No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Solid waste management in Oklahoma : an economic analysis /
Abstract
Thesis (M. Env. Sci.)--University of Oklahoma, 1989. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 168-180).
In this paper, solutions of a regional-scheduling model are presented to demonstrate the ability of the model to optimally schedule processing, conversion, and landfilling options to realize the lowest possible long-term costs for a regional integrated solid waste management system. The model is driven by the capacity and tipping fees for each existing or proposed landfill along with the capacity, costs, and revenues of implementing each processing or conversion option. Model results indicate that the implementation of processing and conversion options can reduce long-term costs by increasing the life of less expensive landfills, thus pushing the opening of more expensive landfills further into the future. Model solutions are used to show the effect of landfill capacities and tipping fees on scheduling. Figures are presented to illustrate interactions between model parameters, optimal costs, and scheduling.
A spreadsheet model MSWFLOW was developed as an accounting procedure for determining impacts of management decisions on the physical scale and productive outputs of a municipal solid-waste system. The model tracks the disposition of 50 different waste products and includes source reduction, recovery (recycling and composting), waste-to-energy (WTE) combustion, and landfilling. Outputs from the calculations include mass and volume of waste generated, collected, and diverted by source reduction or recovery; physical scale (daily mass and/or volume) of the recovery and combustion facilities; landfilled mass and associated volume requirement; potential (maximum) annual landfill gas production; and net electrical power production from the combustion facility. The spreadsheet was demonstrated by evaluations of several alternative management strategies for municipal solid waste from a typical U.S. city with a population of 100,000.
The cost-effectiveness of recycling for achieving proposed or mandated waste reduction and recycling goals in the U.S. is open to question in states where the costs of municipal waste disposal are considerably lower than in the densely-populated eastern states. In this study, twenty-year net present value analysis was used to assess the relative cost-effectiveness of curbside recycling versus current land disposal systems in four communities in Oklahoma. Two systems were modelled: (1) a municipally-operated program and (2) a program operated by a private-sector firm under municipal contract. Results indicate that curbside recycling may be marginally cost-effective under conditions somewhat more favorable than those assumed in the base analysis. Low land disposal costs limit the impact of avoided costs on cost effectiveness. The economics of curbside recycling are more sensitive to collection costs, recycling rates, recovered materials markets and, for the contract curbside option, the magnitude of the service charge per household.Achieving state or federal waste reduction and recycling goals of 25% of the composite municipal waste stream will necessitate recycling more than the post-consumer products amenable to curbside collection. Adding programs for composting leaves and grass may yield net diversion rates approaching 20%. In many communities, however, net costs per household would increase by 2.85 per month for a combined yard waste and curbside program. This could exceed the public's willingness to pay for the less tangible benefits of recycling and could necessitate financial subsidies to achieve public waste reduction and recycling goals.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.