Technical University of Denmark, Department of Environmental Engineering, Miljoevej, Building 113, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.
COWI A/S, Parallelvej 2, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.
Waste Manag. 2015 Feb;36:343-55. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2014.10.033. Epub 2014 Dec 15.
This paper provides a detailed and comprehensive cost model for the economic assessment of solid waste management systems. The model was based on the principles of Life Cycle Costing (LCC) and followed a bottom-up calculation approach providing detailed cost items for all key technologies within modern waste systems. All technologies were defined per tonne of waste input, and each cost item within a technology was characterised by both a technical and an economic parameter (for example amount and cost of fuel related to waste collection), to ensure transparency, applicability and reproducibility. Cost items were classified as: (1) budget costs, (2) transfers (for example taxes, subsidies and fees) and (3) externality costs (for example damage or abatement costs related to emissions and disamenities). Technology costs were obtained as the sum of all cost items (of the same type) within a specific technology, while scenario costs were the sum of all technologies involved in a scenario. The cost model allows for the completion of three types of LCC: a Conventional LCC, for the assessment of financial costs, an Environmental LCC, for the assessment of financial costs whose results are complemented by a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) for the same system, and a Societal LCC, for socio-economic assessments. Conventional and Environmental LCCs includes budget costs and transfers, while Societal LCCs includes budget and externality costs. Critical aspects were found in the existing literature regarding the cost assessment of waste management, namely system boundary equivalency, accounting for temporally distributed emissions and impacts, inclusions of transfers, the internalisation of environmental impacts and the coverage of shadow prices, and there was also significant confusion regarding terminology. The presented cost model was implemented in two case study scenarios assessing the costs involved in the source segregation of organic waste from 100,000 Danish households and the subsequent co-digestion of organic waste with animal manure. Overall, source segregation resulted in higher financial costs than the alternative of incinerating the organic waste with the residual waste: 1.6 M€/year, of which 0.9 M€/year was costs for extra bins and bags used by the households, 1.0 M€/year for extra collections and -0.3 M€/year saved on incineration.
本文提供了一个详细而全面的固体废物管理系统经济评估成本模型。该模型基于生命周期成本（LCC）原则，并采用自下而上的计算方法，为现代废物系统中的所有关键技术提供详细的成本项目。所有技术均按每吨废物输入量进行定义，并且技术内的每个成本项目都具有技术和经济参数（例如与废物收集相关的燃料量和成本），以确保透明度、适用性和可重复性。成本项目分为：（1）预算成本，（2）转移（例如税收、补贴和费用）和（3）外部成本（例如与排放和不适宜有关的损害或减排成本）。技术成本是特定技术内所有成本项目（同类）的总和，而方案成本是方案中涉及的所有技术的总和。该成本模型允许完成三种类型的 LCC：传统 LCC，用于评估财务成本，环境 LCC，用于评估结果由同一系统的生命周期评估（LCA）补充的财务成本，以及社会 LCC，用于社会经济评估。传统和环境 LCC 包括预算成本和转移，而社会 LCC 包括预算和外部成本。在废物管理的成本评估方面，现有文献中发现了一些关键问题，即系统边界等效性、暂态分布排放和影响的核算、转移的包含、环境影响的内化以及影子价格的涵盖，以及术语方面也存在很大的混淆。所提出的成本模型在两个案例研究方案中得到了实施，评估了从 10 万户丹麦家庭中分离有机废物的源头和随后与动物粪便共消化有机废物所涉及的成本。总体而言，与将有机废物与残余废物一起焚烧的替代方案相比，源头分离导致更高的财务成本：每年 160 万欧元，其中 90 万欧元用于家庭使用的额外垃圾桶和袋子，每年 100 万欧元用于额外收集，每年节省 30 万欧元的焚烧费用。
