a framework for sustainability assessment technologies(sat)
TRANSCRIPT
Slide 1
Making Right Choices: A Framework for Sustainability Assessment
of Technologies (SAT)
By Dr. Prasad Modak,Director, Ekonnect Knowledge Foundation
Structure of the Presentation What is Sustainable Development?
About SAT Methodology
Key Characteristics of SAT methodology
Application areas
Illustration of SAT methodology
2
What is Sustainable Development?Like ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’, ‘Sustainable
Development’ means different things to different people.
The most widely accepted definition is:
3
It is a balance of Economic, Social and Environmental considerations in all development”
“Meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs”
- Our Common Future, The World Commission on Environment and Development, 1997
SocialEconomic
Environmental
Why integrate ‘Sustainable Development’ in Technology Assessment?
Technology plays an important role in Development
Today technology selection focuses on economic considerations
and tends to disassociate from social and environmental factors
This approach in making technology choices has implications on
sustainability of technology itself
Integration of Economic, Social and Environmental
considerations ensures Resource Efficiency and Social
Acceptability and Effective Outcomes
4
Sustainable Assessment of Technology (SAT)
SAT Methodology …
… Integrates Environmental, Social and Economic Considerations
… Focuses on environment and development together and puts them at the centre of the economic and political decision making process
... Can be adapted to specific situations/context
5
SAT – Some Key CharacteristicsIt is built on existing Environmental Technology
Assessment (EnTA) framework
Undergoes progressive assessment (Tiered) procedure
(screening, scoping and detailed assessment) thereby
optimizing information requirements.
It operates on strategic as well as operational level
6
SAT – Some Key CharacteristicsIt is a semi-quantitative procedure allowing more
objective assessment, allows sensitivity analyses
and incorporation of scenarios
It maps well with Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle
It is not an automated process thereby making
human intervention and adaptation possible
7
Use of SATSAT can be used at five levels and across various stakeholders
Policy and GovernmentFinancing InstitutionsOperational Level – Technical Staff, DesignersCommunity or Cluster Level – Community and
Industrial clustersVillage / Enterprise Level
8
Use of SATPolicy and Government Level
9
For Strategic Planning and Policy making
Financing Institution LevelFor Assessing projects for funding
Operational Level For assessment of alternative technologies
Community and Cluster LevelFor assessment and comparison of alternative technologies at
programmatic level Village / Enterprise Level
For comparing technology options
Application of SATThe application areas include
Environment and health related programs Provision of basic infrastructure such as roads, power,
water etc. Bio diversity management Process technology modernization at shop floors and at
industrial clusters. End of pipe waste management technologies Remediation and land reclamation Waste recycling programs
10
11
SAT Methodology
Screening
Public Informatio
n / Consultatio
n
Define targets
Issues to be addressed /
Problems to be solved
Strategic Level Assessment
Preferred Technology Options
Operational Level AssessmentDetailed engineering
design & costing
Monitoring / Performance Evaluation
Scoping
Detailed Assessme
nt
Cus
tom
ized
Crit
eria
and
Indi
cato
rs
cons
ider
ing
envi
ronm
enta
l, so
cial
an
d ec
onom
ic c
onsi
dera
tions
Implementation
Situational Analysis
Anticipating Future Scenarios
SAT Methodology – Situation AnalysisSituation Analysis and Defining Targets
The Situation Analysis includes:
• Baseline data collection• Stakeholder consultation• Mapping and analyses
These two Steps help to identify issues, assess their significance and leads to setting of targets that should be addressed by through technology intervention.
12
Situational Analysis
Define targets
SAT Methodology – Strategic Level Assessment
Strategic level assessmentThis is done by planners, decision–makers, elected representatives through participatory sessions
The outcomes are important as it• Helps to develop criteria and indicators for
operational level.• Facilitates short-listing and identification of
appropriate technologies • Provides leads to future scenario building (e.g.
population growth, tightening of legal requirements) thereby providing more insight for technology choices.
13
Strategic Level Assessment
Operational level Assessment
Engineers and technical staff assess the appropriate
technology options
In community or enterprise level, operational level
assessment can be the first step.
The inputs of expert opinion and technical
information are very important.
14
SAT Methodology – Operational Level Assessment
Operational Level Assessment
SAT Methodology : Three -Tier Assessment
15
Screening
Scoping
Detailed Assessme
nt
Criteria and Indicators
considering environmental,
social and economic
considerations
SAT Methodology - ScreeningIn this Step:
Objective YES/NO type questions
Options which do not qualify one or all conditions,
are directly eliminated.
e.g.: Compliance to legal requirements or Use of
hazardous substances
16
SAT Methodology - Scoping More of Qualitative type (High/Medium/Low) assessment supplemented by information drawn from Experts
Various technology options are assessed against criteria and indicators with use of methods such as:
• The weighted sum technique
• Sensitivity analysis
17
SAT Methodology - Detailed Assessment The options with best overall ratings from Scoping are selected
for further assessment
This assessment level requires detailed and quantitative
information.
The outcome is a list of technology options ranked as per scores
Various technology options are assessed against criteria and indicators with use of methods such as:
• The weighted sum technique and Sensitivity analysis
• Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM): By ‘Expert choice’, a software using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to carry out MCDM
18
SAT Methodology - Anticipating Future Scenarios
In order to check the robustness of selected technology options, same methodology with simulated future scenario’s to be applied so at to confirm that the technology stands the test of time.
19
SAT Methodology - Preferred Technology Options
Before discarding low scoring options and/or final decision on selection of technology one must keep in mind
• Highest score technology option for current scenario
needs to be carefully reviewed for different scenarios
as it may not be eligible as feasible option
• On the other hand, the technology options with less
score may qualify for different scenarios after suitable
technology transfer/capacity building efforts are taken
20
SAT Methodology - Implementation and Monitoring
Once the decision on Suitable Option is made, this step covers the following:
• Engineering design
• Tendering
• Actual construction and commissioning
Evaluation of technology during operational phase ensures meeting of desired objective against criteria considered in SAT process
21
SAT Methodology – Reporting, Monitoring and Feedback
Reporting the outcome of monitoring and evaluation to stakeholders, govt. agencies and decision makers acts as basis for situation analysis for future projects and helps in making informed decisions
It helps refine and build the Methodology by
• Inclusion of additional criteria
• Disqualification of technology in future for similar
situations due to negative experiences.
22
Illustration of SAT MethodologySAT Application for Assessing
Technology Options for Municipal Solid Waste
Management
23
MSW: Problem statementInafix city with 100 sq. km geographical area in developing country with population of 5 Million
Waste generation data:
• Bio-degradable organic waste: 400 t/day
• Soil debris, building material: 216 t/day
• Recyclable dry waste: 50 – 60 t/day
Sources of waste generation include:
• Households, shops & commercial establishments, construction activity, hotels, schools, hospitals, silt removed from drain cleaning activity etc. collected from 60 odd collection points.
24
MSW: Problem statementThe Problem:
• The city of Inafix finding it difficult to dispose of solid waste in efficient manner.
• Current practice of unhygienic opening dumping are almost full to capacity
• Accelerated population growth and rapid urbanization resulting into increase in volume of waste
25
MSW: Characteristics in %Total wet organic material: 57.5Total dry organic material: 15.05Recyclable with heat value: 18.7Recyclable without heat value: 0.93Inert material: 11.26Calorific value (kcal/kg): 951 C/N ration: 25Moisture: 68.2Material suitable for composting: 57.5Calorific value after removing inert: 1,070
26
MSW: Situation analysis Issues TargetsMSW with high organic content with less potential for recycle and recovery
Use of technology system working well with such type of waste
Severe scarcity of land Use of technology requiring less last space and / or pre-treatment to reduce volume of waste before land filling
Unsanitary and unscientific MSW disposal creating environmental and health issues
Use of technology, safe in terms of treatment and containment of waste and residues generated over the time (odours, leachate)
Strong public opposition for existing and future dumping ground site
Use of technology addressing social and cultural concerns
Lack of skills and technical knowledge to operate complicated technology
Adoption of user friendly technology
Increase in waste volume in future Use of technology with up-scaling facility and / or duplication at other locations
27
MSW: The ApproachSAT methodology incorporates assessment of “technology systems” goes beyond assessment of individual technologies
SAT proposes most appropriate technology system to address all issues
Some systems may need preliminary steps to address MSW issue completely
• Example of Mass burn practice versus composting
28
MSW: Strategic Level Assessment
Centralised De-centralised Mass burn Modular (Incineration) Fluidized bed incineration Refused Derived Fuel (RDF) Pyrolysis Gasification Sanitary land fill Aerobic composting Anaerobic digestion /
methanation
Manual land filling Vermicomposting
29
The technologies for MSW management are classified as Centralised and De-centralised at Strategic Level
MSW: Strategic Level AssessmentThe stakeholder of Inafix city can be classified in two types:Mix of Middle and Upper income Urban residentsLess economically well-off - slum areas
30
Mix of Middle & Upper Income Group
Has lifestyle resembling the developed world
Hence method of collection and disposal of MSW may resemble to developed world
Centralised system is feasible
Low Income Group - Slum area
Decentralized system is feasible as centralised collection and treatment system is not desirable as waste characteristics are different than well-heeled urban areas.
Hence it was decided to keep technology elements of both systems at this stage of assessment.
MSW: Strategic Level Assessment
Selected De-centralised Mass burn Modular (Incineration) Fluidized bed incineration Refused Derived Fuel (RDF) Sanitary land filling
combined with aerobic composting
Sanitary land filling combined with bio-methanation
Manual land filling combined with vermicomposting
31
Short-listed Technologies
MSW: Operational level assessment - Screening
Criteria Mass burn
Modular incineration
Fluidized bed incineration
RDF
Sanitary land filling combined with aerobic composting
Sanitary land filling combined with bio-methanation
Manual land filling combined with vermicomposting
Compliance with local env. Laws
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Compliance with national env. laws
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Compliance with MEA’s
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Safe to Use Yes No* Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Provides savings on resources
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
32
* There has been widespread concerns over the consistency and adequacy of air pollution controls.
MSW: Operational level assessment - Scoping
Criteria Weight (Wt.)
Mass burn Fluidized bed incineration
RDF Sanitary land filling combined with aerobic composting
Sanitary land filling combined with bio-methanation
Manual land filling combined with vermicomposting
Score
Wt.*score
Score
Wt.*score
Score
Wt.*score
Score
Wt.*score
Score Wt.*score
Score
Wt.*score
Suitability of waste characteristics to technology application
10
Past experience (under similar condition)
10
Land requirements
10
Overall pollutant removal efficiency
10
Acceptability (to the public)
10
33
MSW: Operational level assessment - Scoping
Criteria Weight (Wt.)
Mass burn
Fluidized bed incineration
RDF Sanitary land filling combined with aerobic composting
Sanitary land filling combined with bio-methanation
Manual land filling combined with vermicomposting
Score
Wt.*score
Score
Wt.*score
Score
Wt.*score
Score
Wt.*score
Score
Wt.*score
Score
Wt.*score
Income generation potential
7
TOTAL (Weight * Assign score)
34
Rank Number
Score Technology system
1 Sanitary land filling with bio-methanation2 Manual land filling with vermicomposting3 Sanitary land filling with aerobic (windrow)
composting4 Fluidized bed incineration5 RDF6 Mass burn
35
MSW: Operational level assessment - Scoping
The first three ranks of technology systems are short listed for Detailed Assessment
36
MSW Technologies: Detailed Assessment
Use of Star Diagrams
133, 126, 149
Secondary contaminantgeneration
Noise levelsOdour levels
25
50
75
100
Sanitary landfilling with aerobic composting
Sanitary landfilling with biomethanation
Manual landfilling with vermicomposting
Star Diagram for Detailed Assessment of criteria pertaining to Environmental Aspects only
249, 353, 316
Savings in energy
Capital investment
O & M costs
Financial incentives
Payback period
NPV / IRR
25
50
75
100
Sanitary landfilling with aerobic composting
Sanitary landfilling with biomethanation
Manual landfilling with vermicomposting
Star Diagram for Detailed Assessment of criteria pertaining to Economic Aspects only)
Process stability
367.5, 387.5,459
Level of automation
Estimated useful lifePerson-power requirements
Technical knowledge
requirements
25
50
75
100
Sanitary landfilling with aerobic composting
Sanitary landfilling with biomethanation
Manual landfilling with vermicomposting
Fuel consumption
Electricity consumptionStar Diagram for Detailed Assessment of criteria pertaining to Technical Aspects only)
Process stability
805.5, 922.5,1008
Level of automation
Estimated useful life
Fuel consumption
Electricity consumption
Savings in energy
Capital investment
O & M costs
Financial incentivesPayback periodNPV / IRR
Secondary contaminantgeneration
PPE requirement for staff
Safety risk for workers and communities
Noise levels
Odour levels
Person-power requirements
Technical knowledge
requirements
25
50
75
100
Sanitary landfilling with aerobic composting
Sanitary landfilling with biomethanation
Manual landfilling with vermicompostingComposite Star Diagram for Detailed Assessment
Ranking of Technology Options
41
At this stage the ranking of technology system options is as follows:
Option 1: Manual land filling with vermicomposting Option 2: Sanitary land filling with bio methanation Option 3: Sanitary land filling with aerobic composting
Selection of The Right Technology Option
42
Anticipation of future scenariosIn case of Inafix, following aspects considered: Possible Increase in amount of waste due to rapid increase
in population Possible Change of waste characteristics
Moderate to strong possibility of increase in amount of
inorganic waste (15-20% annually for next 5 years)
Little change in the compostable organic fraction
Selection of The Right Technology Option
43
Decision Making on The Preferred Technology Option
With possibility of changing scenario, technology options of Sanitary land filling with bio-methanation Sanitary land filling with Aerobic composting
Can stand the test of time
“Vermicomposting” is a de-centralised option, but may not be feasible due to changes in waste characteristics in future.
Selection of The Right Technology Option
44
Decision making on The Preferred Technology OptionThe slum area is estimated to be between 45%-60% of total population and it is estimated that not much change should be observed in the characteristics of waste Hence the “Vermicomposting” option is retained for considerations
Ranking of Technology Options
45
After consideration of the future scenario, the technology options ranked by the Stakeholder group is as follows.
Option 1: Sanitary land filling with bio methanation Option 2: Manual land filling with vermicomposting Option 3: Sanitary land filling with aerobic composting
SAT Methodology Next Steps
46
The Next Steps are as follows:
Detailed engineering design and costing
Implementation and monitoring / performance
evaluation through feedback
