View
216
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Recovery of C&D waste
Changing under different economic constraints
EU: differences in GDP / cap~€
• 7.500-10.000– Bulgaria, Poland, Hungary
• 10.000-17.000– Lithuania, Czech Rep., Latvia, Portugal, Greece,
Cyprus, Slovenia
• 17.000-21.000– Spain, Italy, Germany, Estonia
• 22.000-30.000– Belgium, France, Austria, UK, Netherlands, Sweden,
Denmark, Ireland, + Luxemburg
Turnover P/c Eco-industry
SWM& Rec ~ € 20,-/cap
SW & Rec ~ € 50,-/cap
SWM & Rec ~€ 250,-/cap
Ratio SWM cost/GDP
• GDP<20.000: 0,1 - 0,2 %
• GDP>20.000: 0,5 - 1,0 %
• Low: Estonia, Spain, Belgium
• High: Slovenia, Denmark, Austria
A guess
• Prices for C&D waste recycling are about 1/3 of cost of waste management per capita, e.g.:– € 7,- at a level of € 20,-– € 17,- at a level of € 50– € 70,- at a level of € 200
A general model for cost accounting
• Full costs:– Internal:
• Process cost• Product costs and revenues
– External “community” cost:• Generation of pollution & deterioration of renewables
exceeding natural absorption level &
Depletion of natural resources:– Difficult to count, change with wealth
– Difficult to address: local, regional or global
– For someone else or the next generation
– Diluted
Conservation of misery
• Law on conservation of matter:
• the GOOD,
• the BAD and
• the UGLY
A dynamic arena of interacting parties
• Consequences of goods with negative value
• Recycling breakeven• Profitability regarding different public
policy instruments• Choice of market match• Economy of scale• Economic depreciation of investments
Consequences of goods with negative value
• Cash flow +
• Stock value -
• Risk management +/-
• Loss reward +
Recycling Breakeven
– Competition with other treatment chains (e.g. land filling or incineration): dominant competition
– Built-in percentage of other treatment: BAD can become worse for residues
Competing chains
Landfill
C
R-20
50% GOOD
10% UGLY( = Community)
40% BAD-40
-70
Tipping fee-30
Transport-40
Transport-201
2
A guess
• Prices for C&D waste recycling are about 1/3 of cost of waste management per capita, e.g.:– € 7,- at a level of € 20,-– € 17,- at a level of € 50– € 70,- at a level of € 200
Competing chains
Landfill
C
R-20
80% GOOD+3
10% UGLY(-100 = Community)
20% BAD-5
-10
Tipping fee-5
Transport-5
PRICE ??
Transport-51
2
MAXPROFIT??
Low cost competition
Landfill
C
R-5
80% aggregate+3
10% UGLY(-100 = Community)
20% BAD-5
-10
Tipping fee-5
Transport-5
PRICE 4,90
Transport-51
2
MAXPROFIT1,30
Wood, Metals,
Plastics
After technical regulation
Landfill
C
R-20
70% GOOD+12
10% UGLY-100 community
30% BAD-20
-25
Tipping fee-20
Transport-5
PRICE 19,90
Transport-51
2
MAXPROFIT2,50
After technical regulation and taxing
Landfill, incinerator
C
R-35
60% GOOD+2
5% UGLY-100 tax
40% BAD-70
-75
Tipping fee-70
Transport-5
PRICE 69,90
Transport-51
2
MAXPROFIT3,10
5%
debris, wood, metal
Selective Landfill ban for unsorted waste: BINGO
Landfill
C
R-35
60% GOOD+2
5% UGLY-100 = Tax
40% BAD-80
-104
PRICE 99
Transport-51
2
MAXPROFIT28,20
X 5%
Finding a match of markets
• A. waste product markets
• B. Resources markets (Energy and raw materials)
B
A
Sophiticated
specific
Economy of scale
collect Sort 1 Sort 2 Sort 3 end
Innovation and governmental reliability
• When investing, parties want a “innovative” public policy guaranteeing change, to be able to invest;
• After investment parties want a “reliable” public policy to have a optimal depreciation of their assets;
• It would be a coincidence if all the parties would be in the same stage at the same moment:
countervailing lobbying causes delays
Instruments of public authorities creating a artificial market
– Technical regulations (IPPC, BAT)– Treatment regulations (BREF’s)– Economic measurements: grants and taxes– Economic actor: client, supplier, manager
Effective regulation
Thesis:
• A combination of technical regulation and taxing the remaining external cost is sufficient for the creation of an effective diversified market
• More is politics and can be used as temporarily accelerator
Concluding remark:Design your system(-role) back to
forth
• Start in the future, count ten years back;• Question what scarce resources are and what can be
paid;• Count internal and external cost;• Design the whole system of end-treatment, recycling and
collection (In that order);• Find efficient rules for the play and roles for the players.
Recommended