a framework for sustainability assessment technologies(sat)

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

47

Questions?

Contact: Dr Prasad Modakprasad.modak@ekonnect.net