A Framework for Sustainability Assessment Technologies(SAT)

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 Characteristics
It 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 Characteristics
It 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 SAT
SAT can be used at five levels and
across various stakeholders
Policy and Government
Financing Institutions
Operational Level – Technical Staff, Designers
Community or Cluster Level – Community and
Industrial clusters
Village / Enterprise Level
8

Use of SAT
Policy and Government Level
9
For Strategic Planning and Policy making
 Financing Institution Level
For Assessing projects for funding
 Operational Level
For assessment of alternative technologies
 Community and Cluster Level
For assessment and comparison of alternative technologies at
programmatic level
 Village / Enterprise Level
For comparing technology options

Application of SAT
The 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
Information
/
Consultation
Define targets
Issues to be
addressed /
Problems to be solved
Strategic Level Assessment
Preferred Technology Options
Operational Level Assessment
Detailed
engineering
design & costing
Monitoring /
Performance
Evaluation
Scoping
Detailed
Assessment
CustomizedCriteriaandIndicators
consideringenvironmental,social
andeconomicconsiderations
Implementation
Situational Analysis
Anticipating Future
Scenarios

SAT Methodology – Situation
Analysis
Situation 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 assessment
This 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
Assessment
Criteria and
Indicators
considering
environmental, soc
ial and economic
considerations

SAT Methodology - Screening
In 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 Methodology
SAT Application for Assessing
Technology Options for
Municipal Solid Waste
Management
23

MSW: Problem statement
Inafix 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 statement
The 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: 57.5
Total dry organic material: 15.05
Recyclable with heat value: 18.7
Recyclable without heat value: 0.93
Inert material: 11.26
Calorific value (kcal/kg): 951
C/N ration: 25
Moisture: 68.2
Material suitable for composting: 57.5
Calorific value after removing inert: 1,070
26

MSW: Situation analysis
Issues Targets
MSW 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 Approach
SAT 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 Assessment
The stakeholder of Inafix city can be classified in two
types:
Mix of Middle and Upper income Urban residents
Less 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
incinerati
on
Fluidized
bed
incinerati
on
RD
F
Sanitary
land filling
combined
with aerobic
composting
Sanitary
land filling
combined
with bio-
methanatio
n
Manual land
filling
combined
with
vermicompo
sting
Compliance with
local env. Laws
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Compliance with
national env.
laws
Compliance with
MEA’s
Safe to Use Yes No* Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Provides savings
on resources
32
* There has been widespread concerns over the consistency and adequacy of air pollution controls.

- Scoping
Criteria Wei
ght
(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
vermicompos
ting
Sco
re
Wt.*
scor
e
Scor
e
Wt.*sc
ore
S
co
re
Wt.*s
core
Scor
e
Wt.*sc
ore
Score Wt.*sco
re
Scor
e
Wt.*sco
re
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

- Scoping
Criteria Wei
ght
(Wt.
)
Mass
burn
Fluidized
bed
incineratio
n
RDF Sanitary
land filling
combined
with
aerobic
compostin
g
Sanitary
land filling
combined
with bio-
methanation
Manual land
filling
combined
with
vermicomp
osting
Sc
ore
Wt.*
scor
e
Sco
re
Wt.*s
core
S
c
or
e
Wt.*
scor
e
Sco
re
Wt.*s
core
Scor
e
Wt.*sc
ore
Sco
re
Wt.*sc
ore
Income
generation
potential
7
TOTAL (Weight
* Assign score)
34

Rank
Number
Score Technology system
1 Sanitary land filling with bio-methanation
2 Manual land filling with vermicomposting
3 Sanitary land filling with aerobic (windrow)
composting
4 Fluidized bed incineration
5 RDF
6 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 contaminant
generation
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
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
Fuel consumption
Electricity consumption
Star 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 contaminant
generation
PPE requirement
for staff
Safety risk for
workers and
communities
Noise levels
Odour levels
Person-power
requirements
Technical
knowledge
requirements
25
50
75
100
Composite 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 scenarios
In 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

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.

Option
44
Decision making on The Preferred Technology
Option
The 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 Modak
prasad.modak@ekonnect.net

A Framework for Sustainability Assessment Technologies(SAT)

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à A Framework for Sustainability Assessment Technologies(SAT)

Similaire à A Framework for Sustainability Assessment Technologies(SAT) (20)

Plus de Ekonnect Knowledge Foundation

Plus de Ekonnect Knowledge Foundation (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

A Framework for Sustainability Assessment Technologies(SAT)