A Framework for Sustainability Assessment Technologies(SAT)


Published on

Technology choices should be made on the basis of sustainability. This presentation describes a framework for sustainability assessment of technologies. The framework was developed for UNEP's International Environmental Technology Center and has been widely applied and tested.

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

A Framework for Sustainability Assessment Technologies(SAT)

  1. 1. Slide 1Making Right Choices:A Framework for Sustainability Assessmentof Technologies (SAT)ByDr. Prasad Modak,Director, Ekonnect Knowledge Foundation
  2. 2. Structure of the PresentationWhat is Sustainable Development?About SAT MethodologyKey Characteristics of SAT methodologyApplication areasIllustration of SAT methodology2
  3. 3. What is Sustainable Development?Like „democracy‟ and „freedom‟, „SustainableDevelopment‟ means different things to different people.The most widely accepted definition is:3It is a balance of Economic, Social andEnvironmental considerations in alldevelopment”“Meeting the needs of the present generationwithout compromising the ability of futuregenerations to meet their own needs”- Our Common Future, The World Commission on Environment andDevelopment, 1997SocialEconomicEnvironmental
  4. 4. Why integrate ‘Sustainable Development’in Technology Assessment?Technology plays an important role in DevelopmentToday technology selection focuses on economicconsiderations and tends to disassociate from social andenvironmental factorsThis approach in making technology choices has implicationson sustainability of technology itselfIntegration of Economic, Social and Environmentalconsiderations ensures Resource Efficiency and SocialAcceptability and Effective Outcomes4
  5. 5. Sustainable Assessment ofTechnology (SAT)SAT Methodology …… Integrates Environmental, Social andEconomic Considerations… Focuses on environment and developmenttogether and puts them at the centre of theeconomic and political decision making process... Can be adapted to specific situations/context5
  6. 6. SAT – Some Key CharacteristicsIt is built on existing Environmental TechnologyAssessment (EnTA) frameworkUndergoes progressive assessment (Tiered)procedure (screening, scoping and detailedassessment) thereby optimizing informationrequirements.It operates on strategic as well as operational level6
  7. 7. SAT – Some Key CharacteristicsIt is a semi-quantitative procedure allowing moreobjective assessment, allows sensitivity analyses andincorporation of scenariosIt maps well with Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycleIt is not an automated process thereby making humanintervention and adaptation possible7
  8. 8. Use of SATSAT can be used at five levels andacross various stakeholdersPolicy and GovernmentFinancing InstitutionsOperational Level – Technical Staff, DesignersCommunity or Cluster Level – Community andIndustrial clustersVillage / Enterprise Level8
  9. 9. Use of SATPolicy and Government Level9For Strategic Planning and Policy making Financing Institution LevelFor Assessing projects for funding Operational LevelFor assessment of alternative technologies Community and Cluster LevelFor assessment and comparison of alternative technologies atprogrammatic level Village / Enterprise LevelFor comparing technology options
  10. 10. 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 andat industrial clusters. End of pipe waste management technologies Remediation and land reclamation Waste recycling programs10
  11. 11. 11SAT MethodologyScreeningPublicInformation/ConsultationDefine targetsIssues to beaddressed /Problems to be solvedStrategic Level AssessmentPreferred Technology OptionsOperational Level AssessmentDetailedengineeringdesign & costingMonitoring /PerformanceEvaluationScopingDetailedAssessmentCustomizedCriteriaandIndicatorsconsideringenvironmental,socialandeconomicconsiderationsImplementationSituational AnalysisAnticipating FutureScenarios
  12. 12. SAT Methodology – SituationAnalysisSituation Analysis and Defining TargetsThe Situation Analysis includes:• Baseline data collection• Stakeholder consultation• Mapping and analysesThese two Steps help to identify issues, assess theirsignificance and leads to setting of targets that shouldbe addressed by through technology intervention.12SituationalAnalysisDefine targets
  13. 13. SAT Methodology – Strategic LevelAssessmentStrategic level assessmentThis is done by planners, decision–makers, electedrepresentatives through participatory sessionsThe outcomes are important as it• Helps to develop criteria and indicators foroperational level.• Facilitates short-listing and identification ofappropriate technologies• Provides leads to future scenario building (e.g.population growth, tightening of legalrequirements) thereby providing more insight fortechnology choices.13Strategic Level Assessment
  14. 14. Operational level AssessmentEngineers and technical staff assess theappropriate technology optionsIn community or enterprise level, operational levelassessment can be the first step.The inputs of expert opinion and technicalinformation are very important.14SAT Methodology – OperationalLevel AssessmentOperational LevelAssessment
  15. 15. SAT Methodology : Three -TierAssessment15ScreeningScopingDetailedAssessmentCriteria andIndicatorsconsideringenvironmental, social and economicconsiderations
  16. 16. SAT Methodology - ScreeningIn this Step:Objective YES/NO type questionsOptions which do not qualify one or all conditions,are directly eliminated.e.g.: Compliance to legal requirements or Use ofhazardous substances16
  17. 17. SAT Methodology - ScopingMore of Qualitative type (High/Medium/Low)assessment supplemented by information drawnfrom ExpertsVarious technology options are assessed againstcriteria and indicators with use of methods such as:• The weighted sum technique• Sensitivity analysis17
  18. 18. SAT Methodology - DetailedAssessmentThe options with best overall ratings from Scoping are selectedfor further assessmentThis assessment level requires detailed and quantitativeinformation.The outcome is a list of technology options ranked as per scoresVarious technology options are assessed against criteria and indicatorswith use of methods such as:• The weighted sum technique and Sensitivity analysis• Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM): By „Expert choice‟, a software usingAnalytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to carry out MCDM18
  19. 19. SAT Methodology - AnticipatingFuture ScenariosIn order to check the robustness ofselected technology options, samemethodology with simulated futurescenario‟s to be applied so at to confirmthat the technology stands the test oftime.19
  20. 20. SAT Methodology - PreferredTechnology OptionsBefore discarding low scoring options and/or finaldecision on selection of technology one must keepin mind• Highest score technology option for current scenarioneeds to be carefully reviewed for different scenariosas it may not be eligible as feasible option• On the other hand, the technology options with lessscore may qualify for different scenarios after suitabletechnology transfer/capacity building efforts are taken20
  21. 21. SAT Methodology - Implementationand MonitoringOnce the decision on Suitable Option is made, thisstep covers the following:• Engineering design• Tendering• Actual construction and commissioningEvaluation of technology during operational phaseensures meeting of desired objective against criteriaconsidered in SAT process21
  22. 22. SAT Methodology – Reporting,Monitoring and FeedbackReporting the outcome of monitoring and evaluationto stakeholders, govt. agencies and decision makersacts as basis for situation analysis for future projectsand helps in making informed decisionsIt helps refine and build the Methodology by• Inclusion of additional criteria• Disqualification of technology in future for similarsituations due to negative experiences.22
  23. 23. Illustration of SAT MethodologySAT Application for AssessingTechnology Options forMunicipal Solid WasteManagement23
  24. 24. MSW: Problem statementInafix city with 100 sq. km geographical area in developingcountry with population of 5 MillionWaste generation data:• Bio-degradable organic waste: 400 t/day• Soil debris, building material: 216 t/day• Recyclable dry waste: 50 – 60 t/daySources of waste generation include:• Households, shops & commercial establishments,construction activity, hotels, schools, hospitals, silt removedfrom drain cleaning activity etc. collected from 60 oddcollection points.24
  25. 25. MSW: Problem statementThe Problem:• The city of Inafix finding it difficult to dispose of solidwaste in efficient manner.• Current practice of unhygienic opening dumping arealmost full to capacity• Accelerated population growth and rapid urbanizationresulting into increase in volume of waste25
  26. 26. 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): 951C/N ration: 25Moisture: 68.2Material suitable for composting: 57.5Calorific value after removing inert: 1,07026
  27. 27. MSW: Situation analysisIssues TargetsMSW with high organic contentwith less potential for recycle andrecoveryUse of technology system working wellwith such type of wasteSevere scarcity of land Use of technology requiring less lastspace and / or pre-treatment to reducevolume of waste before land fillingUnsanitary and unscientific MSWdisposal creating environmentaland health issuesUse of technology, safe in terms oftreatment and containment of waste andresidues generated over the time(odours, leachate)Strong public opposition forexisting and future dumping groundsiteUse of technology addressing social andcultural concernsLack of skills and technicalknowledge to operate complicatedtechnologyAdoption of user friendly technologyIncrease in waste volume in future Use of technology with up-scaling facilityand / or duplication at other locations 27
  28. 28. MSW: The ApproachSAT methodology incorporates assessment of“technology systems” goes beyond assessment ofindividual technologiesSAT proposes most appropriate technology systemto address all issuesSome systems may need preliminary steps toaddress MSW issue completely• Example of Mass burn practice versus composting28
  29. 29. MSW: Strategic LevelAssessmentCentralised 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 Vermicomposting29The technologies for MSW management are classified as Centralisedand De-centralised at Strategic Level
  30. 30. MSW: Strategic Level AssessmentThe stakeholder of Inafix city can be classified in twotypes:Mix of Middle and Upper income Urban residentsLess economically well-off - slum areas30Mix of Middle & UpperIncome Group Has lifestyle resembling thedeveloped world Hence method of collectionand disposal of MSW mayresemble to developed world Centralised system is feasibleLow Income Group - Slumarea Decentralized system isfeasible as centralisedcollection and treatmentsystem is not desirable aswaste characteristics aredifferent than well-heeledurban areas.Hence it was decided to keep technology elements of bothsystems at this stage of assessment.
  31. 31. MSW: Strategic Level AssessmentSelected De-centralised Mass burn Modular (Incineration) Fluidized bed incineration Refused Derived Fuel (RDF) Sanitary land fillingcombined with aerobiccomposting Sanitary land fillingcombined with bio-methanation Manual land fillingcombined withvermicomposting31Short-listed Technologies
  32. 32. MSW: Operational level assessment- ScreeningCriteria MassburnModularincinerationFluidizedbedincinerationRDFSanitaryland fillingcombinedwith aerobiccompostingSanitaryland fillingcombinedwith bio-methanationManual landfillingcombinedwithvermicompostingCompliance withlocal env. LawsYes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesCompliance withnational env.lawsYes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesCompliance withMEA’sYes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes YesSafe to Use Yes No* Yes Yes Yes Yes YesProvides savingson resourcesYes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes32* There has been widespread concerns over the consistency and adequacy of air pollution controls.
  33. 33. MSW: Operational level assessment- ScopingCriteria Weight(Wt.)Mass burn FluidizedbedincinerationRDF Sanitaryland fillingcombinedwith aerobiccompostingSanitary landfillingcombined withbio-methanationManual landfillingcombinedwithvermicompostingScoreWt.*scoreScoreWt.*scoreScoreWt.*scoreScoreWt.*scoreScore Wt.*scoreScoreWt.*scoreSuitability of wastecharacteristics totechnologyapplication10Past experience(under similarcondition)10Land requirements 10Overall pollutantremoval efficiency10Acceptability (tothe public)1033
  34. 34. MSW: Operational level assessment- ScopingCriteria Weight(Wt.)MassburnFluidizedbedincinerationRDF Sanitaryland fillingcombinedwithaerobiccompostingSanitaryland fillingcombinedwith bio-methanationManual landfillingcombinedwithvermicompostingScoreWt.*scoreScoreWt.*scoreScoreWt.*scoreScoreWt.*scoreScoreWt.*scoreScoreWt.*scoreIncomegenerationpotential7TOTAL (Weight* Assign score)34
  35. 35. RankNumberScore Technology system1 Sanitary land filling with bio-methanation2 Manual land filling with vermicomposting3 Sanitary land filling with aerobic (windrow)composting4 Fluidized bed incineration5 RDF6 Mass burn35MSW: Operational levelassessment - ScopingThe first three ranks of technology systems are shortlisted for Detailed Assessment
  36. 36. 36MSW Technologies:Detailed AssessmentUse of Star Diagrams
  37. 37. 133, 126, 149Secondary contaminantgenerationNoise levelsOdour levels255075100Sanitary landfilling with aerobic compostingSanitary landfilling with biomethanationManual landfilling with vermicompostingStar Diagram for DetailedAssessment of criteriapertaining to EnvironmentalAspects only
  38. 38. 249, 353, 316Savings in energyCapital investmentO & M costsFinancial incentivesPayback periodNPV / IRR255075100Sanitary landfilling with aerobic compostingSanitary landfilling with biomethanationManual landfilling with vermicompostingStar Diagram forDetailed Assessment ofcriteria pertaining toEconomic Aspects only)
  39. 39. Process stability367.5, 387.5,459Level of automationEstimated useful lifePerson-powerrequirementsTechnicalknowledgerequirements255075100Sanitary landfilling with aerobic compostingSanitary landfilling with biomethanationManual landfilling with vermicompostingFuel consumptionElectricity consumptionStar Diagram for DetailedAssessment of criteriapertaining to TechnicalAspects only)
  40. 40. Process stability805.5, 922.5,1008Level of automationEstimated useful lifeFuel consumptionElectricity consumptionSavings in energyCapital investmentO & M costsFinancial incentivesPayback periodNPV / IRRSecondary contaminantgenerationPPE requirementfor staffSafety risk forworkers andcommunitiesNoise levelsOdour levelsPerson-powerrequirementsTechnicalknowledgerequirements255075100Sanitary landfilling with aerobic compostingSanitary landfilling with biomethanationManual landfilling with vermicompostingComposite Star Diagram for DetailedAssessment
  41. 41. Ranking of Technology Options41At this stage the ranking of technology systemoptions 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
  42. 42. Selection of The Right TechnologyOption42Anticipation of future scenariosIn case of Inafix, following aspects considered: Possible Increase in amount of waste due to rapid increasein population Possible Change of waste characteristics Moderate to strong possibility of increase in amount ofinorganic waste (15-20% annually for next 5 years) Little change in the compostable organic fraction
  43. 43. Selection of The Right TechnologyOption43Decision Making on The Preferred TechnologyOptionWith possibility of changing scenario, technology options of Sanitary land filling with bio-methanation Sanitary land filling with Aerobic compostingCan stand the test of time“Vermicomposting” is a de-centralised option, but may not befeasible due to changes in waste characteristics in future.
  44. 44. Selection of The Right TechnologyOption44Decision making on The Preferred TechnologyOptionThe slum area is estimated to be between 45%-60% oftotal population and it is estimated that not much changeshould be observed in the characteristics of wasteHence the “Vermicomposting” option is retained forconsiderations
  45. 45. Ranking of Technology Options45After consideration of the future scenario,the technology options ranked by theStakeholder 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
  46. 46. SAT Methodology Next Steps46The Next Steps are as follows: Detailed engineering design and costing Implementation and monitoring /performance evaluation through feedback
  47. 47. 47Questions?Contact: Dr Prasad Modakprasad.modak@ekonnect.net