Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Appendices
CONTENTS
Appendix 1 Assumptions made in collection models
Appendix 2 Assumptions in operational cost
Appendix 3 Sensitivity analysis results
Appendix 4 Non-variable parameters as used in the further analysis of the option appraisal
Appendix 5 Massflows for modelled scenarios (2015/16)
Appendix 6 Assessment of environmental, socio-economic and operational objectives
Appendix 7 Sensitivity analysis of weighting factors
Appendix 8 Financial Modelling Results Report – Ernst & Young
AEA Energy and Environment AEA In Confidence
AEA Energy and Environment AEA In Confidence
Appendix 1 Assumptions made in collection models
Table 1A: Typical variables in collection models
Variable Range of variable Recyclability of items ± 50% of baseline for each material Set-out rate ± 10% points of baseline Capture rate ± 10% points of baseline Coverage factor Incorporated in set-out rate Number of households Output from variation of growth rate Collection frequency Weekly or fortnightly Number of operatives on vehicle ± 1 operative Average distance to delivery point 5 – 20 km Round length of collection (for 1 full load) 40 - 80 km Turnaround time 15 – 60 minutes Average road speed 10 – 40 km/h Table 1B: Assumptions for different container types
Variable Wheeled bin 240l
Wheeled bin 140l
Box 55l
Sack
Cost of container & sack (£/container)
15 - 20 15-20 2 - 10 0.03 – 0.06
Container & sack life span (years) 5 - 10 5 - 10 1 - 5
1 bag per week/fortnigh
t Time to put sack or waste from container into vehicle (seconds/container)
20 - 40 20 - 40 20 - 40
10 - 20
Table 1C: Assumptions made for typical vehicle types
8x4 RCV 6x4 RVC Kerbside sorting vehicle
Payload 11 - 12 10 - 11 4.5 – 5.5 Vehicle Cost (£/year) 100,000 –
150,000 60,000 – 100,000
25,000 - 45,000
Depreciation period of vehicle (years)
5 - 10 5 - 10 5 - 10
Fixed costs (£) 14,000 - 19,000 14,000 - 19,000
14,000 - 19,000
Tyre Price (£) 2,400 – 3,000 2,400 – 3,000 2,400 – 3,000 Tyre life (km) 35,000 – 45,000 35,000 –
45,000 35,000 – 45,000
Fuel consumption (km/l) 2.0 – 2.5 2.0 – 2.5 2.0 – 2.5 Fuel cost (£/l) 0.7 – 1.2 0.7 – 1.2 0.7 – 1.2
AEA Energy and Environment AEA In Confidence
AEA Energy and Environment AEA In Confidence
Oil (£/km 0.011 – 0.014 0.011 – 0.014 0.011 – 0.014 Maintenance (£/km) 0.22 – 0.27 0.22 – 0.27 0.22 – 0.27
Appendix 2 Assumptions in operational cost
Table 2A: Assumptions made for calculation of operational cost
Opex Biowaste compostin
g MRF EfW
Pyrolysis/ Gasificatio
n MBT
Capacity (ktpa)* 90 (3) 60 (1) 200 (1) 200 200 Staff number 20 - 35 40 - 50 35-45 70 - 90 45 - 70 Labour cost (£/year) 20,000 –
30,000 20,000 – 30,000
20,000 – 30,000
20,000 – 30,000
20,000 – 30,000
Overheads (%) 10 – 20 10 – 20 10 – 20 10 – 20 10 – 20 Consumables (fuel, power) (£/t)
2 - 3 2 - 3 0.5 – 2 1 - 3 2 - 5
Vehicle on site (£/t) 2 - 3 2 - 3 0.5 - 2 0.5 - 2 2 - 5 Insurance. Permits (£)
9,000 – 15,000
9,000 – 15,000
30,000 – 50,000
30,000 – 50,000
30,000 – 50,000
Transport distance for rejects (km)
0 - 20 0 - 20 0 - 20 0 - 20 0 - 20
Transport cost for rejects (£/km)
1.5 – 1.8 1.5 – 1.8 1.5 – 1.8 1.5 – 1.8 1.5 – 1.8
Transport distance for products (km)
15 - 35 20 - 200 15 - 35
Transport cost for products (£/km)
1.5 – 1.8 1.5 – 1.8 1.5 – 1.8 1.5 – 1.8 1.5 – 1.8
Compost testing (£/t)
1 – 3 1 – 3
Compost marketing (£/t)
0.5 - 2 2 - 10
Transport distance for RDF (km)
10 - 100
RDF combustion cost (£/t)
30 - 100
Electricity generation (kWh/t)
450 - 575 400 – 500
+
Revenue from electricity (£/kWh)
7 - 8
Revenue from recyclates (£/tonne)
0 - 15 0 - 15 0 - 15
Revenue from recyclates/compost (£/tonne)
0 - 5 -10 - 2
* Number in brackets indicate the number of facilities assumed
AEA Energy and Environment AEA In Confidence
+ Generally should be higher than EfW at 500-600 kWh/t. Value of electricity generation has been lowered to account for total capacity of unsorted waste.
Appendix 3 Sensitivity analysis results
Figure 3A: Top 10 EfW variables (post stakeholder consultation)
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
Influ
ence
Was
te G
row
thR
ate
Per H
H
Cap
ture
rate
of
recy
clab
les
Cap
ture
rate
of
orga
nics
Cos
t of r
esid
ual
was
te c
olle
ctio
npe
r hh
Hou
seho
ld G
row
th
Tota
l BM
W
Con
trac
t Life
Cos
t of o
rgan
icre
cycl
able
s pe
r hh
Cos
t of d
ryre
cycl
able
s pe
r hh
Cos
t of L
ATs
allo
wan
ces
Input Variables Figure 3B: Top 10 Gasification/pyrolysis variables (post stakeholder consultation)
AEA Energy and Environment AEA In Confidence
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
Influ
ence
Was
te G
row
thR
ate
Per H
H
Cap
ture
rate
of
recy
clab
les
Cap
ture
rate
of
orga
nics
Cos
t of r
esid
ual
was
te c
olle
ctio
npe
r hh
Tota
l BM
W
Cos
t of d
ryre
cycl
able
s pe
rhh
Hou
seho
ldG
row
th
Con
trac
t Life
Cos
t of L
ATs
Allo
wan
ces
Cos
t of o
rgan
icre
cycl
able
s pe
rhh
Input Variables
Figure 3C: Top 10 MBT variables (post stakeholder consultation)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Influ
ence
MB
T C
ompo
stR
ecyc
led
Was
te G
row
thR
ate
Per H
H
Cap
ture
rate
of
orga
nics
Hou
seho
ldG
row
th
Cos
t of r
esid
ual
was
te c
olle
ctio
npe
r hh
Tota
l BM
W
Cap
ture
rate
of
recy
clab
les
Cos
t of d
ryre
cycl
able
s pe
rhh
Cos
t of o
rgan
icre
cycl
able
s pe
rhh
Con
trac
t Life
Input Variables
AEA Energy and Environment AEA In Confidence
Appendix 4 Non-variable parameters as used in the further analysis of the option appraisal
Table 4A: Non variable parameter values for wasteflow and financial analysis
Parameter Sensitivity analysis – Section 4
Option appraisal – Section 5
Comments
LATS allocations (beyond 2020)
Decreases by 0-100% of 2020 value
50%
Defra may decrease the allowances after 2020, hence parameter is profiled to 50% by 2030.
Biodegradability of MSW 60% - 75% 68% MBT Compost
10%
MBT RDF 50% MBT RDF &Compost
30%
MBT rejects 50% MRF reject 50% Biowaste reject
20%
Average biodegradable content of process streams and rejects
10% - 50% for all
Green waste reject
20%
A reject rate has been set for each of the facilities.
Contract life period 20 – 30 years 25
Discount rate 5 – 15% (including profit) 10%
Landfill gate fee £12 - £30 £21
Landfill tax (beyond 2011)
Maximum value £35-70 (profiled to 2020) £52.5
Defra may increase tax after 2011, hence parameter profiled to 50% of maximum range by 2020.
LATS value £0 - £150 £75 Assumed same value for buying and selling LATS.
Capital expenditure - 10% points to +30% of baseline cost 0%
This parameter was not identified as important in the sensitivity analysis and therefore has been kept constant at baseline cost
Gate fee for green waste composting
£15 - £40 per tonne £27.5 per tonne
Gate fee for CA sites £15 - £30 per tonne £22.5 per tonne
Gate fee for transfer stations
£6 - £30 per tonne £18 per tonne
AEA Energy and Environment AEA In Confidence
Table 4B: Non-variable parameter values for green waste & biowaste composting and MRF Process loss Rejects Range Average Range Average Green waste composting 20-30 25 5-15 10 Biowaste composting 20 20 5-15 10 MRF 5–25 15 Table 4C: Non-variable parameter values for thermal treatment Process loss Inerts/metals Bottom ash/
fly ash Ash recovered
Range Average Range Average Range Average Range Average EfW 60-67 63.5 5 5 28-35 31.5 0–90 45 Pyrolysis/ gasification
60-67 63.5 5 5 28-35 31.5 0–80
Table 4D: Non-variable parameters values for MBT technology Process loss Inerts/metals Compost recycled RDF Rejects Range Average Range Average Range Average Range Average Range Average
MBT
15-25 24 3-15 6 0-30 25 0-50 25 Difference
Difference
AEA Energy and Environment AEA In Confidence
Appendix 5 Massflows for modelled scenarios (2015/16)
Figure 5A: Massflow of EfW scenario (2015/16)
Figure 5B: Massflow of gasification/pyrolysis scenario (2015/16)
AEA Energy and Environment AEA In Confidence
Figure 5C: Massflow of MBT scenario producing compost (2015/16)
Figure 5D: Massflow of MBT scenario producing RDF (2015/16)
AEA Energy and Environment AEA In Confidence
Appendix 6 Assessment of environmental, socio-economic and operational objectives
This Appendix provides the methodology and the evaluation results of all assessment criteria considering the environmental, social and economic objectives. Below a summary table is presented to provide an overview of all results followed by detailed evaluation results for all option appraisals.
EfW Gas/Pyr MBT RDF
MBT Compost
MBT Mix
Environmental 42.67 51.76 15.99 7.59 - Socio-economic 11.24 10.83 2.23 3.84 -
Operational 14.68 15.73 15.12 14.80 - High Waste
Growth Total 68.59 78.31 33.34 26.23 -
Environmental 41.54 51.67 16.64 8.35 - Socio-economic 11.24 10.66 2.19 3.83 -
Operational 14.68 15.73 15.12 14.80 - Low Waste
Growth Total 67.46 78.05 33.95 26.97 -
Environmental 42.12 49.24 13.56 11.20 - Socio-economic 11.24 10.77 2.33 3.69 -
Operational 14.68 15.73 15.12 14.80 - High Capture
Rate Total 68.04 75.74 31.00 29.68 -
Environmental 43.95 51.79 15.20 5.45 - Socio-economic 11.24 11.30 2.30 3.74 -
Operational 14.68 15.73 15.12 14.80 - Low Capture
Rate Total 69.87 78.81 32.63 23.99 -
Environmental 42.25 51.70 15.99 7.80 - Socio-economic 11.24 11.20 2.35 3.85 -
Operational 14.68 15.73 15.12 14.80 - High BMW
Total 68.17 78.63 33.45 26.45 - Environmental 42.25 51.70 15.99 7.80 - Socio-economic 11.24 11.20 2.35 3.85 -
Operational 14.68 15.73 15.12 14.80 - Low BMW
Total 68.17 78.63 33.45 26.45 - Environmental 42.25 51.70 15.99 7.80 - Socio-economic 11.24 11.20 2.35 3.85 -
Operational 14.68 15.73 15.12 14.80 - High Collection
Costs Total 68.17 78.63 33.45 26.45 -
Environmental 42.25 51.70 15.99 7.80 - Socio-economic 11.24 11.20 2.35 3.83 -
Operational 14.68 15.73 15.12 14.80 - Low Collection
Costs Total 68.17 78.63 33.46 26.42 -
Environmental 42.22 50.88 32.06 6.17 18.19 Socio-economic 11.24 11.16 2.60 6.85 2.35
Operational 14.68 13.24 14.08 15.18 11.95 High
Compost/RDF Total 68.14 75.28 48.74 28.20 32.49
Environmental 42.30 49.85 9.52 7.78 22.22 Socio-economic 11.24 11.46 2.74 6.15 3.23
Operational 14.68 15.73 13.40 15.88 16.34 Low
Compost/RDF Total 68.22 77.04 25.67 29.81 41.80
AEA Energy and Environment AEA In Confidence
Contents of detailed option appraisal results
1 Environmental Criteria 2 1.1 METHODOLOGY 2 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL BURDENS 2
1.2.1 WISARD criteria 2 1.2.2 ASSESSMENT OF NON WISARD criteria 4
2 Other assessment criteria 6 2.1 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CRITERIA: 6 2.2 OPERATIONAL CRITERIA: 6
3 Results 7 3.1 HIGH BMW RECYCLING 7 3.2 LOW BMW RECYCLING 9 3.3 HIGH CAPTURE RATE 11 3.4 LOW CAPTURE RATE 13 3.5 HIGH COLLECTION COSTS 15 3.6 LOW COLLECTION COSTS 17 3.7 HIGH GROWTH RATE 19 3.8 LOW GROWTH RATE 21 3.9 HIGH RDF/COMPOST 23 3.10 LOW RDF/COMPOST 26
AEA Energy and Environment 1 AEA In Confidence
1 Environmental Criteria
1.1 METHODOLOGY
The assessment (of some of the environmental objective indicators) has included a life-cycle analysis using the Environment Agency’s WISARD model - Waste-Integrated Systems Assessment for Recovery and Disposal (WISARD). The model evaluates the environmental burdens of waste management operations and can compare one scenario against another. Additionally, for indicators such as ‘extent of odour and dust problems’ a subjective assessment based on professional judgement has been made.
The waste mass flows for each of the scenarios together with the assumed compositional data have been used to derive the input data for WISARD – essentially the tonnages that describe the various waste streams and their collection, treatment and disposal routes. WISARD utilises the ‘avoided burden’ methodology for determining environmental burdens. Credits are allocated to those processes that recycle waste - by calculating the virgin materials and energy that would have been required to produce products if the recycling process had not been undertaken. Credits are also assigned to scenarios producing energy e.g. incineration or landfill gas, as they avoid the production of electricity from fossil fuel sources. This difference, in energy and/or material utilisation, is the ‘avoided burden’.
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL BURDENS
1.2.1 WISARD criteria Waste management functions will give rise to various environmental burdens. For the purposes of this environmental assessment, the WISARD analysis of five key impacts typically found to be significant as a result of waste management processes are reported. These are: • climate change • air acidification • ground level ozone formation • eutrophication of water • depletion of non-renewable resources. In addition, a Human Toxicity assessment is also reported providing a measure of the potential (of net toxic emissions to the environment) to cause harm to human health. WISARD contains a number of assessment methodologies for aggregating the emissions that contribute to these environmental burdens and expressing the total amount as an equivalent quantity of a particular pollutant. The assessment methodologies used by WISARD are summarised in Table A6- 1 and briefly discussed below.
AEA Energy and Environment 2 AEA In Confidence
Table A6- 1: Environmental Burden Assessment Methodologies
Impact Assessment methodology Equivalence unit
Climate change IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) greenhouse gas –direct effect 100 year
weight of CO2 equivalent
Air acidification CML (Centre of Environmental Science) – atmospheric acidification
weight of hydrogen ions H+ equivalent
Ground level ozone formation
WMO (World Meteorological Office) Photochemical Oxidant Creation Potential (POCP) (average)
weight of ethylene equivalent
Eutrophication CML (Centre of Environmental Science) – eutrophication (water)
weight of phosphate (PO4) equivalent
DEPLETION OF NON RENEWABLE RESOURCES
EB (yr) index expressed as 1/year
Climate change There is now an international consensus that emissions of greenhouse gases are responsible for ‘global warming’ or 'Global climate change’. Global climate change could lead to substantial changes in global temperatures, weather patterns and sea levels, with subsequent effects in a diverse number of areas, e.g. agriculture, water resources, human health, natural ecosystems. The main sources of greenhouse gases from a waste management perspective are methane (CH4) emissions from landfill sites and carbon dioxide (CO2) from the combustion of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels including; vehicle fuels (e.g. diesel in the operation of refuse vehicles), power station fuel sources to produce electricity used at waste treatment facilities and the combustion of fossil fuel originated material, such as plastics, in EfW plants. CO2 emissions from the combustion or degradation of ‘organic’ material such as putrescibles and paper are not considered to contribute to climate change, as they are carbon neutral – they release carbon that was originally sequestered from the air. Waste management scenarios that produce energy (e.g. EfW plant and/or beneficial use of landfill gas) will assist in reducing greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the amount of fossil fuels required to produce the equivalent quantity of electricity – the assumption is made that the displaced power generation capacity is from coal fired plants. Recycling has a similar effect in that it often saves energy in the production of raw materials. Atmospheric acidification Emission of acid gases into the air can have a number of environmental impacts at a local to regional level, including effects on human health, sensitive ecosystems, soiling and deterioration of building facades, forest decline and acidification of lakes. The main acid gases arising from waste management operations are sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX) and hydrogen chloride (HCl). NOX are emitted whenever fuels are burnt, and the main source of SO2 is combustion of coal and oil. HCl is mainly emitted from EfW plants. Overall, there are possibilities for reducing emissions wherever energy is recovered from waste treatment facilities (e.g. EfW plant), or saved through recycling. Ground level ozone formation Ozone is highly reactive and is known to affect human health, crops, forests and some materials such as natural rubbers. Ozone at ground level (tropospheric ozone) is formed by reactions between NOX and hydrocarbons or volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The
AEA Energy and Environment 3 AEA In Confidence
chemical reactions involved are complex and depend on climatic conditions and relative concentrations of NOX and VOCs. It is therefore difficult to estimate the magnitude of this impact very accurately from total emissions of VOCs and the results should be interpreted with caution. In waste management, landfills gases are one of the main sources of VOCs. Eutrophication of water The release of compounds containing the nutritive elements nitrogen, phosphorus or organic matter, can lead to eutrophication of lakes and in some case rivers and coastal marine waters. The accumulation of nutritive elements in the water leads to the growth of particular types of algae, resulting in a subsequent depletion of oxygen in the water, and a change in species living in the body of water (e.g. the disappearance of fish such as trout). Leachate from landfills and treatment facilities are the main source of such compounds in waste management. Depletion of non-renewable resources The world contains limited resources of both minerals and fossil fuels (i.e. coal, oil and gas), and the depletion of such resources is important when assessing the sustainability of any particular scenario. Some waste management scenarios produce energy (electricity) that would otherwise be generated from coal-fired power stations, so the consumption of coal is avoided. Also, the recycling of plastics reduces the amount of oil that is required during the manufacture of new plastic products using virgin materials. 1.2.2 ASSESSMENT OF NON WISARD criteria Environmental effects include a range of local factors that are not accounted for within assessments such as LCA which only account on mass and energy flows alone. In planning terms the impact of a waste management infrastructure will be based around the number and type of facilities that are envisaged and at a generic level the potential for these types of facility to cause nuisance. The local planning issues considered in this option appraisal: • Landtake (hectares) - The area of land estimated to be occupied by the waste
management system is estimated from the facilities that will be employed and the amount of residual waste sent to landfill.
• Extent of odour problems (performance score) - The odour potential of facilities is
often very similar although MBT technologies with composting and mechanical separation processes, pose slightly higher risk than the thermal treatment facilities.
• Extent of dust problems (performance score) - MBT processing facilities display a
higher potential of dust generation compared to EfW and pyrolysis/gasification technologies.
• Visual and landscape impacts (performance score) - Generally, technologies
requiring more sites for processing facilities, have a higher impact on the landscape. An EfW plant can be seen as the most intrusive on the landscape due to the need for the chimney. Landfill is generally remote and of limited height (although not underestimating the overall impact of landform change) and therefore scores lowest.
• Extent of noise problems (performance score) - MBT technology and recycling
facilities such as MRF or composting have the highest potential for noise problems within the mechanical separation and processing.
AEA Energy and Environment 4 AEA In Confidence
• Extent of litter and vermin problems (performance score) - MBT facilities are likely
to generate more litter and to attract more vermin than thermal treatment plants although landfill is also seen as a risk of litter and vermin problem.
• Extent of water pollution (performance score) - Generally the higher use of landfill
the higher the potential for water pollution. Given that the planning issues are normally specific to individual facilities the assessment has been made by ascribing performance scores to each type of facility used and then multiplying the number of facilities by the score. These resultant scores are then totalled under each criterion giving a total score for each scenario. The scores under each criterion for each type of facility have been generated by consultation with waste management professionals and planners to derive a professional judgement of the potential of the particular facility type to cause the problem. Other environmental non-WISARD indicators are transport related, because the amount travelled for collection, treatment and disposal and delivery to markets is an important factor increasing the emissions related to transport. The impact on air quality was evaluated by the WISARD analysis. However, the congestion, disruption and noise caused by the vehicles on the residential streets are also important aspects that will hold up other traffic and thereby cause additional pollution. Assessment criteria used in the option appraisal: • Total transport distance (thousand kilometres) • Proportion of non-motorway & dual carriageway transport (%)
AEA Energy and Environment 5 AEA In Confidence
2 Other assessment criteria
Other assessment criteria include socio-economic aspects operational criteria.
2.1 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CRITERIA:
To provide local employment opportunities Number of jobs estimated to be required for the whole waste management system by 2015. This includes waste transfer stations, HWRCs, waste processing facilities, landfill sites and collection services. Number of potential jobs at reprocessor is excluded.
To provide opportunities for public involvement/education An important task for local authorities in future is to raise awareness regarding the issues of waste generation and to involve the public actively in waste minimisation, re-use and recycling/composting. Therefore the opportunity for the public to get involved is an important factor to improve recycling performances. The modelling of this criteria can involve number of households on the kerbside collection services for dry recyclables/ organics, number of bring schemes, access to recycling facilities etc.
To minimise total costs of waste management Total costs of waste management are calculated with AEA’s Wasteflow model and include cost of collection services and the calculation of gate fees for processing facilities based on the capital and operational expenditure over a 25 year contract life. However, as there are many unknown variables that can influence overall waste treatment and disposal costs, these cost estimates are provided on best evidence and should be seen as guidance only. In the sensitivity analysis of this research project the capital and operational costs had been varied by –10% to 20% to investigate the significance on the overall decision-making process.
2.2 OPERATIONAL CRITERIA:
The deliverability of a solution is dependant on a number of factors that are considered in the following indicators:
- Maturity of technology, - Public acceptance and achievement of planning permission, - level of public involvement required for recycling and waste minimisation.
The decision of future residual waste treatment plants depends largely on the issue of bankability, which depends much on the status and maturity of the technology selected. Public acceptance is an important factor to consider as it may delay the planning permission significantly. The planning process will tend to restrict the development of large facilities or a higher number of site locations. Furthermore, the level of public involvement needs to be increased in order to improve the rate of waste recycling and composting. The public involvement score for recycling and composting is the sum of the participation rate and scheme efficiency rate modelled in the AEA Technology’s proprietary CAMOD model (Collection and Arisings Model). In addition, it is important for a Council that the future waste management system conforms with waste policy and is able to achieve set targets for recycling, recovery and landfill diversion.
AEA Energy and Environment 6 AEA In Confidence
3 Results
Table A6- 2 to Table A6- 19 show the 21 different criteria results for each of the 10-parameter changes. The results are show in two ways, as actual figures and as normalised scores.
3.1 HIGH BMW RECYCLING
Table A6- 2: Results of analysis for high BMW recycling
Sc1 EfW
Sc2 Gas/Pyr
Sc3 MBT RDF 3rd party
Sc4 MBT compost to
landfill cover Resource depletion -3.873 -4.236 -4.093 -4.078 Landtake 15.71 15.77 18.03 19.25 Emissions of greenhouse gases -39.4 -45.4 -37.0 -32.3 Emissions which are injurious to public health -1,547.6 -1,942.7 -1,393.7 -1,348.7 Air acidification -46.3 -50.6 -37.7 -35.1 Ozone depletion -153.3 -151.2 -134.3 -133.0 Extent of odour problems 38.5 38.7 41.0 41.5 Extent of dust problems 23.5 23.7 25.0 25.5 Visual and landscape impacts 40.7 40.9 41.1 41.4 Extent of noise problems 29.3 29.4 29.6 29.9 Extent of litter and vermin problems 36.2 36.5 37.8 38.3 Eutrophication 77.7 77.9 116.4 116.4 Extent of water pollution 20.4 20.6 21.9 22.4 Total transport distance 5,138,742 5,138,742 5,186,150 5,138,219
Envi
ronm
enta
l cr
iter
ia
Proportion non-motorway/non-dual carriage way transport 0.67 0.67 0.68 0.69 Number of jobs created 291 310 303 305 Potential for participation in recycling - education centres 178% 178% 178% 178%
Soci
o-
econom
ic
criter
ia
Overall costs 965.7 1,031.5 1,162.7 1,143.3 Maturity of technology 1.00 0.20 0.50 0.50 Public acceptance/achievement of planning permission 0.00 0.45 0.70 1.00 Public involvement required 353% 353% 353% 353% Percentage of material recovered 0.94 0.94 0.74 0.63 Percentage of material recycled/composted 0.39 0.42 0.42 0.42
Percentage of BMW diverted from landfill 97.5 97.5 82.4 80.8
Oper
atio
nal
crite
ria
Waste Minimisation 382.9 382.9 382.9 382.9
AEA Energy and Environment 7 AEA In Confidence
Table A6- 3: Normalised scores of analysis for high BMW recycling
Sc1 EfW Sc2
Gas/Pyr
Sc3 MBT RDF 3rd party
Sc4 MBT compost to landfill
cover Resource depletion 0.00 1.00 0.61 0.56 Landtake 1.00 0.98 0.34 0.00 Emissions of greenhouse gases
0.54 1.00 0.36 0.00
Emissions which are injurious to public health
0.33 1.00 0.08 0.00
Air acidification 0.72 1.00 0.17 0.00 Ozone depletion 1.00 0.90 0.07 0.00 Extent of odour problems 1.00 0.92 0.16 0.00 Extent of dust problems 1.00 0.88 0.24 0.00 Visual and landscape impacts 1.00 0.76 0.47 0.00 Extent of noise problems 1.00 0.76 0.47 0.00 Extent of litter and vermin problems
1.00 0.88 0.24 0.00
Eutrophication 1.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 Extent of water pollution 1.00 0.88 0.24 0.00 Total transport distance 0.99 0.99 0.00 1.00
Envi
ronm
enta
l cr
iter
ia
Proportion non-motorway/non-dual carriage way transport
1.00 1.00 0.67 0.00
Number of jobs created 0.00 1.00 0.63 0.74 Potential for participation in recycling - education centres
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Soci
o-
econom
ic
criter
ia
Overall costs 1.00 0.67 0.00 0.10
Maturity of technology 1.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 Public acceptance/achievement of planning permission
0.00 0.45 0.70 1.00
Public involvement required 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percentage of material recovered
1.00 1.00 0.36 0.00
Percentage of material recycled/composted
0.00 0.83 1.00 1.00
Percentage of BMW diverted from landfill
1.00 1.00 0.10 0.00 Oper
atio
nal
crite
ria
Waste Minimisation 1.00 1.00 1.00 1
Overall Score 18.59 20.90 9.27 6.77
Ranking 2 1 3 4
AEA Energy and Environment 8 AEA In Confidence
3.2 LOW BMW RECYCLING Table A6- 4: Results of analysis for low BMW recycling
Sc1 EfW Sc2
Gas/Pyr
Sc3 MBT RDF 3rd party
Sc4 MBT compost to landfill
cover Resource depletion -3.873 -4.236 -4.093 -4.078 Landtake 15.71 15.77 18.03 19.25 Emissions of greenhouse gases -39.4 -45.4 -37.0 -32.3 Emissions which are injurious to public health -1,547.6 -1,942.7 -1,393.7 -1,348.7 Air acidification -46.3 -50.6 -37.7 -35.1 Ozone depletion -153.3 -151.2 -134.3 -133.0 Extent of odour problems 38.5 38.7 41.0 41.5 Extent of dust problems 23.5 23.7 25.0 25.5 Visual and landscape impacts 40.7 40.9 41.1 41.4 Extent of noise problems 29.3 29.4 29.6 29.9 Extent of litter and vermin problems 36.2 36.5 37.8 38.3 Eutrophication 77.7 77.9 116.4 116.4 Extent of water pollution 20.4 20.6 21.9 22.4 Total transport distance 5,138,742 5,138,742 5,186,150 5,138,219
Envi
ronm
enta
l cr
iter
ia
Proportion non-motorway/non-dual carriage way transport 0.67 0.67 0.68 0.69 Number of jobs created 291 310 303 305 Potential for participation in recycling - education centres 178% 178% 178% 178%
Soci
o-
econom
ic
criter
ia
Overall costs 994.8 1,060.6 1,191.8 1,172.4 Maturity of technology 1.00 0.20 0.50 0.50 Public acceptance/achievement of planning permission 0.00 0.45 0.70 1.00 Public involvement required 353% 353% 353% 353% Percentage of material recovered 0.94 0.94 0.74 0.63 Percentage of material recycled/composted 0.39 0.42 0.42 0.42
Percentage of BMW diverted from landfill 92.5 92.5 77.4 75.8
Oper
atio
nal
crite
ria
Waste Minimisation 382.9 382.9 382.9 382.9
AEA Energy and Environment 9 AEA In Confidence
Table A6- 5: Normalised scores of analysis for low BMW recycling
Sc1 EfW Sc2
Gas/Pyr
Sc3 MBT RDF 3rd party
Sc4 MBT compost to landfill
cover Resource depletion 0.00 1.00 0.61 0.56 Landtake 1.00 0.98 0.34 0.00 Emissions of greenhouse gases
0.54 1.00 0.36 0.00
Emissions which are injurious to public health
0.33 1.00 0.08 0.00
Air acidification 0.72 1.00 0.17 0.00 Ozone depletion 1.00 0.90 0.07 0.00 Extent of odour problems 1.00 0.92 0.16 0.00 Extent of dust problems 1.00 0.88 0.24 0.00 Visual and landscape impacts 1.00 0.76 0.47 0.00 Extent of noise problems 1.00 0.76 0.47 0.00 Extent of litter and vermin problems
1.00 0.88 0.24 0.00
Eutrophication 1.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 Extent of water pollution 1.00 0.88 0.24 0.00 Total transport distance 0.99 0.99 0.00 1.00
Envi
ronm
enta
l cr
iter
ia
Proportion non-motorway/non-dual carriage way transport
1.00 1.00 0.67 0.00
Number of jobs created 0.00 1.00 0.63 0.74 Potential for participation in recycling - education centres
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Soci
o-
econom
ic
criter
ia
Overall costs 1.00 0.67 0.00 0.10
Maturity of technology 1.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 Public acceptance/achievement of planning permission
0.00 0.45 0.70 1.00
Public involvement required 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percentage of material recovered
1.00 1.00 0.36 0.00
Percentage of material recycled/composted
0.00 0.83 1.00 1.00
Percentage of BMW diverted from landfill
1.00 1.00 0.10 0.00 Oper
atio
nal
crite
ria
Waste Minimisation 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 Overall Score 18.59 20.90 9.27 6.77 Ranking 2 1 3 4
AEA Energy and Environment 10 AEA In Confidence
3.3 HIGH CAPTURE RATE Table A6- 6: Results of analysis for high capture rate
Sc1 EfW Sc2
Gas/Pyr
Sc3 MBT RDF 3rd party
Sc4 MBT compost to landfill
cover Resource depletion -3.92 -4.30 -4.29 -4.27 Landtake 15.72 15.76 17.99 19.19 Emissions of greenhouse gases -38.3 -41.2 -45.3 -30.9 Emissions which are injurious to public health -1,698.5 -2,069.4 -1,561.2 -1,490.5 Air acidification -49.0 -52.8 -41.3 -38.7 Ozone depletion -154.2 -152.0 -140.0 -138.2 Extent of odour problems 38.5 38.8 41.1 41.5 Extent of dust problems 23.5 23.8 25.1 25.5 Visual and landscape impacts 40.8 40.9 41.1 41.4 Extent of noise problems 29.3 29.4 29.6 29.9 Extent of litter and vermin problems 36.3 36.5 37.8 38.3 Eutrophication 95.2 95.2 129.0 129.1 Extent of water pollution 20.4 20.6 21.9 22.4 Total transport distance 5,293,253 5,293,253 5,335,053 5,292,792
Envi
ronm
enta
l cr
iter
ia
Proportion non-motorway/non-dual carriage way transport 0.67 0.67 0.68 0.68 Number of jobs created 286 302 296 297 Potential for participation in recycling - education centres 178% 178% 178% 178%
Soci
o-
econom
ic
criter
ia
Overall costs 968.4 1,033.4 1,142.8 1,125.2 Maturity of technology 1.00 0.20 0.50 0.50 Public acceptance/achievement of planning permission 0.00 0.45 0.70 1.00 Public involvement required 393% 393% 393% 393% Percentage of material recovered 0.94 0.94 0.76 0.66 Percentage of material recycled/composted 0.46 0.48 0.48 0.48
Percentage of BMW diverted from landfill 96.0 96.0 82.7 81.2
Oper
atio
nal
crite
ria
Waste Minimisation 382.9 382.9 382.9 382.9
AEA Energy and Environment 11 AEA In Confidence
Table A6- 7: Normalised scores of analysis for high capture rate
Sc1 EfW Sc2
Gas/Pyr
Sc3 MBT RDF 3rd party
Sc4 MBT compost to landfill
cover Resource depletion 0.00 1.00 0.99 0.92 Landtake 1.00 0.99 0.34 0.00 Emissions of greenhouse gases
0.51 0.71 1.00 0.00
Emissions which are injurious to public health
0.36 1.00 0.12 0.00
Air acidification 0.73 1.00 0.19 0.00 Ozone depletion 1.00 0.87 0.11 0.00 Extent of odour problems 1.00 0.92 0.16 0.00 Extent of dust problems 1.00 0.88 0.24 0.00 Visual and landscape impacts 1.00 0.76 0.47 0.00 Extent of noise problems 1.00 0.76 0.47 0.00 Extent of litter and vermin problems
1.00 0.88 0.24 0.00
Eutrophication 1.00 1.00 0.01 0.00 Extent of water pollution 1.00 0.88 0.24 0.00 Total transport distance 0.99 0.99 0.00 1.00
Envi
ronm
enta
l cr
iter
ia
Proportion non-motorway/non-dual carriage way transport
1.00 1.00 0.67 0.00
Number of jobs created 0.00 1.00 0.63 0.69 Potential for participation in recycling - education centres
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Soci
o-
econom
ic
criter
ia
Overall costs 1.00 0.63 0.00 0.10
Maturity of technology 1.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 Public acceptance/achievement of planning permission
0.00 0.45 0.70 1.00
Public involvement required 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percentage of material recovered
1.00 1.00 0.36 0.00
Percentage of material recycled/composted
0.00 0.83 1.00 1.00
Percentage of BMW diverted from landfill
1.00 1.00 0.10 0.00 Oper
atio
nal
crite
ria
Waste Minimisation 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 Overall Score 18.59 20.55 10.39 7.08 Ranking 2 1 3 4
AEA Energy and Environment 12 AEA In Confidence
3.4 LOW CAPTURE RATE Table A6- 8: Results of analysis for low capture rate
Sc1 EfW Sc2
Gas/Pyr
Sc3 MBT RDF 3rd party
Sc4 MBT compost to landfill
cover Resource depletion -3.85 -4.09 -3.96 -3.87 Landtake 15.73 15.78 18.06 19.29 Emissions of greenhouse gases -42.4 -46.4 -37.1 -31.7 Emissions which are injurious to public health -1,479.4 -1,894.4 -1,314.7 -1,266.7 Air acidification -45.2 -49.0 -35.8 -33.1 Ozone depletion -152.7 -151.2 -130.6 -129.9 Extent of odour problems 38.5 38.8 41.1 41.5 Extent of dust problems 23.5 23.8 25.1 25.5 Visual and landscape impacts 40.7 40.9 41.1 41.4 Extent of noise problems 29.3 29.4 29.6 30.0 Extent of litter and vermin problems 36.3 36.5 37.8 38.3 Eutrophication 70.2 70.2 110.9 110.9 Extent of water pollution 20.4 20.6 21.9 22.4 Total transport distance 5,075,235 5,075,235 5,125,142 5,074,684
Envi
ronm
enta
l cr
iter
ia
Proportion non-motorway/non-dual carriage way transport 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.69 Number of jobs created 313 334 326 328 Potential for participation in recycling - education centres 178% 178% 178% 178%
Soci
o-
econom
ic
criter
ia
Overall costs 1,011.6 1,077.5 1,213.8 1,194.3 Maturity of technology 1.00 0.20 0.50 0.50 Public acceptance/achievement of planning permission 0.00 0.45 0.70 1.00 Public involvement required 334% 334% 334% 334% Percentage of material recovered 0.94 0.94 0.73 0.61 Percentage of material recycled/composted 0.37 0.39 0.40 0.40
Percentage of BMW diverted from landfill 94.7 94.7 78.9 77.1
Oper
atio
nal
crite
ria
Waste Minimisation 382.9 382.9 382.9 382.9
AEA Energy and Environment 13 AEA In Confidence
Table A6- 9: Normalised scores of analysis for low capture rate
Sc1 EfW Sc2
Gas/Pyr
Sc3 MBT RDF 3rd party
Sc4 MBT compost
to landfill cover
Resource depletion 0.00 1.00 0.43 0.09 Landtake 1.00 0.98 0.35 0.00 Emissions of greenhouse gases
0.73 1.00 0.37 0.00
Emissions which are injurious to public health
0.34 1.00 0.08 0.00
Air acidification 0.76 1.00 0.17 0.00 Ozone depletion 1.00 0.93 0.03 0.00 Extent of odour problems 1.00 0.92 0.16 0.00 Extent of dust problems 1.00 0.88 0.24 0.00 Visual and landscape impacts 1.00 0.76 0.47 0.00 Extent of noise problems 1.00 0.76 0.47 0.00 Extent of litter and vermin problems
1.00 0.88 0.24 0.00
Eutrophication 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 Extent of water pollution 1.00 0.88 0.24 0.00 Total transport distance 0.99 0.99 0.00 1.00 Proportion non-motorway/non-dual carriage way transport
1.00 1.00 0.67 0.00
Number of jobs created 0.00 1.00 0.62 0.71
Envi
ronm
enta
l cr
iter
ia
Potential for participation in recycling - education centres
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Overall costs 1.00 0.67 0.00 0.10 Maturity of technology 1.00 0.00 0.38 0.38
Soci
o-
econom
ic
criter
ia
Public acceptance/achievement of planning permission
0.00 0.45 0.70 1.00
Public involvement required 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percentage of material recovered
1.00 1.00 0.36 0.00
Percentage of material recycled/composted
0.00 0.83 1.00 1.00
Percentage of BMW diverted from landfill
1.00 1.00 0.10 0.00 Oper
atio
nal
cr
iter
ia
Waste Minimisation 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 Overall Score 18.82 20.94 9.08 6.28
Ranking 2 1 3 4
AEA Energy and Environment 14 AEA In Confidence
3.5 HIGH COLLECTION COSTS Table A6- 10: Results of analysis for high collection costs
Sc1 EfW Sc2
Gas/Pyr
Sc3 MBT RDF 3rd party
Sc4 MBT compost to landfill
cover Resource depletion -3.873 -4.236 -4.093 -4.078 Landtake 15.71 15.77 18.03 19.25 Emissions of greenhouse gases -39.4 -45.4 -37.0 -32.3 Emissions which are injurious to public health -1,547.6 -1,942.7 -1,393.7 -1,348.7 Air acidification -46.3 -50.6 -37.7 -35.1 Ozone depletion -153.3 -151.2 -134.3 -133.0 Extent of odour problems 38.5 38.7 41.0 41.5 Extent of dust problems 23.5 23.7 25.0 25.5 Visual and landscape impacts 40.7 40.9 41.1 41.4 Extent of noise problems 29.3 29.4 29.6 29.9 Extent of litter and vermin problems 36.2 36.5 37.8 38.3 Eutrophication 77.7 77.9 116.4 116.4 Extent of water pollution 20.4 20.6 21.9 22.4 Total transport distance 5,104,400 5,104,400 5,151,809 5,103,877
Envi
ronm
enta
l cr
iter
ia
Proportion non-motorway/non-dual carriage way transport 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.69 Number of jobs created 291 310 303 305 Potential for participation in recycling - education centres 178% 178% 178% 178%
Soci
o-
econom
ic
criter
ia
Overall costs 1,051.9 1,117.7 1,249.0 1,229.6 Maturity of technology 1.00 0.20 0.50 0.50 Public acceptance/achievement of planning permission 0.00 0.45 0.70 1.00 Public involvement required 353% 353% 353% 353% Percentage of material recovered 0.944 0.944 0.739 0.625 Percentage of material recycled/composted 0.393 0.418 0.423 0.423
Percentage of BMW diverted from landfill 95.5 95.5 80.4 78.8
Oper
atio
nal
crite
ria
Waste Minimisation 382.9 382.9 382.9 382.9
AEA Energy and Environment 15 AEA In Confidence
Table A6- 11: Normalised scores of analysis for high collection costs
Sc1 EfW Sc2
Gas/Pyr
Sc3 MBT RDF 3rd party
Sc4 MBT compost to landfill
cover Resource depletion 0.00 1.00 0.61 0.56 Landtake 1.00 0.98 0.34 0.00 Emissions of greenhouse gases
0.54 1.00 0.36 0.00
Emissions which are injurious to public health
0.33 1.00 0.08 0.00
Air acidification 0.72 1.00 0.17 0.00 Ozone depletion 1.00 0.90 0.07 0.00 Extent of odour problems 1.00 0.92 0.16 0.00 Extent of dust problems 1.00 0.88 0.24 0.00 Visual and landscape impacts 1.00 0.76 0.47 0.00 Extent of noise problems 1.00 0.76 0.47 0.00 Extent of litter and vermin problems
1.00 0.88 0.24 0.00
Eutrophication 1.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 Extent of water pollution 1.00 0.88 0.24 0.00 Total transport distance 0.99 0.99 0.00 1.00
Envi
ronm
enta
l cr
iter
ia
Proportion non-motorway/non-dual carriage way transport
1.00 1.00 0.67 0.00
Number of jobs created 0.00 1.00 0.63 0.74 Potential for participation in recycling - education centres
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Soci
o-
econom
ic
criter
ia
Overall costs 1.00 0.67 0.00 0.10
Maturity of technology 1.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 Public acceptance/achievement of planning permission
0.00 0.45 0.70 1.00
Public involvement required 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percentage of material recovered
1.00 1.00 0.36 0.00
Percentage of material recycled/composted
0.00 0.83 1.00 1.00
Percentage of BMW diverted from landfill
1.00 1.00 0.10 0.00 Oper
atio
nal
crite
ria
Waste Minimisation 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 Overall Score 18.59 20.90 9.27 6.77 Ranking 2 1 3 4
AEA Energy and Environment 16 AEA In Confidence
3.6 LOW COLLECTION COSTS Table A6- 12: Results of analysis for low collection costs
Sc1 EfW Sc2
Gas/Pyr
Sc3 MBT RDF 3rd party
Sc4 MBT compost to landfill
cover Resource depletion -3.873 -4.236 -4.093 -4.078 Landtake 15.71 15.77 18.03 19.25 Emissions of greenhouse gases -39.4 -45.4 -37.0 -32.3 Emissions which are injurious to public health -1,547.6 -1,942.7 -1,393.7 -1,348.7 Air acidification -46.3 -50.6 -37.7 -35.1 Ozone depletion -153.3 -151.2 -134.3 -133.0 Extent of odour problems 38.5 38.7 41.0 41.5 Extent of dust problems 23.5 23.7 25.0 25.5 Visual and landscape impacts 40.7 40.9 41.1 41.4 Extent of noise problems 29.3 29.4 29.6 29.9 Extent of litter and vermin problems 36.2 36.5 37.8 38.3 Eutrophication 77.7 77.9 116.4 116.4 Extent of water pollution 20.4 20.6 21.9 22.4 Total transport distance 5,138,742 5,138,742 5,186,150 5,138,219
Envi
ronm
enta
l cr
iter
ia
Proportion non-motorway/non-dual carriage way transport
0.67
0.67
0.68
0.69
Number of jobs created 291 310 303 305 Potential for participation in recycling - education centres 178% 178% 178% 178%
Soci
o-
econom
ic
criter
ia
Overall costs 977.3 1,043.1 1,174.3 1,155.3 Maturity of technology 1.00 0.20 0.50 0.50 Public acceptance/achievement of planning permission 0.00 0.45 0.70 1.00 Public involvement required 353% 353% 353% 353% Percentage of material recovered 0.944 0.944 0.739 0.625 Percentage of material recycled/composted 0.393 0.418 0.423 0.423
Percentage of BMW diverted from landfill 95.5 95.5 80.4 78.7
Oper
atio
nal
crite
ria
Waste Minimisation 382.9 382.9 382.9 382.9
AEA Energy and Environment 17 AEA In Confidence
Table A6- 13: Normalised scores of analysis for low collection costs
Sc1 EfW Sc2
Gas/Pyr
Sc3 MBT RDF 3rd party
Sc4 MBT compost to landfill
cover Resource depletion 0.00 1.00 0.61 0.56 Landtake 1.00 0.98 0.34 0.00 Emissions of greenhouse gases
0.54 1.00 0.36 0.00
Emissions which are injurious to public health
0.33 1.00 0.08 0.00
Air acidification 0.72 1.00 0.17 0.00 Ozone depletion 1.00 0.90 0.07 0.00 Extent of odour problems 1.00 0.92 0.16 0.00 Extent of dust problems 1.00 0.88 0.24 0.00 Visual and landscape impacts 1.00 0.76 0.47 0.00 Extent of noise problems 1.00 0.76 0.47 0.00 Extent of litter and vermin problems
1.00 0.88 0.24 0.00
Eutrophication 1.00 0.99 0.00 0.00 Extent of water pollution 1.00 0.88 0.24 0.00 Total transport distance 0.99 0.99 0.00 1.00
Envi
ronm
enta
l cr
iter
ia
Proportion non-motorway/non-dual carriage way transport
1.00 1.00 0.67 0.00
Number of jobs created 0.00 1.00 0.63 0.74 Potential for participation in recycling - education centres
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Soci
o-
econom
ic
criter
ia
Overall costs 1.00 0.67 0.00 0.10
Maturity of technology 1.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 Public acceptance/achievement of planning permission
0.00 0.45 0.70 1.00
Public involvement required 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percentage of material recovered
1.00 1.00 0.36 0.00
Percentage of material recycled/composted
0.00 0.83 1.00 1.00
Percentage of BMW diverted from landfill
1.00 1.00 0.10 0.00 Oper
atio
nal
crite
ria
Waste Minimisation 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 Overall Score 18.59 20.90 9.27 6.77 Ranking 2 1 3 4
AEA Energy and Environment 18 AEA In Confidence
3.7 HIGH GROWTH RATE
Table A6- 14: Results of analysis for high growth rate
Sc1 EfW Sc2
Gas/Pyr
Sc3 MBT RDF 3rd party
Sc4 MBT compost to landfill
cover Resource depletion -4.221 -4.636 -4.493 -4.437 Landtake 15.75 15.81 18.10 19.34 Emissions of greenhouse gases -44.6 -50.1 -40.1 -35.4 Emissions which are injurious to public health -1,680.4 -2,117.0 -1,518.4 -1,460.8 Air acidification -50.3 -55.1 -40.9 -37.9 Ozone depletion -166.9 -165.2 -146.5 -144.8 Extent of odour problems 38.6 38.8 41.1 41.6 Extent of dust problems 23.6 23.8 25.1 25.6 Visual and landscape impacts 40.8 40.9 41.1 41.4 Extent of noise problems 29.3 29.5 29.7 30.0 Extent of litter and vermin problems 36.3 36.5 37.8 38.3 Eutrophication 85.8 85.8 128.2 128.4 Extent of water pollution 20.4 20.7 21.9 22.4 Total transport distance 5,372,732 5,372,732 5,424,784 5,372,158
Envi
ronm
enta
l cr
iter
ia
Proportion non-motorway/non-dual carriage way transport 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.68 Number of jobs created 315 335 327 329 Potential for participation in recycling - education centres 178% 178% 178% 178%
Soci
o-
econom
ic
criter
ia
Overall costs 1,377.2 1,443.1 1,556.6 1,536.8
Maturity of technology 1.00 0.20 0.50 0.50 Public acceptance/achievement of planning permission 0.00 0.45 0.70 1.00 Public involvement required 352% 352% 352% 352% Percentage of material recovered 0.94 0.94 0.73 0.62 Percentage of material recycled/composted 0.39 0.42 0.42 0.42
Percentage of BMW diverted from landfill 94.8 94.8 79.7 78.0
Oper
atio
nal
crite
ria
Waste Minimisation 418.7 418.7 418.7 418.7
AEA Energy and Environment 19 AEA In Confidence
Table A6- 15: Normalised scores of analysis for high growth rate
Sc1 EfW Sc2
Gas/Pyr
Sc3 MBT RDF 3rd party
Sc4 MBT compost to landfill
cover Resource depletion 0.00 1.00 0.66 0.52 Landtake 1.00 0.98 0.35 0.00 Emissions of greenhouse gases
0.63 1.00 0.31 0.00
Emissions which are injurious to public health
0.33 1.00 0.09 0.00
Air acidification 0.72 1.00 0.17 0.00 Ozone depletion 1.00 0.92 0.07 0.00 Extent of odour problems 1.00 0.92 0.16 0.00 Extent of dust problems 1.00 0.88 0.24 0.00 Visual and landscape impacts 1.00 0.76 0.47 0.00 Extent of noise problems 1.00 0.76 0.47 0.00 Extent of litter and vermin problems
1.00 0.88 0.24 0.00
Eutrophication 1.00 1.00 0.01 0.00 Extent of water pollution 1.00 0.88 0.24 0.00 Total transport distance 0.99 0.99 0.00 1.00
Envi
ronm
enta
l cr
iter
ia
Proportion non-motorway/non-dual carriage way transport
0.91 1.00 0.66 0.00
Number of jobs created 0.00 1.00 0.60 0.70 Potential for participation in recycling - education centres
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Soci
o-
econom
ic
criter
ia
Overall costs 1.00 0.63 0.00 0.11
Maturity of technology 1.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 Public acceptance/achievement of planning permission
0.00 0.45 0.70 1.00
Public involvement required 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percentage of material recovered
1.00 1.00 0.36 0.00
Percentage of material recycled/composted
0.00 0.83 1.00 1.00
Percentage of BMW diverted from landfill
1.00 1.00 0.10 0.00 Oper
atio
nal
crite
ria
Waste Minimisation 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 Overall Score 18.58 20.89 9.28 6.71 Ranking 2 1 3 4
AEA Energy and Environment 20 AEA In Confidence
3.8 LOW GROWTH RATE Table A6- 16: Results of analysis for low growth rate
Sc1 EfW Sc2
Gas/Pyr
Sc3 MBT RDF 3rd party
Sc4 MBT compost to landfill
cover Resource depletion -3.437 -3.868 -3.737 -3.725 Landtake 15.69 15.74 17.98 19.18 Emissions of greenhouse gases -34.8 -40.9 -33.5 -28.9 Emissions which are injurious to public health -1,420.2 -1,777.3 -1,276.8 -1,238.3 Air acidification -42.4 -46.3 -34.5 -32.2 Ozone depletion -140.2 -138.1 -122.5 -121.6 Extent of odour problems 38.5 38.7 41.0 41.5 Extent of dust problems 23.5 23.7 25.0 25.5 Visual and landscape impacts 40.7 40.9 41.1 41.4 Extent of noise problems 29.3 29.4 29.6 29.9 Extent of litter and vermin problems 36.2 36.5 37.8 38.3 Eutrophication 71.2 71.5 107.0 106.5 Extent of water pollution 20.3 20.6 21.9 22.4 Total transport distance 4,922,739 4,922,739 4,965,889 4,922,263
Envi
ronm
enta
l cr
iter
ia
Proportion non-motorway/non-dual carriage way transport 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.70 Number of jobs created 273 290 283 285 Potential for participation in recycling - education centres 178% 178% 178% 178%
Soci
o-
econom
ic
criter
ia
Overall costs 798.4 856.2 949.5 933.3 Maturity of technology 1.00 0.20 0.50 0.50 Public acceptance/achievement of planning permission 0.00 0.45 0.70 1.00 Public involvement required 354% 354% 354% 354% Percentage of material recovered 0.94 0.94 0.74 0.63 Percentage of material recycled/composted 0.40 0.42 0.42 0.42
Percentage of BMW diverted from landfill 95.5 95.5 80.5 78.9
Oper
atio
nal
crite
ria
Waste Minimisation 350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0
AEA Energy and Environment 21 AEA In Confidence
Table A6- 17: Normalised scores of analysis for low growth rate
Sc1 EfW Sc2
Gas/Pyr
Sc3 MBT RDF 3rd party
Sc4 MBT compost to landfill
cover Resource depletion 0.00 1.00 0.70 0.67 Landtake 1.00 0.99 0.34 0.00 Emissions of greenhouse gases
0.49 1.00 0.39 0.00
Emissions which are injurious to public health
0.34 1.00 0.07 0.00
Air acidification 0.72 1.00 0.16 0.00 Ozone depletion 1.00 0.89 0.05 0.00 Extent of odour problems 1.00 0.92 0.16 0.00 Extent of dust problems 1.00 0.88 0.24 0.00 Visual and landscape impacts 1.00 0.76 0.47 0.00 Extent of noise problems 1.00 0.76 0.47 0.00 Extent of litter and vermin problems
1.00 0.88 0.24 0.00
Eutrophication 1.00 0.99 0.00 0.01 Extent of water pollution 1.00 0.88 0.24 0.00 Total transport distance 0.99 0.99 0.00 1.00
Envi
ronm
enta
l cr
iter
ia
Proportion non-motorway/non-dual carriage way transport
0.91 1.00 0.68 0.00
Number of jobs created 0.00 1.00 0.59 0.71 Potential for participation in recycling - education centres
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Soci
o-
econom
ic
criter
ia
Overall costs 1.00 0.62 0.00 0.11
Maturity of technology 1.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 Public acceptance/achievement of planning permission
0.00 0.45 0.70 1.00
Public involvement required 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Percentage of material recovered
1.00 1.00 0.36 0.00
Percentage of material recycled/composted
0.00 0.83 1.00 1.00
Percentage of BMW diverted from landfill
1.00 1.00 0.10 0.00 Oper
atio
nal
crite
ria
Waste Minimisation 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 Overall Score 18.45 20.83 9.33 6.87 Ranking 2 1 3 4
AEA Energy and Environment 22 AEA In Confidence
3.9 HIGH RDF/COMPOST
Table A6- 18: Results of analysis for high RDF/compost production
Sc1 EfW Sc2
Gas/Pyr
Sc3 MBT RDF 3rd party
Sc 4 MBT-Compost 3rd party
Sc 5 MBT Compost
/ RDF Mix
Resource depletion -3.87 -4.24 -4.13 -4.13 -4.10 Landtake 15.71 15.77 17.81 19.16 18.53 Emissions of greenhouse gases -39.4 -45.4 -45.1 -31.2 -39.2
Emissions which are injurious to public health -1,547.6 -1,942.7 -1,522.2 -1,372.9 -1,412.3 Air acidification -46.3 -50.6 -41.6 -35.5 -38.1 Ozone depletion -153.3 -151.2 -143.8 -138.9 -140.4
Extent of odour problems 38.5 38.7 40.5 41.3 41.0 Extent of dust problems 23.5 23.7 24.5 25.3 25.0 Visual and landscape impacts 40.7 40.9 40.8 41.3 41.1
Extent of noise problems 29.3 29.4 29.3 29.8 29.6 Extent of litter and vermin problems 36.2 36.5 37.3 38.1 37.8 Eutrophication 77.7 77.9 94.8 120.5 95.0 Extent of water pollution 20.4 20.6 21.4 22.2 21.9 Total transport distance 5,138,742 5,138,742 5,321,231 5,225,367 5,273,299
Envi
ronm
enta
l cr
iter
ia
Proportion non-motorway/non-dual carriage way transport 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.69 0.68 Number of jobs created 291 310 301 304 303 Potential for participation in recycling - education centres 178% 178% 178% 178% 178% S
oci
o-
econom
ic
criter
ia
Overall costs 977.3 1,043.1 1,161.1 1,097.6 1,172.2 Maturity of technology 1.00 0.20 0.50 0.50 0.50 Public acceptance/achievement of planning permission 0.00 0.45 0.70 1.00 0.80 Public involvement required 353% 353% 353% 353% 353% Percentage of material recovered 0.94 0.94 0.85 0.67 0.74 Percentage of material recycled/composted 0.39 0.42 0.42 0.47 0.42
Percentage of BMW diverted from landfill 95.5 95.5 88.8 86.1 83.8
Oper
atio
nal
crite
ria
Waste Minimisation 382.9 382.9 382.9 382.9 382.9
AEA Energy and Environment 23 AEA In Confidence
Table A6- 19: Normalised scores of analysis for high RDF/compost production
Sc1 EfW Sc2
Gas/Pyr
Sc3 MBT RDF 3rd party
Sc 4 MBT-Compost 3rd party
Sc 5 MBT Compost
/ RDF Mix
Resource depletion 0.00 1.00 0.71 0.72 0.63 Landtake 1.00 0.98 0.39 0.00 0.18 Emissions of greenhouse gases
0.58 1.00 0.98 0.00 0.56
Emissions which are injurious to public health
0.31 1.00 0.26 0.00 0.07
Air acidification 0.71 1.00 0.40 0.00 0.17 Ozone depletion 1.00 0.86 0.34 0.00 0.10
Extent of odour problems 1.00 0.91 0.27 0.00 0.10
Extent of dust problems 1.00 0.87 0.42 0.00 0.16 Visual and landscape impacts
1.00 0.70 0.94 0.00 0.35
Extent of noise problems 1.00 0.70 0.94 0.00 0.35
Extent of litter and vermin problems
1.00 0.87 0.42 0.00 0.16
Eutrophication 1.00 1.00 0.60 0.00 0.60 Extent of water pollution 1.00 0.87 0.42 0.00 0.16 Total transport distance 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.53 0.26
Envi
ronm
enta
l cr
iter
ia
Proportion non-motorway/non-dual carriage way transport
0.93 0.93 1.00 0.00 0.50
Number of jobs created 0.00 1.00 0.53 0.68 0.63 Potential for participation in recycling - education centres
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Soci
o-
econom
ic
criter
ia
Overall costs 1.00 0.66 0.06 0.38 0.00 Maturity of technology 1.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 0.38 Public acceptance/achievement of planning permission
0.00 0.45 0.70 1.00 0.80
Public involvement required
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percentage of material recovered
1.00 1.00 0.67 0.00 0.25
Percentage of material recycled/composted
0.00 0.31 0.38 1.00 0.38
Percentage of BMW diverted from landfill
1.00 1.00 0.43 0.20 0.00
Oper
atio
nal
crite
ria
Waste Minimisation 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1 Overall Score 18.52 20.11 13.22 6.88 8.80 Ranking 2 1 3 5 4
AEA Energy and Environment 24 AEA In Confidence
AEA Energy and Environment 25 AEA In Confidence
3.10 LOW RDF/COMPOST
Table A6- 20: Results of analysis for low RDF/compost production
Sc1 EfW Sc2
Gas/Pyr
Sc3 MBT RDF 3rd party
Sc 4 MBT-Compost 3rd party
Sc 5 MBT Compost
/ RDF Mix
Resource depletion -3.87 -4.24 -4.07 -4.09 -4.10 Landtake 15.71 15.77 18.25 19.25 18.53 Emissions of greenhouse gases -39.4 -45.4 -20.8 -31.3 -39.2
Emissions which are injurious to public health -1,547.6 -1,942.7 -1,322.3 -1,372.7 -1,412.3 Air acidification -46.3 -50.6 -34.7 -35.5 -38.1 Ozone depletion -153.3 -151.2 -125.6 -139.0 -140.4
Extent of odour problems 38.5 38.7 41.5 41.5 41.0 Extent of dust problems 23.5 23.7 25.5 25.5 25.0 Visual and landscape impacts 40.7 40.9 41.4 41.4 41.1
Extent of noise problems 29.3 29.4 29.9 29.9 29.6 Extent of litter and vermin problems 36.2 36.5 38.3 38.3 37.8 Eutrophication 77.7 77.9 138.0 94.9 95.0 Extent of water pollution 20.4 20.6 22.4 22.4 21.9 Total transport distance 5,138,742 5,138,742 5,051,070 5,225,367 5,273,299
Envi
ronm
enta
l cr
iter
ia
Proportion non-motorway/non-dual carriage way transport 0.67 0.67 0.69 0.69 0.68 Number of jobs created 291 310 305 305 303 Potential for participation in recycling - education centres 178% 178% 178% 178% 178% S
oci
o-
econom
ic
criter
ia
Overall costs 977.3 1,043.1 1,188.9 1,124.7 1,172.2 Maturity of technology 1.00 0.20 0.50 0.50 0.50 Public acceptance/achievement of planning permission 0.00 0.45 0.70 1.00 0.80 Public involvement required 353% 353% 353% 353% 353% Percentage of material recovered 0.94 0.94 0.63 0.63 0.74 Percentage of material recycled/composted 0.39 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42
Percentage of BMW diverted from landfill 95.5 95.5 72.0 85.4 83.8
Oper
atio
nal
crite
ria
Waste Minimisation 382.9 382.9 382.9 382.9 382.9
AEA Energy and Environment 26 AEA In Confidence
AEA Energy and Environment 27 AEA In Confidence
Table A6- 21: Normalised scores of analysis for low RDF/compost production
Sc1 EfW Sc2
Gas/Pyr
Sc3 MBT RDF 3rd party
Sc 4 MBT-Compost 3rd party
Sc 5 MBT Compost
/ RDF Mix
Resource depletion 0.00 1.00 0.53 0.61 0.63 Landtake 1.00 0.98 0.28 0.00 0.20 Emissions of greenhouse gases
0.76 1.00 0.00 0.43 0.75
Emissions which are injurious to public health
0.36 1.00 0.00 0.08 0.14
Air acidification 0.73 1.00 0.00 0.06 0.22 Ozone depletion 1.00 0.93 0.00 0.49 0.54
Extent of odour problems 1.00 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.16
Extent of dust problems 1.00 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.24 Visual and landscape impacts
1.00 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.47
Extent of noise problems 1.00 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.47
Extent of litter and vermin problems
1.00 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.24
Eutrophication 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.71 0.71 Extent of water pollution 1.00 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.24 Total transport distance 0.61 0.61 1.00 0.22 0.00
Envi
ronm
enta
l cr
iter
ia
Proportion non-motorway/non-dual carriage way transport
1.00 1.00 0.35 0.00 0.54
Number of jobs created 0.00 1.00 0.74 0.74 0.63 Potential for participation in recycling - education centres
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Soci
o-
econom
ic
criter
ia
Overall costs 1.00 0.69 0.00 0.30 0.08 Maturity of technology 1.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 0.38 Public acceptance/achievement of planning permission
0.00 0.45 0.70 1.00 0.80
Public involvement required
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percentage of material recovered
1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.36
Percentage of material recycled/composted
0.00 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00
Percentage of BMW diverted from landfill
1.00 1.00 0.00 0.57 0.50
Oper
atio
nal
crite
ria
Waste Minimisation 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 1.00 Overall Score 18.45 20.56 6.98 8.57 11.31 Ranking 2 1 5 4 3
Appendix 7 Sensitivity analysis of weighting factors
AEA Energy and Environment AEA In Confidence
Sensitivity Analysis
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
Hig
h w
aste
gro
wth
EfW
Hig
h w
aste
gro
wth
Gas
_Pyr
Hig
h w
aste
gro
wth
MBT
RD
F
Hig
h w
aste
gro
wth
MBT
Com
post
Low
was
te g
row
th E
fW
Low
was
te g
row
th G
as_P
yr
Low
was
te g
row
th M
BT R
DF
Low
was
te g
row
th M
BT C
ompo
st
Hig
h ca
ptur
e ra
te E
fW
Hig
h ca
ptur
e ra
te G
as_P
yr
Hig
h ca
ptur
e ra
te M
BT R
DF
Hig
h ca
ptur
e ra
te M
BT C
ompo
st
Low
cap
ture
rat
e Ef
W
Low
cap
ture
rat
e G
as_P
yr
Low
cap
ture
rat
e M
BT R
DF
Low
cap
ture
rat
e M
BT C
ompo
st
Hig
h BM
W E
fW
Hig
h BM
W G
as_P
yr
Hig
h BM
W M
BT R
DF
Hig
h BM
W M
BT C
ompo
st
Low
BM
W E
fW
Low
BM
W G
as_P
yr
Low
BM
W M
BT R
DF
Low
BM
W M
BT C
ompo
st
Hig
h co
llect
ion
cost
s EfW
Hig
h co
llect
ion
cost
s Gas
_Pyr
Hig
h co
llect
ion
cost
s MBT
RD
F
Hig
h co
llect
ion
cost
s MBT
Com
post
Low
col
lect
ion
cost
s EfW
Low
col
lect
ion
cost
s Gas
_Pyr
Low
col
lect
ion
cost
s MBT
RD
F
Low
col
lect
ion
cost
s MBT
Com
post
Hig
h co
mpo
st/R
DF
EfW
Hig
h co
mpo
st/R
DF
Gas
_Pyr
Hig
h co
mpo
st/R
DF
MBT
RD
F
Hig
h co
mpo
st/R
DF
MBT
Com
post
Hig
h co
mpo
st/R
DF
mix
Low
com
post
/RD
F Ef
W
Low
com
post
/RD
F G
as_P
yr
Low
com
post
/RD
F M
BT R
DF
Low
com
post
/RD
F M
BT C
ompo
st
Low
com
post
/RD
F m
ix
Ove
rall
scor
e
Mean +/- std. deviation 95% confidence interval
Figure 7A: Sensitivity of overall scores with LA strategy weightings AEA Energy and Environment AEA In Confidence
Sensitivity Analysis
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00H
igh
was
te g
row
th E
fW
Hig
h w
aste
gro
wth
Gas
_Pyr
Hig
h w
aste
gro
wth
MB
T R
DF
Hig
h w
aste
gro
wth
MB
T C
ompo
st
Low
was
te g
row
th E
fW
Low
was
te g
row
th G
as_P
yr
Low
was
te g
row
th M
BT
RD
F
Low
was
te g
row
th M
BT
Com
post
Hig
h ca
ptur
e ra
te E
fW
Hig
h ca
ptur
e ra
te G
as_P
yr
Hig
h ca
ptur
e ra
te M
BT
RD
F
Hig
h ca
ptur
e ra
te M
BT
Com
post
Low
cap
ture
rat
e E
fW
Low
cap
ture
rat
e G
as_P
yr
Low
cap
ture
rat
e M
BT
RD
F
Low
cap
ture
rat
e M
BT
Com
post
Hig
h B
MW
EfW
Hig
h B
MW
Gas
_Pyr
Hig
h B
MW
MB
T R
DF
Hig
h B
MW
MB
T C
ompo
st
Low
BM
W E
fW
Low
BM
W G
as_P
yr
Low
BM
W M
BT
RD
F
Low
BM
W M
BT
Com
post
Hig
h co
llect
ion
cost
s EfW
Hig
h co
llect
ion
cost
s Gas
_Pyr
Hig
h co
llect
ion
cost
s MB
T R
DF
Hig
h co
llect
ion
cost
s MB
T C
ompo
st
Low
col
lect
ion
cost
s EfW
Low
col
lect
ion
cost
s Gas
_Pyr
Low
col
lect
ion
cost
s MB
T R
DF
Low
col
lect
ion
cost
s MB
T C
ompo
st
Hig
h co
mpo
st/R
DF
EfW
Hig
h co
mpo
st/R
DF
Gas
_Pyr
Hig
h co
mpo
st/R
DF
MB
T R
DF
Hig
h co
mpo
st/R
DF
MB
T C
ompo
st
Hig
h co
mpo
st/R
DF
mix
Low
com
post
/RD
F E
fW
Low
com
post
/RD
F G
as_P
yr
Low
com
post
/RD
F M
BT
RD
F
Low
com
post
/RD
F M
BT
Com
post
Low
com
post
/RD
F m
ix
Ove
rall
scor
e
Mean +/- std. deviation 95% confidence interval
AEA Energy and Environment AEA In Confidence
Figure 7B: Sensitivity of overall scores with procurement weightings
Appendix 8 Financial Modelling Results Report – Ernst & Young
AEA Energy and Environment AEA In Confidence