainable Waste Strategy for Bedfordshire and Luton', Enviros Aspinwall,
  72. Bedfordshire County Council (2001a) 'Consultation on Waste'.
  73. Bedfordshire County Council (2001b) 'Strategic SustainabilityAppraisal'.
  74. Bedfordshire County Council (2001c) 'Bedfordshire and Luton Minerals and Waste Local Plan First Review: First Deposit Draft'.
  75. (2003). Bedfordshire smashes targets',
  76. (2002). Calculate the amount ofglass waste within the total waste collected. As Figure 5.8 shows the total waste material is then split or diversified into four different waste materials i.e.
  77. CERGE.(1996). 'Cost benefit analysis ofthe different municipal solid waste management systems: objectives and instruments for the year 2000'. European Commission,
  78. (2002). Charge-by-weight- Binweight system points the way',
  79. (2003). Chartered Institution ofWastes Management
  80. (1986). Classification of Justification Approaches mportance Objectives e Advantage & Development JUSTIFICATION A'PPROACHES ~ ,,' "1, .) y' -s
  81. (1996). Commission ofthe European Communities: Council Directiv~ Concerning Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control,
  82. (2000). Commission ofthe European Communities: Council Directive Concerning Incineration,
  83. (1999). Commission ofthe European Communities: Council Directive Concerning Landfills, 99/31/EC. Official Journal ofthe European Communities.
  84. (1994). Commission ofthe European Communities: Council Directive Concerning Packaging and Packaging Waste,
  85. (2000). Commission ofthe European Communities: Council Directive Concerning Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment,
  86. (2005). Compared to Figure 7.8 with off-site incineration the annual cost peak is lower at £36m. Between
  87. (2004). Compost plan dumped',
  88. Composting capacity is still exceeded at
  89. (2006). Condition -----" --- 100% diversion of unsorted waste to 2"200ktpa ENVwith unlimited landfill 5 o (2000) 292,421
  90. (2006). Condition A -- ---Technology change through 50% diversion of I\ unsorted waste to a 240ktpa MBT 'Ecodeco' process with offsite incineration of RDF t \ ! \ ~.. ------ - I \ I / -- - i \ ______
  91. (2014). Condition j .-- -- --Technology change through 100% diversion of unsorted waste to 180ktpa MBT 'Ecodeco' Facility at 2005 and 240ktpa MBT at
  92. Condition with imported waste considered - - Technology change through 100% diversion of unsorted waste to 2~00k tpa EM! Facility at 2005 with no ~ \ consideration of Imported waste flows i I A
  93. (2000). Conditions :5OlXOJ +-----r--~ 1:5OlXOJ 1---r--~:::::::_----77~---------------1Ct""OOlX1,--j-_= ===- _ 25000000 I---:l\--------== ::::::!:~=__~~---------------> l"UlXOJ I---rt--r---------~
  94. conditions with stepped changes in distance to paper market to 625km and to 968km at 2010 and 2020. - Base conditions with gradual variation in distance to paper market from 256km to 1000km over the 30 year time period.
  95. (1999). Corps ofEngineers
  96. (2002). Cost effective recycling - Establishing optimum national and local targets',
  97. Cost savings force introduction offortnightly waste collection'.
  98. (2003). Costs and Benefits ofBioprocesses in Waste Management',
  99. (2007). Costs are significantly higher across the time period ofassessment. At
  100. (2002). Costs for Municipal Waste Management in the ED: Final report to Directorate General Environment',
  101. Costs rise to a maximum of£31m at 2015 (at 2003 values) when landfill capacity is exceeded. The scenario is compared with other single new technology scenarios that would achieve the same statutory target for recycling and composting ofhousehold waste.
  102. (2002). Council Directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment last amended 10
  103. (1985). Council Directive 89/369/EEC on the prevention of arr pollution from new municipal waste incineration plants.
  104. (2002). Council Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste. Key objectives. To prevent the formation of packaging waste and to recover or reuse packaging waste to reach set target levels.
  105. (2004). CSD staggard at the loss of£lmillion tender',
  106. (1997). D.(1997) 'The strategic evaluation ofcandidate business process reengineering projects',
  107. (2005). Deadline for implementation is 28
  108. (1999). Dealing with complexity in material cycle simulation and design',
  109. (1993). Decision Support for Municipal Solid Waste Management and Planning',
  110. (1976). Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs',
  111. (2002). Delivering the Landfill Directive: The role ofnew and enlergI~g technologies', Report 0008/2002, Associates in Industrial Ecology,
  112. (1996). Development ofa decision support system for municipal solid waste management systems planning',
  113. Discounted loss ofvalue = Capital Cost- Capital Cost discounted at next year Year Capital Cost Discounted Discounted loss ofvalue
  114. (2000). East Anglia Region waste collected in tonnes per week Figure 8.1 shows: The waste throughputs for the East Anglia Region • Point A - Total waste collected in the East Anglia Region, 4,014,286 tpa at
  115. (2002). Economic Analysis ofoptions for managing Biodegradable Municipal Waste - Final Report to the European Commission', Eunomia Research & Consulting,
  116. (2000). Ecotec Research and Consulting Ltd
  117. (2001). EfW and Advanced Thermal Treatment technologies such as Gasification & Pyrolysis (Porteous,
  118. (2001). Energy from waste incineration - a state ofthe art emissions review with an emphasis on public acceptability',
  119. (2001). Environment 2010: Our Future, Our Choice, 6 th EU Environment Action Programme',
  120. (2000). Environment Agency R&D
  121. (1999). Environmental Corporation and U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers
  122. Environmental uncertainty, strategic planning and technological competitive advantage',
  123. (1999). Eugene: An optimisation model for integrated regional waste management planning',
  124. (2003). European Forum on Integrated Environmental Assessment
  125. (2000). Evaluation ofthe options for treatment ofwaste to meet the biodegradable waste targets ofthe landfill directive. IN:
  126. (2000). Exploiting Municipal Wastes',
  127. (2003). Exploring new technologies for municipal waste',
  128. (1999). Exploring water recychng options for urban environments: a multi-criteria modelling approach' Urban JVater,
  129. (2001). Figure 4.3 - Location of Bedfordshire sub-region in East Anglia (Environment Agency,
  130. (2002). for Clean Air and Environmental Protection (NSCA)
  131. (2000). For example: UK Environment Agency WISARD tool
  132. (2006). For the 200ktpa EfW new technology option net unit costs increases from approximately £20 pt to £46 pt in
  133. (1993). Franscati Manual,
  134. (2003). Fundamentals ofCorporate Finance, Sixth Edition, ~lcGraw-HiIL
  135. (1975). Fundamentals ofOperation Research for Management',
  136. (1990). GIGO - a solid waste management model for municipalities'.
  137. (2000). Household Waste Composition Bedfordshire
  138. (2001). Household waste management in the UK- Some examples ofcurrent practice',
  139. (2000). identifies the need for partnerships between all stakeholders. Sustainable development not just responsibility of Government regulators.
  140. (2001). Identify a growth rate for the waste generation. An average growth rate of 2.7% was used for all waste generation models (Environemt Agency,
  141. (2001). Identifying the Best Practicable Environmental Option assessment: Application ofLCA and other decision-aiding tools'.
  142. iii i I I I i I Iii
  143. (1995). Implementation oftechnology assessment investment techniques on water desalination',
  144. (1997). Inclusion offlexibility benefits in discounted cash flow analyses for investment evaluation: A simulation/optimisation model'.
  145. (2002). Innovation tomorrow: Innovation policy and the regulatory framework: Making innovation an integral part ofthe broader structural agenda', Louis Lengrand & Associes,
  146. (1998). Innovation,
  147. (1995). Integrated Solid Waste Management: A Lifecycle Inventory.
  148. (2003). Internal Rate ofReturn is the required return that results in a zero NPV when it is used as the discount rate. Discounted cash flow (DCF) valuation is the process ofvaluing an investment by discounting its future cash flows (Ross et al.,
  149. (1992). It identifies Sustainable Development as policy objective.
  150. (2002). Known distances were modelled e.g. the distance from a MRF facility to a reprocessing facility. Cumulative and average distances of waste collection rounds were identified by the WISARD assessment report for Bedfordshire (BCC,
  151. (1997). Life cycle assessment and the waste management hierarchy', Warmer Bulletin.
  152. (1996). Lifecycle assessment and economic evaluation of recycling: a case study',
  153. (2000). Lifecycle Inventory Development for Waste Management Operations: Composting and Anaerobic Digestion'. WRc,
  154. (1997). Linking two modelling approaches for the strategic municipal waste management planning. The MIMES/Waste model and LCA,'
  155. (2000). Making rational decisions in waste management'. IN:
  156. (1992). Managing Diversity: The Strategic Planning ofLong Term Technology Infrastructure',
  157. (1986). Managing Innovation, Jossey-Bass,
  158. (2001). Managing the DYnamicsof Waste Management', Draft for the Third Annual DIOC SYmposium, Unpublished.
  159. (2000). Materials Recovery Facilities',
  160. (2004). Mayor sees red over cash snub for orange bag idea'.
  161. (1990). Microcomputer Software in Municipal Solid Waste Management: A review ofPrograms and issues for Developing Countries'.
  162. (2000). Modelling comercial/industrial waste generation: A Vienna, Austria case study'
  163. (2001). Modelling ofIntegrated Waste Management Systems',
  164. (2002). MRFs- a safe place to work',
  165. (2001). Multi Criteria Analysis'.
  166. (2000). Municipal Waste Management Survey 1999/2000,
  167. (2001). Municipal Waste Management Survey 2000/2001,
  168. New technology is needed to adapt to the shifting demands of legislation. As described in Chapter 1, Table 1.1, this increase in legislation affecting Municipal Solid Waste has included: - The Packaging Directive
  169. (2004). Objectives and Methodology It is predicted that up to 4,000 additional waste management facilities will be needed in the UK by 2020 as landfill resource diminishes (Wastes Management,
  170. Office ofDeputy Prime Minister (2002) 'Strategic Planning for Sustainable Waste Management: Guidance on Option Development and Appraisal',
  171. (2003). Office ofGovernment Commerce
  172. (2000). on the incineration ofwaste.
  173. (2002). Optical sorting ofhousehold waste - a new concept from Scandinavia', In: Waste Management World, May-June
  174. (1996). Other examples ofcost benefit waste management modelling include
  175. (2003). Overview ofResource Recovery Technologies for Biowastes'.
  176. (2002). Pay as you throw',
  177. (1992). Performance evaluation ofMaterials Recovery FacIlItIes,
  178. (2001). Personnel communication. Thames Waste Management 152Appendix Appendix - A Chronology of Environmental Policy affecting the Waste industry in the European Union (adapted from Haigh,
  179. (2002). Planning Level Cost-Benefit Analysis for Physical Separation at Confined Disposal Facilities'.
  180. planning technology options. The scenarios modelled and presented are designed to investigate the cost of compliance to the 2006 and 2015 UK statutory targets for the recycling and recovery ofmunicipal solid waste, as identified in Chapter 1.
  181. (2002). Plastic Bottle Recycling in the UK', WRAP,
  182. (2003). Potential Approaches to Integrated Waste Management System Assessment (EFIEA,
  183. (1989). Principles ofEngineering Economic Analysis,
  184. (1989). Public environmental concerns associated with EfW have been centred on the emissions to air from plants. Increasing environmental legislation, as described in Chapter 1, including the
  185. (2003). Real operating cost ofBase Condition (BC)
  186. (2002). Reconstructing the municipal waste stream at a local scale: implications for waste recycling strategies' IN:
  187. (1988). Regional waste planning too cumbersome and remote',
  188. (2002). Relative impacts oftransport emissions in recycling',
  189. (2001). Reliability Maintainability and Risk, Sixth Edition, ButterworthHeinemann, Linacre House,
  190. (2004). Residents sweet and sour over compost......', February 22 nd ,
  191. (2006). ro m 0
  192. (2004). Rubbish! Some bins will be too laden....',
  193. (2003). Scenarios ofhousehold waste generation in 2020', Final Report
  194. (2003). Separate Waste Collection Systems Best Practice Review', Scottish Executive,
  195. (2006). Set the plastic diversification decision variable from 0 to 1with timing delays ofwhen it becomes applicable i.e. at
  196. shows that if two new markets are needed for the recycled paper i.e. Western and Eastern Europe the net unit cost increases from £44 to £63 at
  197. (1999). Simulating household waste management behaviour',
  198. (1995). Strategic planning in manufacturing systems - AHP application to an Equipment replacement decision',
  199. (2003). Strategic Waste Catchment Evaluation - CFC'c Removal and materials recovery from Fridges'.
  200. (2001). Strategic Waste Management Assessment: East of England',
  201. (2001). Table ..1.1 - Modelled variation of spatial resolution between the Bedfordshire sub-region and the East Anglia Region, based on 2000 data (adapted from Environment Agency,
  202. (1975). Table 1.1 outlines current Municipal Solid Waste legislation stemming from this evolution ofpolicy: 1Table 1.1 - European Union Directives affecting Municipal Solid Waste Council Directive
  203. (2001). Table 2.1 - Paper market variation at 3 time points between
  204. (2002). Table 2.2 - Examples of conflict between the Private Waste Companies objectives and the strategic objectives ofpolicy in the UK waste industry (Lowe,
  205. (2002). Table 3.1 - Composition ofHousehold Waste 2000/1, (parfitt,
  206. (1995). Table 3.2 - The table shows the amount ofwaste generated by function as a value (Scenario Calculations Total waste generation in
  207. (2002). targets - Environmental legislation in recent years has been dominated by the setting oftargets e.g. for recycling, for the diversion ofbiodegradable waste from landfill etc. The difficulty is that these targets have not been justified (Lowe,
  208. (1992). Technology, Planning and Decision Making: Water Resources in Kuwait', MPhil Thesis,
  209. (1984). The Analysis and Prediction ofthe Quantity and Composition of Household Refuse'.
  210. (1997). The current state-of-the-art in sorting and identification ofmixed plastic waste'.
  211. (2003). The definition oftreatment technologies - Uncertainty over the clarification and definition of treatment technologies can be exploited as a weakness in waste management systems (EFIEA,
  212. (1998). The design and development ofwater recycling technology for sustainable cities'.
  213. (2015). the discounted cost in Figure 6.3 (i.e. costs at
  214. (2003). The European Forum on Integrated Environmental Assessment in the 'Scoping paper for the European Forum on Integrated Environmental Assessment'
  215. (2003). The Green Book, Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government', Treasury Guidance,
  216. (2003). The impact ofroad transport costs on Waste Recovery and Recycling'.
  217. The increase in cost through the development ofthe 20ktpa composting facility at 2019 has only minor significance on cost.
  218. (2012). The landfill capacity is reached in the East Anglia region sooner than in the Bedfordshire sub-region by approximately I year,
  219. (2003). The Landfill Tax Escalator - the landfill tax is a tax applied to household and other active waste disposed to a licensed landfill site. From 1st
  220. (2006). the landfill tax increases in greater steps (as described in Chapter 1, section 1.2) contributing to the increases in strategy costs.
  221. (2002). The location and scale oftechnology can affect the performance and opportunity for new technology. The regulatory and operational structure for waste management in the UK creates artificial boundaries to technology in the UKwaste industry (Lowe,
  222. The Model Structure for Household Waste
  223. The sharp variation at 2012 from approximately £40 pt to £110 pt (real cost) identifies the point where landfill capacity in Bedfordshire is exceeded. Costs increase dramatically as waste intended for landfill has to be exported outside of Bedfordshire.
  224. (2000). The state ofcomposting in the UK'. Wastes Management.
  225. The variation in minimum values within a range of 9 years between 2005 and 2013 identifies that the increase in cost during this period is low. The technology is insensitive to the optimum duration of ownership during this time period.
  226. (2000). The waste reduction WAR algorithm: environmental impacts, energy consumption and engineering economics',
  227. (2003). The waste site story- exploring the NIMBY syndrome',
  228. (1994). There are different types of MCA techniques such as Linear Addictive models or Analytical Hierarchy Process models. Oeltjenbruns et al.,
  229. (1994). There are different types ofMCA techniques such as Linear Addictive models or Analytical Hierarchy Process models. Oeltjenbruns et aI.,
  230. (2003). This occurs as the bulk waste is processed by the MRF not just the recycled waste materials. At this point operating costs increase from £21 pt to £36 pt at
  231. (2013). Though not the minimum value costs begin to rise at 2013. The optimum time to change technology is 2013 i.e. the optimum duration of technology has been extended a year from 2012 in the Base Condition to
  232. (2006). Through varying the timing ofthe technology change from
  233. time changes to occur at 2005. Set up EfW variables processing rate, storage capacity and costs to a 400ktpa EfW facility. Change variable transport distance to Ef\\'
  234. (2000). Time horizon for the multiple phase technology change through the development ofvarying sized MBT 'Ecodeco' technology to treat unsorted collected waste in Bedfordshire.
  235. (2000). Time horizon for the one phase technology change through the development of2*200ktpa EfW facilities in the Bedfordshire sub-region with no consideration ofthe imported waste
  236. (2002). to 2004 costs increase as Green waste (kitchen and garden waste) is collected as an additional material stream for the Bedfordshire source separation collection schemes (as described in Chapter 4, section 4.2).
  237. (2000). To adopt the technology MRF unit cost (operating and maintenance cost) for the management of the Plastic waste material, change from £1Opt to £62 pt of plastic (IWM,
  238. (1997). to present - An increase in producer responsibility e.g. through the development ofwaste stream legislation such as the Packaging Directive. The 6 th EU Environment Action Programme. 'Environment 2010: Our future, our choice',
  239. (2010). To reduce the volume biodegradable waste sent to landfill to 75% of 1995 figures by
  240. Total unsorted waste collected, 2,799,553 tpa at
  241. (1989). Trash Management; Sizing and Timing Decisions for Incineration and Landfill Facilities'.
  242. (2002). UKPaper Mills: Review ofcurrent recycled paper usage - Secondary Fibre Study',
  243. (1998). UniversityofLouvain-Ia-Neuve Business School
  244. (2003). Unpublished Discussion,
  245. (2001). Unpublished Discussion, Cory Environmental Ltd, Coldbath Square,
  246. (2002). Unpublished Discussion, Shanks Waste Group,
  247. (2001). Unpublished Discussion, Shanks Waste Solutions,
  248. (2003). Unpublished Discussion. Shanks Waste Group,
  249. (2002). Unpublished Personnel Communicate, Shanks Waste Group, Elstow Materials Recovery Facility,
  250. (2000). Use offroth flotation to separate PVCIPET mixtures'.
  251. (1997). Using GIS in risk analysis: A case studyofhazardous waste transport',
  252. (2001). Using Life Cycle Assessment to Aid Waste Management Decisions',
  253. (2001). Using multi-criteria analysis for waste management decisions',
  254. (1992). Value Focus thinking a pathway to creative decision making',
  255. (2006). variables processing rate, storage capacity and costs to reflect changes in MBT capacity as identified i.e. to 420ktpa at 2006, a sequence of120ktpa facilities at
  256. (1983). Vehicle Replacement,
  257. (2003). Waste Management at Ecopark De Wierde'.
  258. (2004). Waste management models and their application to sustainable waste management',
  259. (1996). Waste management models using MCA techniques are emerging as the models become more integrated to consider a greater range ofwaste streams, technology options and impacts. For example,
  260. (2002). Waste not, Want not - A strategy for tackling the waste problem in the England'.
  261. (1994). Waste Policy Formulation and Implementation: Recycling and Landfill',
  262. (1995). Waste Statistics: A focus on household wasteHow much is it and what is it?'.
  263. Waste Strategy for England and Wales.
  264. (2003). with no imported waste
  265. (1987). WorId Commission on Environment and Development.
  266. Year Cumulative Discounted loss ofvalue Discounted total Discounted accumulated cost
  267. Year Discount Operating Discounted Cumulative Disc I Factor (5%) Cost Operating Cost Operating Cost i

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.