life-cycle cost analysis of waste collection equipment...

ATHENS 2017 Athens, 21-25 June 2017

LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS OF WASTE COLLECTION EQUIPMENTThe case study of Cascais Municipality

J.F. SeixasInstituto Superior Técnico

V. SousaInstituto Superior Técnico

A. DrummondEMAC

M.J. BonnetEMAC

J.M. VazECOGESTUS

C. Dias-FerreiraCERNAS / CICECO


PRESENTATION INDEX

1. Introduction

2. Life-cycle cost analysis methodology

3. Case study

4. Application of the methodology

4.1. Framing

4.2. Results and discussion

5. Final remarks


1. INTRODUCTION

Infrastructure Stakeholders

UsersReliability, quality, cost

Owner/InvestorProfitability,

compliance with demand and regulations

Government

Service level, vulnerability, regulatory control

General Public

Environment, social equity


1. INTRODUCTION

Vital context: business/activity objectives, policies and market; legal and regulatoryrequirements; socio-cultural context; performance and risk goals

Important interface: motivation; communication; roles and responsabilities; knowledge; experience; competence andcapability; leadership; teamwork

Important interface: life cycle cost; investment criteria, value of assetperformance

Important interface: reputation/image; moral and etics constraints; socio-cultural andenvironmental impact

Important interface: condition; performance level; hazards and opportunities; processes, protocols and activities

PhysicalAssets


1. INTRODUCTION

Corporatemanagement

Manage asset portfolio

Manage asset systems

Manage assets

Organizational strategic goals

Capital investment optimizationand sustainability planning

Sustained performance and riskoptimization

Optimize life cycle activitiesCreateacquireCreateacquire

UtilizeUtilize MaintainMaintainRenewDisposeRenewDispose


2. LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY


3. CASE STUDY

Area: 100 km2Population: 206 000 inhabitantsWaste production: 120 000 tonnes per year


3. CASE STUDY

Services

Residual waste

Collection Containerization

Segregated Waste

Collection Containerization

Garden waste

Collection

Bulky waste

Collection


3. CASE STUDY

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Was

te c

olle

ctio

n va

riatio

n [%

]

Month [-]

Residual Segregated Garden Bulky


4. APPLICATION OF THE METHODOLOGY


4.1. Framing


4.2 Results and discussion



13%

23%45%

17%

2%

64%

13%

21%49%

15%

2%

66%

6%

12%

72%

9%1%

82%

7%

21%

58%

13%1%

72%



0

20.000

40.000

60.000

80.000

100.000

120.000

140.000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Cos

ts [€

]

Years [-]

Maintenance

Fuel

Operators and managers of the operation

Acquisition

0

10.000

20.000

30.000

40.000

50.000

60.000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Cost[€]

Year [‐]

0

5.000

10.000

15.000

20.000

25.000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Cost[€]

Year [‐]


5. FINAL REMARKS

End-of-life is defined by the function life, for the containers, and by the economic life, forthe collection vehicles.

Residual waste collection vehicles have the shortest life, while the bulky waste thelongest.

The vehicles represent the largest share of the waste collection costs, with the labortotaling nearly or more than 50%.

For the residual waste collection vehicles, a technology allowing to reduce the teamsfrom 3 to 2 elements, with equivalent performance, would be financially beneficial up toan additional acquisition cost of 100 000 €.

For the garden waste collection vehicles, a reduction of 10% on the maintenance cost,with equivalent performance, would be financially beneficial up to an addition acquisitioncost of 200 000 €.

life-cycle cost analysis of waste collection equipment...

Documents