combined business evaluation report - rwth aachen · saturn provides a solution to this by...

Sensor-sorting Automated Technology for advanced Recovery of Non-ferrous metals

Funded by:

CIP Eco-innovationFirst application and market replication projectsID: ECO/08/239051-S12.534294

COMBINED BUS INESS EVALUAT ION REPORT

D10: Report on Final Cost analysis and replication strategy (Business strategy plan) D16: Basic Business Plan for SMEs

For public release

Project coordinator: Department of Processing and Recycling (I.A.R.), RWTH-Aachen University Project website: www.saturn.rwth-aachen.de

The SATURN (Sensor-sorting automated technology for advanced recovery of non-ferrous metals from waste) project was successful in receiving funding under the 2008 call for proposals from the European Commission Eco Innovation funding programme. The main aim of this funding programme is to support “all forms of innovation which reduce environmental impacts and/or optimizing the use of resources” especially in the area of recycling.

All projects funded under the Eco Innovation programme demonstrate a high potential for transfer and market replication. Therefore it is essential to provide as much public information as possible about these projects.

This project is a demonstration used for dissemination purposes to fulfill this replica-tion goal. This project is a very good demonstration of how good ideas can come out of research and be transformed into business and new technology developments.

The project, coordinated by the Department of Processing and Recycling (I.A.R.) of RWTH Aachen University in Germany is supported by a consortium of 4 European partners; Metall-Konzentrat und Recycling GmbH (Mekon), TOMRA Sorting GmbH formerly known as Titech GmbH, Envirolink (UK), and pbo (Germany).Contributions to this combined report were given by all partners and in particular by Katherine Burden (Envirolink Northwest Ltd), Adam Strafford(Envirolink Northwest Ltd), Dean Ryder (Envirolink Northwest Ltd), Professor Thomas Pretz (Project Coordinator – I.A.R.), Bastian Wens (I.A.R.), Nico Schmalbein (I.A.R.) and Kate Hornsby (I.A.R.).

For further information, please contact us! Email: [email protected] Site: www.saturn.rwth-aachen.de

3

Each year, EU member states are responsible for producing over 2 billion tonnes of waste. A

combination of national and European waste policies and directives has helped to drive up

recycling and recovery rates, leading to an inherent shift from landfill dependency towards a

more resource efficient environment. As a result, waste management activities are now under-

pinned by a renewed emphasis on recycling, energy recovery and green manufacturing.

Significant investment in waste infrastructure is needed in order for member states to comply

with legislation and to ensure the effective treatment of waste. Improvements in research and

development and technological advances in waste infrastructure represent a real opportunity

for businesses involved in the supply chain. Europe’s renewed drive to deal with waste in an

environmentally, efficient and cost effective manner creates jobs and increases business oppor-

tunities and is currently estimated to be worth over !100 billion to the EU economy1.

Particular advances in recycling and recovery have been realised as a result of waste legisla-

tion that places a requirement on all MSW to be treated prior to final disposal. Examples of

treatment technologies include mechanical and biological treatment processes (MBT). Over the

last few years, the number of MBT facilities has grown, with 330 facilities now operational

across Europe2. MBT facilities mechanically sort and biologically stabilise municipal solid waste

(MSW), enhancing the recovery of useful fractions such as metals or calorific fractions.

NF metals represent an important target fraction in the recycling process. Compared to other

waste components, NF metals exhibit better reusability, higher market values as well as sig-

nificantly contributing to carbon savings when compared to mining the virgin equivalent. In-

creases in NF metal prices have led to increased application of technical separation techniques

in MBT plants, potentially levelling the way to the production of large volumes of NF concen-

trates in the future. Previously, NF metal from MBT plants were manually sorted in order to sort

the different metals and alloys, thus converting them into useable secondary raw materials for

metallurgical processes. Due to high labour costs the majority of this sorting takes place outside

of Europe - leading to a loss in valuable resources. Recent developments however have seen the

introduction of advanced sensor sorting techniques that make sorting in EU countries with high

labour costs an economically viable option - the SATURN process.

This business plan has been produced to guide and advise businesses who are interested in

investing in the technology being developed and demonstrated in the SATURN project. It

provides a step by step guide to the technology, its markets and exploitation potential.

Please use this business plan as a source of information to inform decisions and drive forward

growth and competitiveness. Further information on the demonstration project can be obtained

from the project partners.

Foreword

1 SATURN Public information report 20102 http://www.ecoprog.com/en/publications/waste-industry.htm (accessed 01/02/12)

SATURN – Combined Business Evaluation Report

4

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

List of figures and tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1 Business Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.1 Overview of the opportunity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.2 SATURN Overview: The Facts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2 Operations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.1 SATURN Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.2 SATURN operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.2.1 Operational requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102.2.2 Capital Assets required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112.2.3 Personnel requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .112.2.4 Environmental management and other system requirements. . . . . . . . . . . .112.2.5 Environmental compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

2.3 SATURN feedstock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3 Environmental Drivers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143.1 Legislative drivers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143.2 National legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

4 Market Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154.1 European overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154.2 German perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154.3 United Kingdom perspective. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154.4 Czech Republic perspective. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164.5 Competitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174.6 Market pricing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

5 Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

6 Financials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206.1 Financial projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206.2 Sensitivity analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246.3 Break-even-point analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

7 Replication Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

8 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Appendix 1 – Details on financial projections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Appendix 2 – Scenarios used for Break-even-point analysis. . . . . . . . . . 35

Contents

5

EU European Union

MBT Mechanical Biological Treatment

LCA Life Cycle Assessment

MMSW Mixed Municipal Solid Waste

Mt Million tonnes (metric)

NF – Concentrates

Non-Ferrous metal concentrates

NF-Metals Non-Ferrous metals

SATURN Sensor-sorting Automated Technology for advanced Recovery of Non-fer-rous metals from waste

UK United Kingdom

Abbreviations


6

Figure 1: Comparison of the SATURN process with conventional processing . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Figure 2: SATURN feedstock and potential other feedstock. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Figure 3: Composition from NF concentrates found in German MBT plants . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Figure 4: Average price from NF metals between January 2001 and January 2012 (‘000 !/t) . .23

Figure 5: Variation of the mass recovery of the components against the residual stream . . 29

Figure 6: Break Even Point analysis given a number of scenarios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Figure 7: MBT in Europe - current status and future development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Table 1: European directives and the benefits to SATURN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Table 2: Overview of market opportunities for SATURN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Table 3: NF Metal prices (SATURN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Table 4: Capital Investment requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Table 5: Profit and Loss - SATURN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Table 6: Exemplified cost benefit analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Table 7: Calculation model for capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

List of figures and tables

7

1 | Business Summary

1.1 Overview of the opportunitySATURN (Sensor-sorting Automated Technology for advanced Recovery of Non-ferrous metals)

technology represents a new and innovative approach to Non Ferrous (NF) metal recycling.

The SATURN process, which is the first of its kind in Europe, uses a combination of state of the

art sensor sorting techniques to effectively separate multi-component NF metal concentrates

(NF – concentrates) sourced from MBT plants treating Municipal Solid Waste (MSW).

In recent years, Europe has fundamentally changed the way in which it deals with its waste.

New legislation is now driving change throughout the European Union (EU), with landfill di-

version targets now in place for all member states. This legislation has led to the increased

adoption of various pre-treatment technologies across Europe with significant growth expected

over the next 10 years.

The increase of pre-treatment facilities represents a real opportunity for businesses adopt-

ing SATURN. Whilst pre-treatment technologies effectively separate biodegradable and non-

biodegradable fractions for upstream recycling, the extraction of metals from this process is

limited to the ferrous metal fractions via magnetic separation. Limitations exist with regards

to NF metal separation due to cost and design implications. In addition to this, current separa-

tion methods for metal recovery post pre-treatment rely mostly on manual sorting taking place

outside Europe. This not only results in a loss of valuable resources but also raises concerns

within the international community due to the perceived negative impacts manual sorting has

on public and environmental health.

SATURN provides a solution to this by automatically extracting a number of highly valuable

NF metals from NF concentrates including: Aluminium, Copper, Brass, Lead, Stainless steel, Tin

and Zinc. Compared to other waste components, NF metals exhibit better reusability, higher

market values as well as significantly contributing to carbon savings when compared to min-

ing the virgin equivalent. By utilising SATURN technology, businesses across Europe can now

increase metal recovery rates and exploit the opportunities that metal recovery presents by

establishing a cost effective, efficient and profitable business.

1 Business Summary


8

1.2 SATURN Overview: The Facts

SATURN Credentials Overview

SATURN Sensor Sorting Automated Technology for advanced recovery of Non Ferrous Metals

ProcessUnique process that uses a combination of state of the art sensor sorting techniques to effectively separate and extract NF metals from NF concentrates (e.g. eddy-current separator products)

Operations

Capacity of plant [0,000 t/yr] 6 – 18

Input material requirements particle size 20 mm – 200 mm, metal content > 50%

Connection electrical load [kWh] Approx. 200

Floor area sorting facility [m!] 910 (10 m height)

Plant availability Approx. 75%

No of storage bunkers required 1-2 (approx. 950 m!; 10 m height)

No of staff 6 x full time workers per shift

Financials

Profit margin Approx. 7% (details in respective section)

Initial investment costs [!] Approx. 3,9 million

Market Potential

Total number of MBT plants Germany: 48 UK: 25 Czech Republic: 0 (5 plants planned)

NF metal potential from MBT plants [000’ t/yr] Germany: 30 UK: 19 Czech Republic: 0 (1.4 planned)

NF Metal and Alloy prices (average 2011) [!/t]

Aluminum (1240); Copper (4950); Zinc (600); Brass (3370); Stainless Steel (1470)

9

2 | Operations

2.1 SATURN TechnologyThe SATURN process combines a range of advanced sensor sorting techniques. Whilst these

technologies do exist in other areas of waste management, SATURN is the first of its kind in

Europe to apply and adapt advanced sensor sorting technology for the purpose of NF metal

recovery. Principally SATURN utilises two key pieces of advanced sorting technologies: The

TITECH x-tract and the TITECH finder.

The figure below provides a comparison between the SATURN approach and conventional

methods of NF metal recovery:

Figure 1: Comparison of the SATURN process with conventional processing

2 Operations


10

Conventional methods of NF metal recovery rely on a combination of either manual sorting

and / or heavy –media separation methods. The most important limitations related to these

methods are:

Financial: Extensive manual sorting of NF-concentrates is hardly economically viable in

high-income countries, and can only be operated at the cost of lowered recovery rates.

Environmental: Heavy-media separation often requires non-standard processes which are

complicated to calibrate and produce waste water

In comparison, the SATURN process switches the use of manual labour to a more targeted and

efficient sorting line, where manual sorting is only applied to products that have already passed

through sensor sorting. Furthermore, readily available sensor sorting equipment with adapted

sorting programs can be obtained without having to develop unique processes.

Crucially, for SATURN when compared to conventional methods is the use of two pieces of ad-

vanced sensor sorting equipment, the TITECH x-tract and the TITECH finder. The x-tract sepa-

rates NF-concentrates into different metals and alloys according to their unique atomic density,

whilst the finder is responsible for extracting impurities from the NF concentrates.

2.2 SATURN operations2.2.1 Operational requirementsOperational requirements for SATURN will depend on the proposed location. Before investing

in the technology it is important to consider factors such as location, infrastructure, electrical

requirements, environmental permitting, labour costs and capital asset requirements.

The SATURN demonstration plant can process 4 t/hr over 3 consecutive shifts (est. plant avail-

ability 75%), giving a total treatment capacity of 18 kt/yr3. Under these conditions recovery

rates of above 98% of Al compounds, Al profiles, Copper, Brass and Zinc have been measured

in test runs.

The constructive and operational requirements can be divided in buildings, processing equip-

ment, mobile equipment, peripheral equipment and manpower.

The required constructive elements are the processing building with an approx. floor area of

910 m!, storage bunker areas for the input materials with approx. 780 m! and product storage

with an approx. floor area of 150 m!. Buildings are required to protect the input and output

materials and equipment from weather conditions and provide sound protection to reduce noise

emissions. The processing equipment includes the sensor based sorting machinery, conveying

and feeding equipment and (if necessary) additional processing machinery that is required for

the SATURN process.

3 Input material requirements as displayed in section 1.2 apply

11

2 | Operations

The mobile equipment consist of wheel loaders and containers for output materials and product

storage or loading equipment to unload input material and load products for transport.

Peripheral equipment is a collective position for all necessities that may vary according to local

legal requirements such as de-dusting systems, compressed air supply, control systems, catwalk

and security- and workers protection measures.

2.2.2 Capital Assets requiredTotal capital assets required for SATURN are in the region of !1.7 million. This figure includes

process equipment such as screens, conveyors, sensor sorting, electric installations etc. In addi-

tion to this businesses will also need to factor in additional costs linked to mobile equipment;

wheel loader, forklift trucks as well as the costs associated with the buildings and infrastructure

that will be required to house SATURN. Detailed information on the respective costs are given

in section 6.

2.2.3 Personnel requirementsJob creation is an important part of any business plan, as any developments should bring ben-

efit the local economy. Based on the operational requirements for the demonstration plant SAT-

URN employs 6 workers per shift at a net operating time of 6 hours per shift (test runs showed

that non-operation periods in a shift of 8 hours can be estimated with 2 hours). Management

staff would be an additional requirement but would be specific to existing or new operations.

2.2.4 Environmental management and other system requirementsBusinesses wishing to adopt SATURN should consider obtaining relevant certifications such as

ISO9001, ISO14001 and OH SAS 18001 within the first years of operation. Such certifications

will ensure a significant and robust quality management system, thereby providing assurance

to prospective customers as to the credibility of the business and its operations.

2.2.5 Environmental complianceEnvironmental compliance is integral to operating SATURN. Businesses should contact appro-

priate agencies in order to identify any requirements for permits and licensing.


12

2.3 SATURN feedstockDiverting waste from landfill is a legal requirement for all EU member states, and as a result

the number of treatment facilities, including MBT plants in operation across Europe has rapidly

increased over the past few years. The input material for SATURN is primarily sourced from

MBT plants treating MMSW and also may co-process commercial waste, as shown in figure

Other potential sources are seen to be mechanical treatment processes, such as material recy-

cling facilities for separately collected fractions containing NF metals (e.g. co-mingled waste).

However, such streams have not been in the focus of the project. NF concentrates deriving from

thermally treated wastes do not fall under the scope of the SATURN process, as they largely

adiffer in composition and behaviour.

Figure 2: SATURN feedstock and potential other feedstock

The term MBT plant is synonymously used to describe the following types of treatment facilities

prior to subsequent to recovery/final disposal:

Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT)

Mechanical Biological Stabilisation (MBS)

Mechanical Physical Stabilisation (MPS)

13

2 | Operations

These treatment methods (to be summarised as MBT) treat and sort bio-degradable and non-

biodegradable fractions for either further recycling, recovery or final disposal. Whilst the ex-

traction of ferrous metals within these systems is a standard application; the extraction of NF

metals is limited but steadily rising. NF concentrates are usually produced using eddy current

separators. The process design of a plant as well as the input material strongly influence the

composition of the NF concentrates. The two main characteristics of NF concentrates are:

Mixture of different metals and alloys

Process immanent impurities (carry-over of non-metallic or non-target objects)

Figure 3 shows the fluctuations of the most relevant components of NF concentrates from Ger-

man MBT plants. As the input materials vary from country to country (e.g. in NF concentrates

from MBT plants in the UK a much higher share of aluminium cans has been measured, which is

probably a result of refund system in place in Germany), in each case it is important to analyse

the input materials in the phase of planning a plant.

Figure 3: Composition from NF concentrates found in German MBT plants


14

3.1 Legislative driversThere are a range of legislative instruments that control the management of waste across the

EU. Legislation has helped to drive up recycling and recovery rates, leading to an inherent shift

from landfill dependency towards a more resource efficient environment. Changes in legislation

present a number of opportunities for adopters of SATURN. Whilst not all legislation is directly

linked to the NF metal recycling, all have a positive impact on the viability of NF metal recov-

ery and recycling and therefore represent a number of benefits and opportunities.

Table 1: European directives and the benefits to SATURN

European directives Benefit to SATURN

Waste Framework Directive (75442/EEC)

Establishing a framework for the management of waste that ensures a uniform approach with regards to; the waste hierarchy, environmental control and compliance.

Increased recovery and re-use rates raise the availability of NF metals in the waste stream

Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (96/61/EC)

Targets industrial sectors to ensure a high level of protection with regards to energy use, waste minimi-sation, vibration and noise.

Increases the standards with regards to treatment of waste – increased recovery from incinerators

Directive on the Landfill of Waste (93/31/EC)

Improving landfill standards of the design, operation, aftercare & acceptance of waste types with increased restrictions on bio-degradable waste.

Increased bans on landfilling recover greater quantities of NF metals for recycling

Directive on the Incineration of Waste (2000/76/EC)

Prevent or limit the negative effects of incineration with relation to air quality, soil, surface and ground water as well as public health.

Growing concerns with incineration and its impacts – ensure greater pre-treatment methods are applied to waste prior to final disposal

Directives on Packaging and Packaging Waste (94/62/EC)

Harmonise measures concerning the management of packaging waste. In particular – EU member states are obligated to meet specific targets for the recovery and recycling of packaging waste.

Recovery and recycling targets set for Aluminium and Steel.

3.2 National legislationEuropean legislation has created a number of opportunities for the uptake of SATURN. Busi-

nesses adopting SATURN should also consider national legislation both with regards to waste

and planning policies when developing a business plan.

3 Environmental Drivers

15

4 | Market Overview

4.1 European overviewThe market opportunities for SATURN are increasing across Europe. Advancements in treat-

ment technology have led to an increase in MBT facilities which provide an important source

of feedstock for SATURN facilities.

Currently there are about 330 operational MBT facilities in Europe with a total treatment capac-

ity in excess of 34 million tonnes per year. Over the past few years 80 new MBT plants have

been commissioned in Europe, and forecasts state that by 2016 the installed MBT treatment

capacity across the continent will increase to 46 million tonnes per year.4

The table below details the individual market potential for SATURN in 3 different countries;

Germany, United Kingdom and Czech Republic. The opportunities for SATURN vary consider-

ably across the three countries this is due to a number of factors that include; national legisla-

tion and policy, public perception, waste arising and treatment technologies.

4.2 German perspectiveWaste disposal and treatment in Germany has gone through a dramatic period of change in the

last 10 years.

In 2005, the landfill ban on MSW set limits on the amount of organic content allowed to go for

disposal. Since the ban, 99% of all MSW is now processed through a growing number of incin-

eration (24) or MBT plants (48). By 2010 there were 48 operational MBT plants with a combined

treatment capacity of over 6 Mt of MMSW per year.5

Previous research undertaken in Germany suggests that MMSW contains ~0.5% of technically

recoverable NF metals. However, when technically extracted, also non-metallic impurities are

carried over, which can easily amount to 50% in the separated NF concentrates. Taking the total

capacity of MBT plants (~6 Mt/yr) into account and considering the above mentioned, the NF

concentrates potential from MBT plants is about 60,000 t/yr.

4.3 United Kingdom perspectiveWhilst the MBT market in the UK is not yet as developed as Germany, the number of plants has

rapidly increased over the last few years. The factors attributed to this growth can be linked in

the main to public perception, legislative drivers and growing energy demands.

Contrary to its German counterparts the British public have, to a great extent, limited the de-

velopment of incineration facilities due to a concern over public and environmental health.

MBT facilities in contrast offer a more acceptable treatment method. In addition to the public

4 Market Overview

4 http://www.ecoprog.com/en/publications/waste-industry.htm5 MBT in Germany and Europe – Development. status and outlook 2012


16

acceptance of MBT’s – landfill diversion legislation has helped to strengthen MBT as a viable

and effective treatment method. Energy security issues have seen a growing demand for Refuse

Derived Fuel (RDF) produced from MBT’s which has also helped to secure their future develop-

ment.

Currently, the UK has 25 operational plants with forecasted capacity requirements set to see an

additional 45 facilities come on stream in the next few years6. The total treatment capacity for

MSW in Great Britain (England, Wales and Scotland) is 3.8 Mt/yr (25 plants). Whilst the total

treatment capacity for the whole of the UK cannot be verified at this point, it is believed that

at least a further 3.6 Mt of treatment facilities have either received planning consent or are at

the planning submission stage7.

4.4 Czech Republic perspectiveWaste management is a relatively young yet dynamic sector of the economy in the Czech

Republic. Whilst other member state countries have experienced significant growth and in-

novation in this area, the Czech Republic has in many respects been slow to react. With the

first Waste Act not implemented until as recently as 1991, waste handling prior to this was not

subject to any legislative control or rules,8 which naturally led to a significant reliance on land-

filling. The introduction of the landfill directive helped to stimulate industry growth with the

deployment of treatment technologies such as Anaerobic Digestion and Incineration. Despite

their growth in other countries, MBT was not immediately seen as a popular solution due to

concerns over profitability and their overall effectiveness as a treatment solution.

Today, however, the Ministry of the Environment has shown support in the technology with

investment approval being granted for the development of five new MBT plants. These will be

the first MBT plants to be built in the Czech Republic and will process up to 280,000 tonnes of

MSW per year.

Based on the figures above – the potential for SATURN in the Czech Republic remains low.

This is mainly due to the fact that the total amount of NF metal concentrates available from

the 5 MBT plants would be less than 3,000 tonnes per year which would not be economically

viable. It is however important to remember that projected growth in MBT’s in Europe is set to

dramatically increase over the next few years which will undoubtedly create opportunities for

development in the Czech Republic.

6 MBT in Germany and Europe – Development, Status and Outlook 20127 Residual waste infrastructure review, Eunomia November 20118 http://www.mzp.cz/en/waste_management

17

4 | Market Overview

4.5 CompetitorsWhen considering SATURN, businesses should have a thorough understanding of existing or

planned competitors in the market place. The following list sets out companies that may fall

within this category:

Landfill operators

Waste Management companies

Metal reprocessors

Exporters

Table 2: Overview of market opportunities for SATURN

GERMANY UNITED KINGDOM CZECH REPUBLIC

Number of MBT plants treating MSW (March 2012)

48 25 0 (Approval for 5 facilities in 2011)

Total throughput of MBT facilities 6.0 Mt/yr 3.8 Mt/yr 9 0.28 Mt/yr

Composition of NF metals in MSW stream 0.5%

7-10% metals. True composition of NF metal

is unknown.

Up to 3% of MSW is metal. True composition NF metal is unknown

Est. NF metal potential for SATURN 30.0 kt/yr

19 kt/yr (Based on 0.5% NF

composition)

1.4 kt/yr (Based on 0.5% NF

composition)

Est. NF-concentrates (average level of

impurities of 50%)60.0 kt/yr 38 kt/yr 2.8 kt/yr

4.6 Market pricingThe market for recyclates is based on commodity pricing with material quality and volume

deciding the end value. Fluctuation in price is a common feature of most commodity markets

especially within the metals sector.

Traditionally the metals sector has been one of the most profitable and volatile sectors within

the recycling industry. Despite this, in the past few years the industry has experienced fluctua-

tions in price linked to a global slump in the automotive and construction sectors. The table

below demonstrates the fluctuations in prices of NF metal fractions between 2003 and 2010.

9 Figures based on Great Britain only – National Residual Infrastructure report, Eunomia November 2011


18

Figure 4: Average price from NF metals between January 2001 and January 2012

For the purpose of the business plan, the following NF metal prices have been assumed:

Table 3: European directives and the benefits to SATURN

NF Metal /Alloy Price per tonne (!)

Aluminium 1,240

Aluminium Composite 450

Copper 4,950

Brass 3,370

Zinc 600

Stainless steel 1,470

The quality of the residues produced as a result of SATURN fluctuates and does not necessarily

exhibit a high calorific value (and other parameters) that qualify them as secondary fuels in

waste-to-energy processes. Therefore, the residues should be considered as output stream for

disposal, which can either be waste incineration or landfilling. Gate fees for both incineration

facilities and landfill sites vary across Europe and businesses should identify the true costs of

disposal when developing a business plan. The disposal costs assumed in this business plan are

!100 per tonne.

19

STRENGTHS USP: Unique technology, first of its kind in Europe

to separate NF metals from NF concentrates using

Sensor Sorting

Capabilities: High recovery rates paired with

purities suitable for metal refinery

Competitive advantage: Only one SATURN operation exists at present (Aachen, Germany 2012)

Proven technology: Demonstrated over a 3 year

period

Marketing: Existing market research carried

out for Germany, United Kingdom and the Czech

Republic

Location: Modular unit – can be applied to any

country

NF metal prices: Average NF metal prices remain high

WEAKNESSESS Gaps in capabilities: NF fractions < 20 mm are not

identified using sensor sorting – loss of NF metals

Locality: Distance to feedstock source will impact on financial model – transport costs

Environmental issues: Environmental compliance

and planning regulations will need to be met

Accreditation: Gaining ISO 14001, ISO14001 and OH SAS 18001 could be costly and time consuming

Extended working hours: To operate a 3 shift

system may require additional permits from the

Local municipality

OPPORTUNITIES Competitors’ vulnerabilities: Competitors may not

be fully aware of the business opportunities

Technological development and innovation: Opportunity to increase efficiency rates of process

by targeting smaller fractions

New markets: The MBT market in Europe is set to

increase from 330 to 450 plants by 2016.

Niche target markets: Additional opportunities

may exist in other markets i.e. End of Life Vehicles,

WEEE etc

Contracts: Contracts opportunities for SATURN linked to municipality waste management strategies

Legislative effects: Various drivers for SATURN

linked to European directives i.e. Landfill directive

increase the availability of feedstock.

Climate Change: Energy and CO2 savings through

the use of secondary metals.

STRENGTHS Political: Limited political support for MBT may

inhibit the market potential for SATURN

Competitor intentions: Various players including

landfill operators, MBT facilities, waste management

companies and metal reprocessors may take the

market lead

Market demand: Market demands for the process

vary across Europe i.e. low potential in Czech

Republic

New technologies: Alternative processing approaches

Input Materials: Operations require a secure

feedstock (price, quality and quantity)

Market prices: Global demand for NF metals could

impact on profit margins and overall viability

Financial backing: Investor confidence in the

technology, feedstocks or markets will be required

Economy: Consumer demands could affect both

supply of feedstock as well as demand for NF metals

and alloys

5 | Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats

5 Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats


20

6.1 Financial projectionsThe SATURN project has been demonstrated within Europe at a live NF reprocessing centre, as

such a number of financial projections have been made given actual and projected performance

of the plant.

It should be noted that the prices paid for, and composition of received non-ferrous material

impacts heavily on any projections for future revenue.

Based upon a median composition of materials received at a Saturn facility and current NF

resale values; projected sales figures have been generated (compare Table 6). This projection

assumes a recovery rate of 90% (in fact a rather conservative approach) of the contained metal,

which results in the mass recoveries given in Table 6. The annual throughput for the projection

is 18,000 t/yr.

A thorough explanation regarding the assumptions used in the financial projections can be

found in Appendix 1 – Details on financial projections.

The capital and operational investment costs involved in setting up and running a SATURN

facility are displayed in the tables below. Please note; interest rates, repayment terms, planning

costs and buildings and infrastructure costs will vary from project to project and are displayed

here for illustrative purposes only (the costs are deemed to be representative of the investment

required for developed business site within Europe).

6 Financials

21

6 | Financials

Table 4: Capital Investment requirements10

Capital Investment Description Cost (Euros)

Investment (Equipment and installations) ~ 1,700,000

Interest rate 6.5%

Depreciation period 10 years

Annuity (capex Equipment and installations) 235,000

Investment (mobile machines) ~ 200,000

Interest rate 6.5%

Depreciation period (10,000 h operating life) 3 years

Annuity(mobile machines) 75,000

Investment (buildings and infrastructure) ~ 1,800,000

Interest rate 6.5%


Annuity (buildings and infrastructure) 165,000

Planning costs (depreciated as per buildings and infrastructure) ~ 170,000

Interest rate 6.5%


Annuity (buildings and infrastructure) 15,000

Total of annual capital expenditures 490,000

The following table illustrates a profit and loss account for a Saturn facility operating given the

above criteria. Headline figures show that for an investment as outlined above, a Saturn facility

operating at 21,000 tonnes per annum can achieve the following:

Table 5: Profit and Loss - SATURN

Description Value (Euros)

Total sales 12.4m

Direct Expenditure (including purchase of input materials) 10.4m

Gross Profit 2m

Indirect costs (including depreciation) 0.9m

Profit margin (after tax) 7%

10 values rounded


22

Table 6: Exemplified cost benefit analysis

SATURN - Median Scenario; 90% mass recovery Profit and Loss - Year 1

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TotalINPUT MATERIAL NF concentrates 18,000 Tonnes/a 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 18,000

INCOME (Sales)Aluminium 1,240 !/Tonne 22.5 % mass recovery 418,500 418,500 418,500 418,500 418,500 418,500 418,500 418,500 418,500 418,500 418,500 418,500 5,022,000Aluminium Composites 450 !/Tonne 18 % mass recovery 121,500 121,500 121,500 121,500 121,500 121,500 121,500 121,500 121,500 121,500 121,500 121,500 1,458,000Copper 4,950 !/Tonne 2 % mass recovery 133,650 133,650 133,650 133,650 133,650 133,650 133,650 133,650 133,650 133,650 133,650 133,650 1,603,800Brass 3,370 !/Tonne 6 % mass recovery 278,025 278,025 278,025 278,025 278,025 278,025 278,025 278,025 278,025 278,025 278,025 278,025 3,336,300Zinc 600 !/Tonne 7 % mass recovery 63,000 63,000 63,000 63,000 63,000 63,000 63,000 63,000 63,000 63,000 63,000 63,000 756,000Stainless Steel 1,470 !/Tonne 1 % mass recovery 22,050 22,050 22,050 22,050 22,050 22,050 22,050 22,050 22,050 22,050 22,050 22,050 264,600Total income 1.036.725 1.036.725 1.036.725 1.036.725 1.036.725 1.036.725 1.036.725 1.036.725 1.036.725 1.036.725 1.036.725 1.036.725

DIRECT EXPENDITUREInput purchase 500 !/Tonne 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 9,000,000Disposal of residues 100 !/Tonne 44 % residue output 66,300 66,300 66,300 66,300 66,300 66,300 66,300 66,300 66,300 66,300 66,300 66,300 795,600Staffing costs 590,000 !/a 49,167 49,167 49,167 49,167 49,167 49,167 49,167 49,167 49,167 49,167 49,167 49,167 590,000Energy costs 60,000 !/a 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 60,000Total direct expenditure 870,467 870,467 870,467 870,467 870,467 870,467 870,467 870,467 870,467 870,467 870,467 870,467 10,445,600

TOTAL GROSS PROFIT 166,258 166,258 166,258 166,258 166,258 166,258 166,258 166,258 166,258 166,258 166,258 166,258 1,995,100

INDIRECT EXPENDITURESite Operating Costs

Rent and rates 200,000 !/a 16,667 16,667 16,667 16,667 16,667 16,667 16,667 16,667 16,667 16,667 16,667 16,667 200,000Maintenance & Utility Costs 120,000 !/a 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 120,000

OverheadsInsurance 20,000 !/a 1,667 1,667 1,667 1,667 1,667 1,667 1,667 1,667 1,667 1,667 1,667 1,667 20,000Sales and Marketing 40,000 !/a 3,333 3,333 3,333 3,333 3,333 3,333 3,333 3,333 3,333 3,333 3,333 3,333 40,000

OverheadsEquipment and installations 236,478 !/a 19,706 19,706 19,706 19,706 19,706 19,706 19,706 19,706 19,706 19,706 19,706 19,706 236,478Mobile Equipment 75,515 !/a 6,293 6,293 6,293 6,293 6,293 6,293 6,293 6,293 6,293 6,293 6,293 6,293 75,515Buildings 163,362 !/a 13,613 13,613 13,613 13,613 13,613 13,613 13,613 13,613 13,613 13,613 13,613 13,613 163,362Planing costs 15,429 !/a 1,286 1,286 1,286 1,286 1,286 1,286 1,286 1,286 1,286 1,286 1,286 1,286 15,429Total indirect expenditure 72,565 72,565 72,565 72,565 72,565 72,565 72,565 72,565 72,565 72,565 72,565 72,565 870,783

Net profit/(loss) 93,693 93,693 93,693 93,693 93,693 93,693 93,693 93,693 93,693 93,693 93,693 93,693 1,124,317Net profit/(%) 10 % 10 % 10 % 10 % 10 % 10 % 10 % 10 % 10 % 10 % 10 % 10 % 10 %

Corporation tax due 22 % 247,350

Profit (loss) for year (after tax) 876,967Profit margin (after tax) 7 %

23

6 | Financials

Table 6: Exemplified cost benefit analysis

SATURN - Median Scenario; 90% mass recovery Profit and Loss - Year 1

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TotalINPUT MATERIAL NF concentrates 18,000 Tonnes/a 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 18,000

INCOME (Sales)Aluminium 1,240 !/Tonne 22.5 % mass recovery 418,500 418,500 418,500 418,500 418,500 418,500 418,500 418,500 418,500 418,500 418,500 418,500 5,022,000Aluminium Composites 450 !/Tonne 18 % mass recovery 121,500 121,500 121,500 121,500 121,500 121,500 121,500 121,500 121,500 121,500 121,500 121,500 1,458,000Copper 4,950 !/Tonne 2 % mass recovery 133,650 133,650 133,650 133,650 133,650 133,650 133,650 133,650 133,650 133,650 133,650 133,650 1,603,800Brass 3,370 !/Tonne 6 % mass recovery 278,025 278,025 278,025 278,025 278,025 278,025 278,025 278,025 278,025 278,025 278,025 278,025 3,336,300Zinc 600 !/Tonne 7 % mass recovery 63,000 63,000 63,000 63,000 63,000 63,000 63,000 63,000 63,000 63,000 63,000 63,000 756,000Stainless Steel 1,470 !/Tonne 1 % mass recovery 22,050 22,050 22,050 22,050 22,050 22,050 22,050 22,050 22,050 22,050 22,050 22,050 264,600Total income 1.036.725 1.036.725 1.036.725 1.036.725 1.036.725 1.036.725 1.036.725 1.036.725 1.036.725 1.036.725 1.036.725 1.036.725

DIRECT EXPENDITUREInput purchase 500 !/Tonne 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 9,000,000Disposal of residues 100 !/Tonne 44 % residue output 66,300 66,300 66,300 66,300 66,300 66,300 66,300 66,300 66,300 66,300 66,300 66,300 795,600Staffing costs 590,000 !/a 49,167 49,167 49,167 49,167 49,167 49,167 49,167 49,167 49,167 49,167 49,167 49,167 590,000Energy costs 60,000 !/a 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 60,000Total direct expenditure 870,467 870,467 870,467 870,467 870,467 870,467 870,467 870,467 870,467 870,467 870,467 870,467 10,445,600

TOTAL GROSS PROFIT 166,258 166,258 166,258 166,258 166,258 166,258 166,258 166,258 166,258 166,258 166,258 166,258 1,995,100

INDIRECT EXPENDITURESite Operating Costs

Rent and rates 200,000 !/a 16,667 16,667 16,667 16,667 16,667 16,667 16,667 16,667 16,667 16,667 16,667 16,667 200,000Maintenance & Utility Costs 120,000 !/a 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 120,000

OverheadsInsurance 20,000 !/a 1,667 1,667 1,667 1,667 1,667 1,667 1,667 1,667 1,667 1,667 1,667 1,667 20,000Sales and Marketing 40,000 !/a 3,333 3,333 3,333 3,333 3,333 3,333 3,333 3,333 3,333 3,333 3,333 3,333 40,000

OverheadsEquipment and installations 236,478 !/a 19,706 19,706 19,706 19,706 19,706 19,706 19,706 19,706 19,706 19,706 19,706 19,706 236,478Mobile Equipment 75,515 !/a 6,293 6,293 6,293 6,293 6,293 6,293 6,293 6,293 6,293 6,293 6,293 6,293 75,515Buildings 163,362 !/a 13,613 13,613 13,613 13,613 13,613 13,613 13,613 13,613 13,613 13,613 13,613 13,613 163,362Planing costs 15,429 !/a 1,286 1,286 1,286 1,286 1,286 1,286 1,286 1,286 1,286 1,286 1,286 1,286 15,429Total indirect expenditure 72,565 72,565 72,565 72,565 72,565 72,565 72,565 72,565 72,565 72,565 72,565 72,565 870,783

Net profit/(loss) 93,693 93,693 93,693 93,693 93,693 93,693 93,693 93,693 93,693 93,693 93,693 93,693 1,124,317Net profit/(%) 10 % 10 % 10 % 10 % 10 % 10 % 10 % 10 % 10 % 10 % 10 % 10 % 10 %

Corporation tax due 22 % 247,350

Profit (loss) for year (after tax) 876,967Profit margin (after tax) 7 %


24

6.2 Sensitivity analysisAs described earlier, the quality, composition and price paid for input materials has a direct

influence on the financial projection of the facility. Mean recovery rates have been used for

the earlier financial projection and are therefore representative of an average facility. However,

profitability of each SATURN facility will vary with the mass recovery of the valuable compo-

nents. For example:

if the mass recovery of aluminium is decreased from 23% to 19% and the 4% of material

becomes residue, this would decrease the net profit from about 870,000 !/yr to 250,000 !/yr

if the mass recovery of copper is increased by 1% the net profit would increase to about

1.75 million !/yr

The chart below represents the relationship between each input material stream and it’s direct

influence on the financial projections.

Figure 5: Variation of the mass recovery of the components against the residual stream

As represented in the figure above, the composition of the incoming NF concentrate has a direct

bearing on the net profitability of the SATURN plant. As NF metals have varying re-sale values,

the composition of the incoming material by percentage can impact on the profitability of the

plant at a lesser or greater extent depending on the percentage of metal type received.

When considering the figure above, the higher the gradient of the non-ferrous metal compo-

nent, the more sensitive the net profit of the process reacts on changes in the mass recovery

of the metal type. For example a slight increase in the recovered percentage of copper has a

greater increase in profitability of the plant when compared to the same recovery percentage

increase in zinc.

25

6 | Financials

6.3 Break-even-point analysisThe break-even-point analysis examines at which annual throughput the process becomes prof-

itable. Factors that can influence a break-even point analysis include:

the costs for the input material

the yield and composition input material

annual throughput

process residues and disposal costs.

In order to demonstrate the variation in possible break even projections, four scenarios were

chosen to show a realistic spread of input materials.

The expenditures were calculated using the same assumptions as used in the financial projec-

tions. The scenarios (input data is shown in Appendix 2 – Scenarios used for Break-even-point

analysis) are as follows:

High residue content

Median composition

Low residues, high heavy metals

Low residues, high aluminium content

Figure 6 illustrates the four scenarios as described above and shows the break-even point as a

function of the annual throughput.

Figure 6: Break Even Point analysis given a number of scenarios


26

As shown in Figure 6, the projected break-even point of a SATURN plant operating at 18,000 t/yr

is heavily influenced by the composition of the incoming NF concentrate.

The median (projected) composition shows that a SATURN plant would need to operate at a

minimum ~9,000 t/yr to break-even. An optimistic projection (high heavy metals content, low

residue) would break even at ~3,000 t/yr.

However, less optimistic projections showing high residue content shows the plant operating

at a loss per annum even at full capacity. Analysis of low residue input material high in alu-

minium would require in the region of 15,000 t/yr before the plant reached a break-even point.

The scenarios above demonstrate the importance of securing a consistent, high quality input

of non-ferrous material in order to maximise the financial performance of a SATURN plant.

27

7 | Replication Strategy

Replication is an important process that is based on the demonstration of a new and profit-

able concept followed by the development and refinement of a successful and useful business

model. It bases on market demands and especially the needs and constraints of small and me-

dium enterprises. Market replication in EU27 was ensured by considering waste materials from

different EU countries, which were identified as suitable input material for the technique. The

SATURN project was able to demonstrate high levels of NF metal recovery at above 98%, which

will provide the basis for confidence within a rapidly developing market to enable economic,

environmentally friendly recycling benefiting the NF metal industries. Furthermore the level

of MBT technology application in EU member states (Figure 7) outlines the feedstock potential

in the different member states. The future projections show that MBT technology is and will

expand as an important treatment option in waste management on European scale.

Figure 7: MBT in Europe - current status and future development11

aThe process becomes economically viable at an annual throughput of ~9,000 t for an average

composition. According to average MBT plant sizes the SATURN process proves to be applicable

as a centralized treatment solution that requires a number of MBT plants as suppliers for the

NF concentrates.

The SATURN demonstration project has not only shown that the technical concept works but

that it can be profitable. Successful replication strategies are not static but dynamic concepts,

which need to go through further refinement processes.

7 Replication Strategy

10 Steiner, M. MBT in Europe – there is life in the old dog yet. Waste Management World, issue 07/08 2007


28

The refinement of the business model is supported by the practical demonstrations and uptake

of the SATURN process. It requires further analysis especially with regard to the international

market to evaluate regional influences and conditions. This final phase of exploitation in other

communities and countries results in a wider proof of concept and pushes the dissemination of

success through the business world. This publication has been developed to aid and assist this

dynamic replication strategy in order to implement the innovation in automated sensor sort-

ing in recycling plants in Europe. This is in line with the aims of the Eco Innovation funding

programme, namely to establish a clear competitive edge in the waste management business for

European companies and to develop new markets.

The creation and operation of a number of similar modular NF sensor sorting plants will cer-

tainly enable growth and development in this area. It will reduce costs and improve the ef-

fectiveness of the supporting infrastructures, especially the MBT plants that provide the input

materials. As part of the replication strategy, the partners involved in this “first of its kind”

demonstration project will be available to provide information and general support to any

companies wishing to move into the automated sensor sorting of MSW to recover and recycle

non-ferrous metals.

Eco-technologies are seen as central to Lead Markets and are strongly indicated as the most

natural candidates to respond to the effect of regulation on their market uptake (Communica-

tion of September 2006 “Putting knowledge into practice”). These eco-technologies are seen as

key to the “Greening” of the European Commissions Industrial Policy, which has a high profile

as a high-priority political initiative. Such projects as SATURN are a small step in this process

and can respond to this political drivers and aims. There is a growing interest in the business

sector in new environmental and recycling technologies especially in view of the fact that

world prices in these commodities are increasing, as well as the. However, the waste manage-

ment sector requires convincing evidence that any investment in a new treatment process will

result in a robust, effective and profitable system. The financial analysis made on the SATURN

process has clearly shown that this is the case.

29

8 | Summary

Generally the profitability of the SATURN process depends on the available quantities and

qualities of input material. The break-even point analysis underlines that larger installations

are usually more profitable for the same type of input material and increasing shares of certain

components can strongly influence the economic performance.

The successful SATURN demonstration has proven that initial potential estimations could be

realized on industrial scale, providing a profitable alternative process for the recovery of valu-

able non-ferrous metals from MBT plants in Europe. At the start of the SATURN project no

comparable or similar solutions for the treatment of non-ferrous metal concentrates from MBT

plants were available in Europe. Results obtained have clearly shown that the usage of existing

technologies in a new operative design can provide a step forward for a Europe wide economi-

cally and environmentally applicable solution to utilise the concentrate streams. As a result of

the implementation of the EU waste framework directive, the pre-processing of waste materials

before their disposal in landfills or thermal treatment will become a necessity and waste opera-

tors will then have to look for effective and economic viable processing routes to reach these

requirements.

The adaption of new and innovative technologies like x-ray sorting systems in processing

plants opens a new path for the utilisation of this resource potential. The concept of the SAT-

URN treatment plant was specially designed and tested to accommodate the fluctuations in the

composition of incoming materials. Results have more than justified the confidence in using

automated sensor sorting technologies for the recovery of non-ferrous metals from MBT con-

centrates.

With the final justification of the sensor sorters established during continuous optimisation, re-

covery rates of above 98% of Al compounds, Al profiles, Copper, Brass and Zinc has been meas-

ured in test runs with real scale throughputs in the demonstration plant in Salzgitter, Germany.

The SWOT analysis carried out in the frame of this report shows that there is a clear market for

eco technologies such as SATURN.

Under current market conditions it is estimated to reach the break-even point at an annual

throughput roughly between 3,000 Mg/yr to 9,000 Mg/yr, depending on input material and

site-specific circumstances. It can only be seen as a centralised treatment of NF-concentrates

from different sources and not as a solution to upgrade NF-concentrates in single MBT plants.

8 Summary


30

This has been a very interesting and successful project for all the partners involved and it goes

a long way to show that joint collaboration between academia and industry can result in effec-

tive cooperation starting with a university pilot scale project, finding the right application (NF

metals recovery from MSW) and ending in a feasibility demonstration and technology transfer

between different partners.

It has not been possible to put all the experience acquired whilst working on the SATURN pro-

ject in this one document, but the authors and project partners would be happy to provide any

further information that might help other SMEs to invest in and operate similar plants based on

the SATURN concept and design.

31

8 | Summary


32

Input Material InformationThe technical and economic performance depends on the composition of the input material. The

valuable contents (in this case non-ferrous metals) differ depending on the source for the input

materials and regional consumption differences.

The displayed output calculations and revenues therefore require adaptation to available input materials.

Income:The sales revenues from the different products depend on market fluctuations and existence of

a purchase market for the products. Additional income could be generated through the demand

for payments for the acceptance of materials for treatment (gate fees) as it happens in landfills

or waste incineration plants from the concentrate producer.

Direct Expenditure:Input purchase costs are the opposite of gate fees. In this case the acquisition of the input ma-

terials carries costs for the plant operator. In case of concentrates of valuable materials (as in

the case of non-ferrous metals) this is the more likely. Depending on the revenues for the puri-

fied components these costs vary accordingly. If residual components are present in the input

material these will be most likely only be suitable for disposal after separation and thus carry

costs (disposal of residues).

The staff costs reflect the costs for manpower that is necessary to operate the technical installa-

tions of a plant with all connected maintenance and material management operations. The costs

connected to separate positions vary depending on the training requirements for the respective

employment (e.g. hand picker, driver, technical manager, etc.) and the applied payment regula-

tions (e.g. regional and industrial dependencies).

The energy costs depend on the installed capacity, the type of energy carrier (e.g. oil, diesel,

electricity, heat, etc.) and annual operation time.

Number of engines * power * running time * costs per unit of energy

E.g. A * X [kW] * Y [h/yr] * Z [!/kWh] = energy costs [!/yr]

Rent and rates occur for rented equipment or buildings or temporary staff.

Appendix 1 – Details on financial projections

33

Maintenance and utility costs depend on the processed materials and the connected wearing

of the installations. Estimates for maintenance costs are:

Building maintenance depends on type of installations usually estimated with 1 % of the

investment costs as annual costs

Equipment and installations maintenance is usually estimated with 3 % of the investment

costs as annual costs

Mobile equipment maintenance is usually estimated with 7 % of the investment costs as

annual costs

The insurance costs for machinery and installations vary depending on the item (e.g. process-

ing machines, mobile equipment, buildings, etc.). Estimates for insurance costs are:

Building insurance depends on type of installations usually estimated with 0.2 % of the

investment costs as annual costs

Equipment and installations insurance depends on type of installations usually estimated

with 0.7 % of the investment costs as annual costs

Indirect Expenditure:The indirect expenditures are overhead for manpower that is not directly required for the tech-

nical plant operation, tax payments, profit and depreciation.

The capital costs differ depending on the applied interest rates and the depreciation time and

the total investment for a plant. The depreciation can be calculated depending on the average

life span of items. In this case it is differentiated between processing equipment, mobile equip-

ment, buildings and planning costs. Regarding the life span increased maintenance efforts

can be used to increase the life span of items and contribute to reduced annual depreciation

expenditures.

Table 7: Calculation model for capital expenditures

Capex

Investment costs [!] 10,000,000

Interest rate 6.5%

Depreciation period [yr] 10

Annuity factor [1/yr] ~ 0.14

Annuity [!/yr] ~1,400,000

Annuity factor:

Appendix 1 – Details on financial projections

i = interest raten = depreciation period


34

Examples for indirect staff are salaries for employees responsible for input and product market-

ing, accounting, administration and other consulting positions. The necessary manpower for

these positions depends mainly on the enterprise size and the necessity of each position.

Framework conditions for the business model:The costs for the equipment, installations and buildings depend on a number of factors which

are necessary to be incorporated in a concrete planning process that is based on the business

model:

1. Legal requirements

Plant development

Emission reduction

Security requirements

Etc.

2. Labour costs (national, regional)

National, Regional

Implementation of collective labour agreements

Required level of profession

3. Plant Development

Available vs. required level of present infrastructure

Road works, grounding, energy and water supply

4. Annual throughput/magnitude

Size of installations and number of processing lines

Necessary space

Necessary manpower

The results from the business show an example for a plant that is comparable to the SATURN

test facility, which is developed on a site where basic infrastructure such as energy supply and

grounding for buildings is available. Additional costs that are strongly depending on the market

competition are for example project management costs.

The costs for the development of infrastructure and buildings or the labour costs are strongly

subjected to regional differences especially between countries. Therefore an adaption of the

model in the business plan to the regional conditions is required in a specific plant design and

cost benefit analysis.

35

Appendix 2 – Scenarios used for Break-even-point analysis

The tables below show the data used for the different scenarios as provided in the break-even-

point analysis. It is noteworthy that different prices in accordance with the quality of the NF

concentrates have been assumed and were considered in the scenarios. In each scenario the

framed values were taken. Furthermore the calculation takes into account that with each com-

menced 6,000 t/yr an extra shift (workers, energy) is required. Business tax of 22% on profit

has also been considered.

Appendix 2 – Scenarios used for Break-even-point analysis


36

Notes

37

Notes

This combined report was carried out in the frame of the SATURN project as one of the

publications to be made available to the public. It provides an indication about the

potential of the Saturn project in terms of a market evaluation of the process able to

contribute to the EU directives, a basic business plan for SMEs, a summary cost analysis

and replication strategy in the area of recycling of NF metals from enriched outputs from

mixed waste processing plants. Calculations in this document are based on actual inputs

and obtained recovery results (verified by smelting tests) of the Salzgitter demonstration

plant and therefore should only be taken as a guideline. More detailed information can be

obtained from the SATURN coordinator. Project publications can be found on the project

Internet site.

The SATURN project has proved to be very successful and has demonstrated a unique

recovery/enrichment process based on the use of sensor sorting automated equipment to

separate out the valuable NF metals from mixed municipal solid waste after initial treatment

in mechanical biological treatment facilities.

www.saturn.rwth-aachen.de

EU Eco Innovation Programme: www. ec.europa.eu/ecoinnovation

Disclaimer

The sole responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the authors. It does

not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Communities. The European Com-

mission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained

therein.

Le contenu de cette publication n‘engage que la responsabilité de son auteur et ne re-

présente pas nécessairement l‘opinion de la Communauté européenne. La Commission

européenne n‘est pas responsable de l‘usage qui pourrait être fait des informations qui

y figurent.

Die alleinige Verantwortung für den Inhalt dieser Publikation liegt bei den AutorInnen.

Sie gibt nicht unbedingt die Meinung der Europäischen Gemeinschaften wieder. Die

Europäische Kommission übernimmt keine Verantwortung für jegliche Verwendung der

darin enthaltenen Informationen.

combined business evaluation report - rwth aachen · saturn provides a solution to this by...

Documents