randd.defra.gov.ukrandd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=WR0801_5404_FRA.pdfSensitivity analysis...

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

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



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


+ 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)


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


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


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


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)


Figure 5C: Massflow of MBT scenario producing compost (2015/16)

Figure 5D: Massflow of MBT scenario producing RDF (2015/16)


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 -


Operational 14.68 15.73 15.12 14.80 - Low Waste

Growth Total 67.46 78.05 33.95 26.97 -


Operational 14.68 15.73 15.12 14.80 - High Capture

Rate Total 68.04 75.74 31.00 29.68 -


Operational 14.68 15.73 15.12 14.80 - Low Capture

Rate Total 69.87 78.81 32.63 23.99 -


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 -


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


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.


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


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.


• 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 (%)


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.


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


Table A6- 3: Normalised scores of analysis for high BMW recycling

Sc1 EfW Sc2

Gas/Pyr


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


3.2 LOW BMW RECYCLING Table A6- 4: Results of analysis for low BMW recycling

Sc1 EfW Sc2

Gas/Pyr



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


Soci

o-

econom

ic

criter

ia



Oper

atio

nal

crite

ria



Table A6- 5: Normalised scores of analysis for low BMW recycling

Sc1 EfW Sc2

Gas/Pyr




0.54 1.00 0.36 0.00


0.33 1.00 0.08 0.00


1.00 0.88 0.24 0.00


Envi

ronm

enta

l cr

iter

ia


1.00 1.00 0.67 0.00


0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Soci

o-

econom

ic

criter

ia

Overall costs 1.00 0.67 0.00 0.10


0.00 0.45 0.70 1.00


1.00 1.00 0.36 0.00


0.00 0.83 1.00 1.00


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


3.3 HIGH CAPTURE RATE Table A6- 6: Results of analysis for high capture rate

Sc1 EfW Sc2

Gas/Pyr




Envi

ronm

enta

l cr

iter

ia


Soci

o-

econom

ic

criter

ia



Oper

atio

nal

crite

ria



Table A6- 7: Normalised scores of analysis for high capture rate

Sc1 EfW Sc2

Gas/Pyr




0.51 0.71 1.00 0.00


0.36 1.00 0.12 0.00


1.00 0.88 0.24 0.00


Envi

ronm

enta

l cr

iter

ia


1.00 1.00 0.67 0.00


0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Soci

o-

econom

ic

criter

ia

Overall costs 1.00 0.63 0.00 0.10


0.00 0.45 0.70 1.00


1.00 1.00 0.36 0.00


0.00 0.83 1.00 1.00


1.00 1.00 0.10 0.00 Oper

atio

nal

crite

ria



3.4 LOW CAPTURE RATE Table A6- 8: Results of analysis for low capture rate

Sc1 EfW Sc2

Gas/Pyr




Envi

ronm

enta

l cr

iter

ia


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


Oper

atio

nal

crite

ria



Table A6- 9: Normalised scores of analysis for low capture rate

Sc1 EfW Sc2

Gas/Pyr


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


0.34 1.00 0.08 0.00


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


1.00 1.00 0.36 0.00


0.00 0.83 1.00 1.00


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


3.5 HIGH COLLECTION COSTS Table A6- 10: Results of analysis for high collection costs

Sc1 EfW Sc2

Gas/Pyr




Envi

ronm

enta

l cr

iter

ia


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


Oper

atio

nal

crite

ria



Table A6- 11: Normalised scores of analysis for high collection costs

Sc1 EfW Sc2

Gas/Pyr




0.54 1.00 0.36 0.00


0.33 1.00 0.08 0.00


1.00 0.88 0.24 0.00


Envi

ronm

enta

l cr

iter

ia


1.00 1.00 0.67 0.00


0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Soci

o-

econom

ic

criter

ia

Overall costs 1.00 0.67 0.00 0.10


0.00 0.45 0.70 1.00


1.00 1.00 0.36 0.00


0.00 0.83 1.00 1.00


1.00 1.00 0.10 0.00 Oper

atio

nal

crite

ria



3.6 LOW COLLECTION COSTS Table A6- 12: Results of analysis for low collection costs

Sc1 EfW Sc2

Gas/Pyr




Envi

ronm

enta

l cr

iter

ia


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



Oper

atio

nal

crite

ria



Table A6- 13: Normalised scores of analysis for low collection costs

Sc1 EfW Sc2

Gas/Pyr




0.54 1.00 0.36 0.00


0.33 1.00 0.08 0.00


1.00 0.88 0.24 0.00


Envi

ronm

enta

l cr

iter

ia


1.00 1.00 0.67 0.00


0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Soci

o-

econom

ic

criter

ia

Overall costs 1.00 0.67 0.00 0.10


0.00 0.45 0.70 1.00


1.00 1.00 0.36 0.00


0.00 0.83 1.00 1.00


1.00 1.00 0.10 0.00 Oper

atio

nal

crite

ria



3.7 HIGH GROWTH RATE

Table A6- 14: Results of analysis for high growth rate

Sc1 EfW Sc2

Gas/Pyr




Envi

ronm

enta

l cr

iter

ia


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


Oper

atio

nal

crite

ria



Table A6- 15: Normalised scores of analysis for high growth rate

Sc1 EfW Sc2

Gas/Pyr




0.63 1.00 0.31 0.00


0.33 1.00 0.09 0.00


1.00 0.88 0.24 0.00


Envi

ronm

enta

l cr

iter

ia


0.91 1.00 0.66 0.00


0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Soci

o-

econom

ic

criter

ia

Overall costs 1.00 0.63 0.00 0.11


0.00 0.45 0.70 1.00


1.00 1.00 0.36 0.00


0.00 0.83 1.00 1.00


1.00 1.00 0.10 0.00 Oper

atio

nal

crite

ria



3.8 LOW GROWTH RATE Table A6- 16: Results of analysis for low growth rate

Sc1 EfW Sc2

Gas/Pyr




Envi

ronm

enta

l cr

iter

ia


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


Oper

atio

nal

crite

ria



Table A6- 17: Normalised scores of analysis for low growth rate

Sc1 EfW Sc2

Gas/Pyr




0.49 1.00 0.39 0.00


0.34 1.00 0.07 0.00


1.00 0.88 0.24 0.00


Envi

ronm

enta

l cr

iter

ia


0.91 1.00 0.68 0.00


0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Soci

o-

econom

ic

criter

ia

Overall costs 1.00 0.62 0.00 0.11


0.00 0.45 0.70 1.00


1.00 1.00 0.36 0.00


0.00 0.83 1.00 1.00


1.00 1.00 0.10 0.00 Oper

atio

nal

crite

ria



3.9 HIGH RDF/COMPOST

Table A6- 18: Results of analysis for high RDF/compost production

Sc1 EfW Sc2

Gas/Pyr


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


Table A6- 19: Normalised scores of analysis for high RDF/compost production

Sc1 EfW Sc2

Gas/Pyr



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


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


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


0.00 0.31 0.38 1.00 0.38


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


3.10 LOW RDF/COMPOST

Table A6- 20: Results of analysis for low RDF/compost production

Sc1 EfW Sc2

Gas/Pyr



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



Table A6- 21: Normalised scores of analysis for low RDF/compost production

Sc1 EfW Sc2

Gas/Pyr



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


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


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


0.00 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00


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


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


Figure 7B: Sensitivity of overall scores with procurement weightings

Appendix 8 Financial Modelling Results Report – Ernst & Young


randd.defra.gov.ukrandd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=WR0801_5404_FRA.pdfSensitivity analysis...

Documents

Transcript of randd.defra.gov.ukrandd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=WR0801_5404_FRA.pdfSensitivity analysis...