a presentation orbit alb 2012 version fin 2

7/30/2019 A Presentation ORBIT ALB 2012 Version Fin 2

1/55

www.irstea.fr

Pour mieux

affirmerses missions,

le Cemagref

devient Irstea

Andr LE BOZEC (Dr.-Ing economist)

Lynda AISSANI (research engineer)

ORBIT 2012 RENNES - 12-14th june 2012

ECONOMIC ASPECTS OFBIODEGRADABLE WASTEMANAGEMENT


2/55

2

Overview

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

Context of biodegradable waste

management

Biological technologies and applications

Industrial economics and decision support

Environmental impacts and monetization

Conclusion


3/55

3

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

Context

of

biodegradable

waste management


4/55

4

Definition of biodegradable waste

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

Biowaste is defined by European commission in the

Green paper on the management of biowaste as :

Food waste from: households, restaurants,caterers, retail premises

Garden waste from households Park waste from local authorities

Comparable waste from food processing plants

This definition does not include forestry or

agricultural residues, manure, sewage sludge, or

other biodegradable waste such as natural textiles,

paper or processed wood.


5/55

5

Definition of biodegradable waste

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

The precise definition of biodegradable municipal

waste varies between EU Member States.

Biodegradable waste is defined in the Landfill

Directive (1999/31/EC) as "any waste that is

capable of undergoing anaerobic or aerobicdecomposition, such as food and green waste, andpaper and paperboard".

In general, BMW includes food and green waste,paper and cardboard and other biodegradable

waste.

Also : BMW = FGW + Paper and Carboard


6/55

6


ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

The management of biodegradable municipal waste(BMW) is currently guided by the Landfill Directive(1999/31/EC).

This directive sets targets for the total amount of BMWthat can be landfilled in the future.

In 2016: minimization of landfilling biodegradable

waste no more than 35% of the quantities produced in1995.


7/55

7


ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

Green paper on biowaste management in the EU from

december 2008:

summarizes important background information about

current policies on bio-waste management ,

aims to explore options for the further development of

the management of bio-waste.

aims to prepare a debate on the possible need for

future policy action, as a Biowaste directive proposal.


8/55

8


ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC : waste hierarchy

Source : EUR 24917 EN - 2011


9/55

9

New context of biodegradable waste in France

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

New law n 2009-967 (3th August 2009) named GrenelleLaw :

Increase the organic and packaging recycling ratefrom 24% in 2004 to 35% in 2012 and 45% in 2015of household waste .

Source reduction of 7% in 2015 of householdwaste.

Reduce quantities of household waste treated bylandfill or incineration by 15% in 2012.

Law n 2012-788 (12th July 2012)

Since 1st January 2012, the large producers of

biowaste are required to implement a separate

collection for material recovery.


10/55

10

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

Biological technologies

andapplications


11/55

11

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

Biowaste = kitchen waste + garden waste (leaves, grasscutting)

Home composting : composting of biowaste (foodwaste and garden waste) as well as the use of the

compost in a garden belonging to a private household

Foot building composting

Common composting techniques

Piles

Bins

Open boxes

The advantage of avoiding the collection step

The inconvenient of generating greenhouse gas such as methane

Biowaste management on the domestic scale



12/55


13/55

13

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

Biowaste = kitchen waste + garden waste (leaves, grasscutting, hedge clippings) brought in civic amenities or collected by door

to door separate collection

Green waste = garden waste + park waste

Centralised composting

Common composting technique:

Windrow composting

In-vessel composting

Biowaste management on the local authorities togetherscale



14/55

14

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

Biowaste management on the local authorities togetherscale : Green waste composting



15/55

15

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

Different configurations of MBT would result in very different

quality of OUTPUTS :

Biodrying prior waste to energy (high calorific fraction)

Stabilisation by aerobic or anaerobic fermentation prior

landfilling

In vessel composting (tunnels, closed halls, turning

drum)

Anaerobic digestion and digestate composting

Residual waste treatement : Mechanical biological treatment



16/55

16

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

Residual waste treatement : Illustration LORIENT


Biowaste : collection + composting 16000 t/anResidual waste : stabilisation : 57000 t/an


17/55

17

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

Residual waste treatement : Illustration LILLE


Biowaste : collection + anaerobic digestion 108 000 t/an


18/55

18

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

Residual waste treatement : Illustration LANTIC


Residual waste : collection + composting 13000 t/an


19/55

19

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

Residual waste treatement : Illustration VARENNES JARCY


Residual waste : collection + anaerobic digestion 100 000 t/an


20/55

20

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

Two possible paths for residual waste composting

Kitchen and garden household waste separate

collection for composting + residual waste

stabilisation in Germany, Austria

Residual household waste composting directly

in France, Spain

Residual waste treatement : Mechanical biological treatment



21/55

21

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

How to compost residual waste ?

The results of research have shown the conditions that must be

met:

- 1. Implementation of hazardous waste collection ( separateor civic amenities)

- 2. Avoiding the residual waste shredding prior the

fermentation

- 3. Implementation refining to extract heavy and light particlesprior the fermentation

Residual waste treatement



22/55

22

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

Categories of costs


Market cost

Private cost

Production cost

Efficiency

Non market cost

External cost

Environmentalcost or benefit

Environmentalvalues


23/55

23

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

Industrial economics

and

decision support


24/55

24

Industrial economics and applications

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

Activities vary in terms of their cost structures

The ratio of fixed to variable costs vary with the level

of utilisation

Economies of scale refer to the phenomenon where

the average production costs per unit of output (/t)

decrease with the increase in the scale

Cost production is expression in euro per ton of

treated waste

Biological treatment unit approach


25/55

25


ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

Method developed in U.S.A. by R. Turton (1998) and

Peters & Timmerhaus (2002) on the economicevaluation of chemical processes (capital costs,

operating costs ) is implemented by A. Le Bozec in

European project AWAST

Economic assesment method


26/55

26


ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

CFC = direct plant costs + indirect plant costs

CFC = x (k x IEC)

IEC : equipment installation costCFC : fixed-capital cost of plant

k : Lang factor(fluctuates according to the process type)

: indirect costs (site development and studies)

- IEC = f(Cn) Cn : design capacity (tpy)

Capital cost


27/55

27


ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

Operating cost

General formula:C0 = . L + . E + . CFC

Parameters of the main

explanatory variables

L : labour

E : energy

M : maintenance

Coefficients representing

the secondary expenditure

: (other fixed costs)

: (other utilities)

: (proportional of CFC)

Each basic variable (L, E) is estimated:

- by standard ratio consumption (physical units)

- combined with the standard prices units


28/55

28


ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

Gross production cost : CPB = depreciation + C0= CFC / d + C0

with d = 20 years : life time of the plant

Net production cost :CPN = CPB - Sr

with Sr : revenue from by-product sales

Total production cost of treatment stream

CPT = CPN + Crefus

Total production cost of BMW management stream

CBMW = CPN + Crefus + Ccollection

Plant production cost


29/55

29


ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

Process types

Waste composition and characteristics

Plant design capacity

Number shifts in operating Lenght of life

Level of utilisation

Unit prices of utilities

Residues treatment costs

Plant production cost : explanatory variables

30


30/55

30

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

Biodagradable waste management stream approach


Simulator software for biodagradable wastemanagement : ECOBIO (Volia-Cemagref)

is based on process analysis and technical and

economic modeling

is applied to the overall system: collection,

transport, treatment (composting, anaerobic

digestion) refuse treatment (incineration, landfill). takes into account the diversity of local authorities

and MSW management organization

Is easily updatable through its databases

31


31/55

31

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

Biodegradable waste management stream approach


Simulator software

assessing the current situation,

optimizing the biodegradable waste management

system, with or without biowaste collection

simulation of different options for invitation for

tenders

helps decision makers to choose the

biodegradable waste management options

32


32/55

32

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES



Definition of simulations scenariosHypothesis: case of 100 000 inhabitants

Household waste : 35300 t/year

Yard waste : 8000 t/year

Scenario 1: mixed waste : collection + composting

Scenario 2 : mixed waste : collection + AD with digestate

composting

Scenario 3 : residual waste collection + stabilization

: biowaste separated collection + composting Scenario 4 : mixed waste collection + anaerobic digestion (60)

33


33/55

33

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES



Results on production cost comparison of scenarios

56%

23%21%

100%

56%

31%

18%

105%

59%

25%

32%

115%

56%

25%

31%

113%

0% 0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0% 0%

Collection cost Treatment cost Stabilised residue andrefuse treatment cost

Total cost

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6

34


34/55

34

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES



The economic estimation reveals that:

The most expensive treatment combines anaerobic digestionwith digestate composting,

The impact of refuse treatment is important in scenarios 3 and 4,more than 30% of net total cost,

Collection costs represent 55 to 60% of the net total cost,

Treatment costs represent about 20% of the net total cost,

Refuse and stabilisats management represent 20 to 30% of thenet total cost,

The implementation of biowaste kerbside leads to anincrease of about 8% of the collection production cost,

The implementation of biowaste management by kerbsidecollection and composting leads to an increase of about 15% in

the net total cost.

35


35/55

35

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

Biodagradable waste management

Other economic tools

PAYT (Pay as you throw) Sytem

The effectiveness of PAYT schemes in modifying householdbehavior depends on how clear the price signal is for households

PAYT systems leads to a development of home composting

Extended producer Responsibilty

Extended producer responsibility (EPR), when the focus is on

changing producer behaviour

ERP applied on medical waste and phyto waste allows to reducethe dangerosity of waste

36


36/55

36

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

Environmental impacts

and

monetization

37


37/55

37

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

Environmental impacts monetization

Method categories

Monetization

Direct valuation

Directmethod

Marketbased

Indirect method

Revealedpreference

Statedpreference

Indirect

Dose-effectmethod

(IPA)

38


38/55

38

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES


Main environnemental valuation techniques

Productivity method Human capital approach Defensive expenditures method Damage cost avoided Replacement or repair cost method

Market basedtechniques(damage cost

method)

Travel cost method Hedonic price method

Revealedpreference

(surrogate market orobserved behavior)

Contingent valuation method Choice modelling

Statedpreference

(Willingness to pay)

39


39/55

39

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES


Main external costs of biological treatment Productivity method Human capital approach Defensive expenditures method Damage cost avoided Replacement or repair cost method

Greenhouseemissions

(preventiveexpenditure method)

Travel cost method Hedonic pricing method

Other emissions

to air

Leachate

(Travel cost method

/ Stated preference )

Choice modelling Choice experiment method Hedonic pricing method

Disamenity

40


40/55

40

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

Life Cycle Assessment is an environmental evaluation

tool which classically evaluates environmental impacts

for a decontextualized situation

Used at regional and national level for the assessment of

plans and programs

Relevant for policy-making perspective at national level

Not entirely satisfactory for plans and projects at regional

scale because of the lack of the consideration of spatial

and temporal information for the environmental

assessment and especially for local impacts.


Decontextualized approach

41


41/55

41

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

Life Cycle Assessment


The environmental emissions considered included greenhouse

gas emissions and other atmospheric (NH3, NOx, VOC) and to

water emissions that contribute to the degradation of human

health, acidification, eutrophisation, soil erosion and pesticide use.

42


42/55

42

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

A lot of literature exits on the external costs

(per unit mass of emissions) associated with

impacts considered of emissions (program

ExternE on energy)


Decontextualized approach with damage cost unit

43


43/55

43

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES


Decontextualized approach with price of WTP

Monetization methodEnvironmental Economics

Stated preferences Revealed preferences

Contingent valuation methodChoice modeling

Choice exepriment

- Environment is broken down into several attributes

- Based on a principle of arbitration

- Relevant when there are several alternatives

- Obtaining of a WTP

Choice Experiment

the most adapted for a

coupling with LCA

A posteriori

Not relevant to manage the

multiplicity of impacts

evaluated by LCA

44


44/55

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES


Decontextualized approach with price of WTP

Environmental evaluation : LCA

Potential environmental

impacts quantification

Choice of a monetization method :

Choice experiment

Adaptation of this method for

environmental impacts

Implementation and obtaining of a

monetary value per each impact unit

Monetized

environmental impacts

An example of coupling between LCA and Choice experiment: towards CBA

45


45/55

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

Environmental damage costs of air pollution is estimated byassigning economic values to the physical impacts, caused by

exposure to elevated concentrations of pollutants, which in

turn resulted from dispersion, transformation of pollutants

being emitted to the air by a given source

Overall, two key figures are essential for quantifying the

variable externalities of a given pollutant:

Emission factors (measured in kg per ton of waste)

Unit costs (measured in EURO per kg emission)

In principle, these factors and knowledge about the quantity ofwaste can form the basis for quantification of the variable

external costs that a ton of waste will account for. This is called

the impact pathway methodology.


Contextualized approach: Impact Pathway methodology

46


46/55

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES


Contextualized approach or local approach

The impact pathway

methodology traces the

passage of a pollutant

from the place where it isemitted to the final impact

on the receptors that are

affected by it.

47


47/55

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

The dose response function (DRF) relates thequantity of a pollutant that affects a receptor (e.g.

population) to the physical impact on this receptor. For

the classical air pollutants (NOx, SO2, O3,PM), DRFs

are typically used as kind of concentration responsefunctions (CRF). These relations are a central element

of the impact pathway analysis.

However, there are large uncertainties in the behavior

of the DRF in particular for low doses. The functionscan be linear through the origin or linear with

threshold characterizing a zero effect as well as

nonlinear through the origin.


Contextualized approach : Impact Pathway Analysis

48

E i l b fi i i


48/55

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

Biogas : economic valuation varies between countries

depending on the share of nuclear in the energy mix

Compost : economic valuation varies regionally

depending the competition between organic

amendments (manure)

Nonrenewable natural resources: Harthwick rule =

total substitutability between manufactured capital

and natural capital

investing an amount equal in value to the market

value of the depleted fraction of the resource

Environmental benefits monetization

Contextualized approach for composting

49

E i l b fi i i


49/55

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

The question of the study boundaries: should one

include or exclude the effects of the compost

incorporation into the soil?

Benefits of adding organic matter on soil stability

Negative impacts with the gaseous emission of CO2

and ETM

These effects are under the influence of climate and

soil pedology Works in progress of National Institute of Agronomic

Research (INRA) (in National research Project

CleanWast)

Environmental benefits monetization

Contextualized approach for composting

50

E i l i i i


50/55

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

The question of choosing the appropriate monetizationmethod

The importance of selecting assumptions for the

implementation of these valuation techniques

An assessment always partial of environmental benefits

Many studies on recycling and on the comparison

Incineration / landfill

We must have a method of monetization by type of

impact or a method which deals with all impacts?


Limits of applying methods

51

E i t l i t ti ti


51/55

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

Costs for municipal waste management in the EuropeanUnion , 2002, Eunomia research &consulting

Guide to Cost Benefit Analysis of investment projects,

2008, European Commission

Assessment of the options to improve the management

of biowaste in the European Union, 2010, Eunomia

research &consulting


Some references

52


52/55

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

Conclusion

53

C l i


53/55

Conclusion

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

Developing simulation tools of economic

management scenarios

Improving the assessment of local

environmental impacts at local scale

Improving the application of monetization

economic methods of environmentalimpacts in waste management context,especially in biological way

54

C l i


54/55

Conclusion

ORBIT 2012

12-14 June 2012

RENNES

Coupling analyzes of Life CycleAssessment (LCA) and methods ofmonetization in the Cost-Benefit Analysis(CBA)

Making work together the scientists fromvarious disciplines: chemistry, economics,

LCA experts, process engineering


55/55

i t f

Pour mieux

affirmer

ses missions,le Cemagref

devient Irstea

Thank you

foryour attention

a presentation orbit alb 2012 version fin 2

Documents