Hämeenkyrö MSWI risk assessment: Indicators: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Transportation costs of waste: description) |
|||
Line 199: | Line 199: | ||
====Transportation costs of waste ==== | ====Transportation costs of waste ==== | ||
{{var | |||
|Name = Changes of waste transportation costs at Hämeenkyrö region | |||
|Focus = We focus on three different scenarios of waste transport at Hämeenkyrö region | |||
*1. Current situation: waste is transported to landfill (Tampere) | |||
*2. Future situation 1: waste is transported to MSWI elsewhere | |||
*3a. Future situation 2: MSWI uses both munispal slod waste and industrial solid waste and purchases the waste material at the shortest possible distance | |||
*3b. Future situation 3: MSWI uses only municipal solid waste and purchases the waste material | |||
further away | |||
|Scope = | |||
|Scope = | |||
|Description = | |Description = | ||
Scenario 1 | |||
Assumptions: Pirkanmaan jätehuolto collects the waste at Hämeenkyrö and transports it to landfill at Tampre or at Nokia | |||
Scenario 2 | |||
Assumptions: Pirkanmaan jätehuolto collects the waste at Hämeenkyrö and transports it to Tampre: nearest MSWI assumed to be built in Tampere | |||
Scenario 3a | |||
Assumptions: | |||
*MSWI purchases 100 000 tons of municipal solid waste/year from Pirkanmaan jätehuolto, | |||
*20000 tons of industrial waste/year from M-real and | |||
*80000 tons of industrial waste /year from solid waste treatment plant at Viljakkala | |||
*waste collection and transportation costs inside the area of Pirkanmaan jätehuotlo do not change significantly if the waste is transported to Hämeenkyrö instead of Tampere and Nokia | |||
*transportation costs: 0,12-0,23 €/t/km, waste collection costs inside each municipal are not counted, because they assumed to be constant in all scenarios | |||
*distance between M-real plant and MSWI: 1,5 km | |||
*distance between Viljakkala and MSWI : 15 km | |||
Uncertainties: | |||
*this model assumes that waste of M-real plat is transported to MSWI. In reality, that could shorten the existing waste transport route | |||
*solid waste treatment plant at Viljakkala is not established yet | |||
Scenario 3b: | |||
Assumptions: | |||
Sources of waste: | |||
*100 000 tons of municipal solid waste/year from Pirkanmaan jätehuolto, | |||
*100 000 tons of municipal solid waste/year from other municipals | |||
*average transport distance from other municipal centres 109 km | |||
*long-distance transports made by vehicle of 40 ton capacity | |||
*transportation costs: 0,12-0,23 €/t/km | |||
*waste collection costs inside each municipal not counted, because they assumed to be constant in all scenarios: only transportations between municipal centres are counted | |||
|Inputs = | |Inputs = | ||
|Index = | |Index = | ||
|Definition = | |Definition = | ||
|Unit = | |Unit = €/year | ||
|Result = | |Result = Scenario 1: | ||
Waste transport costs do not change in Hämeenkyrö compared to current situation | |||
Scenario 2: | |||
Waste transport costs do not change in Hämeenkyrö compared to current situation | |||
Scenario 3a | |||
Assumed that the total municipal solid waste transportation cost does not change inside the region of Pirkanmaa jätehuolto, additional cost of waste transportation would be 0,1-0,3 milj. €/year | |||
Number of waste transport vehicles will increase by 61/day (by 122/d to both directions) | |||
Scenario 3 b | |||
Additional cost of waste transportation would be 1,2-2,4 milj. €/year | |||
Number of waste transport vehicles will increase by 53/day (by 106/d to both directions) | |||
|References = | |References = | ||
http://www.ymparisto.fi/download.asp?contentid=37110&lan=fi | |||
http://www.ymparisto.fi/download.asp?contentid=42635&lan=fi#search=%22toivonen%20yhti%C3%B6t%22 | |||
http://lipasto.vtt.fi/yksikkopaastot/laskentaperusteet_tavaraliikenne_autoliikenne.htm | |||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 08:17, 22 September 2006
See the main page of this assessment: Hämeenkyrö MSWI risk assessment: General
- Decisions related to Hämeenkyrö case
- Possible indicators (optimising variables) in Hämeenkyrö
Well-being of the population (smells, comfort, noise)
Kari Auri
Karis proposal
Auris proposal
Effects on economy (esp. gas energy plant)
Juha
Effects on economy
Transportation costs of waste
Changes of waste transportation costs at Hämeenkyrö region
Dioxin exposure-response function on population level
Anu T
Dioxin exposure-response function on population level
PM2.5 exposure-response function on population level
PM2.5 exposure-response function on population level
Health effects of dioxins and PM2.5
Anu T
Health effects of dioxins and PM2.5 (conclusion)