IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i23p16248-d1286476.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the Techno-Economic Feasibility of Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment Treatment Plant: A Multi-Decisional Modeling Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Mattia Cottes

    (Polytechnic Department of Engineering and Architecture (DPIA), University of Udine, Via delle Scienze 208, 33100 Udine, Italy)

  • Matia Mainardis

    (Polytechnic Department of Engineering and Architecture (DPIA), University of Udine, Via delle Scienze 208, 33100 Udine, Italy)

  • Patrizia Simeoni

    (Polytechnic Department of Engineering and Architecture (DPIA), University of Udine, Via delle Scienze 208, 33100 Udine, Italy)

Abstract

Nowadays, sustainable approaches to waste management are becoming critical, due to increased generation and complex physicochemical composition. Waste electric and electronic equipment (WEEE) management, in particular, is being given increasing attention due to the continuous augment in electronic equipment usage and the limited recycling rates. In this work, a multi-objective engineering optimization approach using a decision support system (DSS) was used to analyze the feasibility of installing a WEEE treatment plant in the Friuli-Venezia Giulia region (Northeastern Italy), considering that most of the produced WEEE is currently exported outside the region. Meaningful economic and environmental parameters were considered in the assessment, together with current WEEE production and composition. Plant investment cost was in the range of EUR 7–35 M for a potentiality of 8000–40,000 ton of treated WEEE/yr, the lower bound corresponding to the WEEE produced in the region. Payback time was 4.3–10 yr, strongly depending on the market’s economic conditions as well as on plant potentiality. Proper public subsidies should be provided for a plant treating only the locally produced WEEE, establishing a circular economy. The fraction of recovered materials was 78–83%, fulfilling the current EU legislative requirements of 80% and stabilizing around values of 80% for a higher washing machine fraction. An increase in personal computers may allow to augment the economic revenues, due to the high conferral fees, while it reduces the amounts of recovered materials, due to their complex composition. CO 2 emission reduction thanks to material recovery was in the range of 8000–38,000 ton CO 2 /yr, linearly depending on the plant potentiality. The developed DSS system could be used both by public authorities and private companies to preliminarily evaluate the most important technical, financial and environmental aspects to assess overall plant sustainability. The proposed approach can be exported to different locations and integrated with energy recovery (i.e., incineration of the non-recoverable fractions), analyzing both environmental and economic aspects flexibly.

Suggested Citation

  • Mattia Cottes & Matia Mainardis & Patrizia Simeoni, 2023. "Assessing the Techno-Economic Feasibility of Waste Electric and Electronic Equipment Treatment Plant: A Multi-Decisional Modeling Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-16, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:23:p:16248-:d:1286476
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/23/16248/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/23/16248/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Idiano D’Adamo & Paolo Rosa & Sergio Terzi, 2016. "Challenges in Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Management: A Profitability Assessment in Three European Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-19, July.
    2. Hilal Shams & Altaf Hossain Molla & Mohd Nizam Ab Rahman & Hawa Hishamuddin & Zambri Harun & Nallapaneni Manoj Kumar, 2023. "Exploring Industry-Specific Research Themes on E-Waste: A Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-22, August.
    3. Pohekar, S. D. & Ramachandran, M., 2004. "Application of multi-criteria decision making to sustainable energy planning--A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 365-381, August.
    4. Grigorios L. Kyriakopoulos & Vasilis C. Kapsalis & Konstantinos G. Aravossis & Miltiadis Zamparas & Alexandros Mitsikas, 2019. "Evaluating Circular Economy under a Multi-Parametric Approach: A Technological Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-24, November.
    5. Mattia Cottes & Matia Mainardis & Daniele Goi & Patrizia Simeoni, 2020. "Demand-Response Application in Wastewater Treatment Plants Using Compressed Air Storage System: A Modelling Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-15, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rubio Rodríguez, M.A. & Ruyck, J. De & Díaz, P. Roque & Verma, V.K. & Bram, S., 2011. "An LCA based indicator for evaluation of alternative energy routes," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 88(3), pages 630-635, March.
    2. Berna Tektas Sivrikaya & Ferhan Cebi & Hasan Hüseyin Turan & Nihat Kasap & Dursun Delen, 2017. "A fuzzy long-term investment planning model for a GenCo in a hybrid electricity market considering climate change impacts," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 19(5), pages 975-991, October.
    3. Berna Tektaş & Hasan Hüseyin Turan & Nihat Kasap & Ferhan Çebi & Dursun Delen, 2022. "A Fuzzy Prescriptive Analytics Approach to Power Generation Capacity Planning," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-26, April.
    4. Haurant, P. & Oberti, P. & Muselli, M., 2011. "Multicriteria selection aiding related to photovoltaic plants on farming fields on Corsica island: A real case study using the ELECTRE outranking framework," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 676-688, February.
    5. Figge, Frank & Hahn, Tobias & Barkemeyer, Ralf, 2014. "The If, How and Where of assessing sustainable resource use," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 274-283.
    6. Chinese, Damiana & Nardin, Gioacchino & Saro, Onorio, 2011. "Multi-criteria analysis for the selection of space heating systems in an industrial building," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 556-565.
    7. Chopin, Pierre & Guindé, Loïc & Causeret, François & Bergkvist, Göran & Blazy, Jean-Marc, 2019. "Integrating stakeholder preferences into assessment of scenarios for electricity production from locally produced biomass on a small island," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 128-136.
    8. Domenech, B. & Ferrer-Martí, L. & Pastor, R., 2015. "Hierarchical methodology to optimize the design of stand-alone electrification systems for rural communities considering technical and social criteria," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 182-196.
    9. Alyami, Saleh. H. & Rezgui, Yacine & Kwan, Alan, 2013. "Developing sustainable building assessment scheme for Saudi Arabia: Delphi consultation approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 43-54.
    10. Frank, Alejandro Germán & Gerstlberger, Wolfgang & Paslauski, Carolline Amaral & Lerman, Laura Visintainer & Ayala, Néstor Fabián, 2018. "The contribution of innovation policy criteria to the development of local renewable energy systems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 353-365.
    11. Hajkowicz, Stefan & Higgins, Andrew, 2008. "A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water resource management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 184(1), pages 255-265, January.
    12. Mukisa, Nicholas & Zamora, Ramon & Lie, Tek Tjing, 2020. "Assessment of community sustainable livelihoods capitals for the implementation of alternative energy technologies in Uganda – Africa," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 886-902.
    13. Ren, Hongbo & Gao, Weijun & Zhou, Weisheng & Nakagami, Ken'ichi, 2009. "Multi-criteria evaluation for the optimal adoption of distributed residential energy systems in Japan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5484-5493, December.
    14. Villacreses, Geovanna & Gaona, Gabriel & Martínez-Gómez, Javier & Jijón, Diego Juan, 2017. "Wind farms suitability location using geographical information system (GIS), based on multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods: The case of continental Ecuador," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 275-286.
    15. Sobczyk, Eugeniusz J. & Kicki, Jerzy & Sobczyk, Wiktoria & Szuwarzyński, Marek, 2017. "Support of mining investment choice decisions with the use of multi-criteria method," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 94-99.
    16. Beynon, Malcolm J. & Wells, Peter, 2008. "The lean improvement of the chemical emissions of motor vehicles based on preference ranking: A PROMETHEE uncertainty analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 384-394, June.
    17. Henao, Felipe & Cherni, Judith A. & Jaramillo, Patricia & Dyner, Isaac, 2012. "A multicriteria approach to sustainable energy supply for the rural poor," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 218(3), pages 801-809.
    18. Albadvi, Amir & Chaharsooghi, S. Kamal & Esfahanipour, Akbar, 2007. "Decision making in stock trading: An application of PROMETHEE," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(2), pages 673-683, March.
    19. Haji Vahabzadeh, Ali & Asiaei, Arash & Zailani, Suhaiza, 2015. "Reprint of “Green decision-making model in reverse logistics using FUZZY-VIKOR method”," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 104(PB), pages 334-347.
    20. Manley, Dawn K. & Hines, Valerie A. & Jordan, Matthew W. & Stoltz, Ronald E., 2013. "A survey of energy policy priorities in the United States: Energy supply security, economics, and the environment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 687-696.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:23:p:16248-:d:1286476. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.