Modeling of Household Waste Generation and Treatment by Bottom Up Approach • Takeshi Fujiwara, Kyoto University • Yuzuru Matsuoka, Kyoto University The 7 th AIM International Workshop 15-17, March 2002
Background • Material cycle has much relation to global warming and atmospheric pollution. • In the material production, transportation, and waste treatment, GHG and atmospheric pollutants are generated and emitted directly or indirectly. • Analyzing and predicting the flow of material cycle is important to reduce the global environmental problem. • To grasp the current situation of material cycle, bottom up approach is effective as well as top down approach.
Factors Factors which can change material flow are : (1) Consumer’s preference: “Which goods does the household purchase?” (2) Long time use: “When does the household discard the goods as the waste?” (3) Waste treatment with low environmental load: “How is the waste reused, recycled or treated ?
Objective To analyze and to predict the waste flow through household, these three models are developed. (1) Consumer preference model (2) Household material balance model (3) Waste treatment model
Bottom up model of household consumption and waste Macro Economics model Income, product price Customer preference Scenario of social & Customer preference model economic factors model Amount of goods Household consumption goods Inter- Research Research on on CPI industry relation time household Household table Household material balance material balance model model Amount of waste Waste Household waste elements research Landfill cost Utility cost Waste treatment system model Recycle goods price Waste treatment system model Facility cost Treatment Facility Literature Facility Facility Planning Planning Running cost data Amount of the disposed Landfill disposal Amount of the recycled Recycling Amount of the industrial waste Retired facility
Household material balance model Product price, Commodity production coefficient, Labor cost, Working hours Consumer preference model Consumer preference model Interindustry Relations Product consumption model table Non-durable Durable Container and Household consumer consumer package Goods goods Waste generation model Transfer Residue function function Domestic waste
Super structure of waste treatment system House garbage (HG) Domestic waste (not HG) Refuse Gasification derived Composting Incineration and Fuel (RDF) melting Fly ash Compost Electric Power Solid Bottom ash fuel Slag Fly ash Ash melting Ash treatment Landfill
Calculated waste flow of waste treatment system House garbage (HG) Domestic waste (not HG) 617 383 Refuse Gasification derived Composting Incineration and Fuel (RDF) melting 69.0 Fly ash Compost Electric Power 13900 Solid Bottom ash fuel 33.3 Slag Fly ash 7.71 Ash melting 79.6 Ash treatment 617 Landfill
Planning of waste treatment +5year Planning year Completion year Predicted population Prediction Planning Total waste Total waste Predicted GDP Treatment + volume volume capacity Required Consumer price additional Existing capacity - Age and capacity Treatment Active facility of all treatment capacity Facilities in Japan Retired facility Distribution Capacity decided Outputs from the viewpoint of past result Industrial Calculation of additional capacity waste Capacity decided for all kinds of existing facility from the viewpoint Kind and capacity of cost performance Cost Waste treatment Cost Waste treatment of new facilities minimization super structure minimization super structure Property and cost Waste flow is data for each calculated treatment facility
Consumer preference model Selection of action Social and Time budget economic factors constraint Free time A ging people ↑ T he # of children ↓ + = 24hours Essential W oman power ↑ Maximum utility time T echnology ↑ H ousing ↑ L abor cost ↑ Selection of goods/service L abor hours ↑ Budget E nvironment ↑ Expenditure constraint is less equal than Income high low
Concept of consumer preference model Cobb-Dougras-type utility production Commodity Z i+1 function Commodity Z i Benefit Z n Utility U Utility U Leontief-type commodity Production function 財・ サービス 時間 Annual Report of 財・ サービス 時間 財・ サービス 時間 report of living 財・ サービス 時間 Goods / Time t i household hours Services X i budget constraint Time budget constraint Full income Full income
Definition of benefit production Production function of benefit (Leontief function) Produced Investment of money benefit Inestment of time ∑ p x ij ij ∑ = j z min , t i ik A k i Coefficient of benefit production amusement hours to watch TV TV set hours to read books books hours to do sports sports goods ・ ・ ・ ・ ・ ・
Constraints for benefit production Full income ： money income when whole available time is spent for labor. Constraint of full income is regarded as integrated budge and time budge constraints. Labor cost = + − S w T K V Full income ： Available total Income Expenditure time without labor excluding consumption ∑∑ ∑∑ = + Constraint ： S p x w t ij ij ik i j i k Investment Money income renounced for while the time is spent goods/service except for labor
Definition of utility production Utility function (Cobb-Dougras function) Base of benefit Produced utility ( ) ∏ α = − β u z i i i Magnitude of i preference Benefit Maximize Utility Each benefit is ・ ・ ・ fixed Eating House Sleep Amusement Goods/Service Full income is distributed according to α i and β i Time Full income
Prediction of household waste using ‘Consumer preference model’ Consumer preference Scenario of Consumer preference Scenario of model economic growth model economic growth Household expenditure per person Household expenditure per person for aged households and the other for aged households and the other Scenario of population Scenario of population change and aging change and aging Household expenditure of Household expenditure of whole Japan in future whole Japan in future Prediction of Japanese Prediction of Japanese Household material Household material household waste balance model household waste balance model in future in future
Category of benefits C a t e g o r y B e n e f i t s E x a m p l e o f a c t i o n b e n e f i t s b y w e a r i n g c l o t h e s c l o t h i n g c l o t h b e n e f i t s b y e a t i n g d i s h e s e a t i n g e a t i n g b e n e f i t s t o g e t c o m f o r t a b l e l i v i n g h o u s e h o u s i n g e d u c a t i o n b e n e f i t s b y t a k i n g e d u c a t i o n s g o i n g t o s c h o o l k b e n e f i t s b y h o u s e k e e p i n g c l e a n i n g 、 w a s h i n g h o u s e w o r h e a l t h b e n e f i t s b y m a i n t a i n i n g h e a l t h y l i f e t a k i n g b a t h , w a s h i n g f a c e , g o i n g t o a h o s p i t a l a m u s e m e n tb r e a d i n g 、 s p o r t s 、 t r a v e l e n e f i t s b y e n j o y i n g a m u s e m e n t o r r e c r e a t i o n s s l e e p b e n e f i t s b y s l e e p i n g s l e e p i n g o t h e r s t h e o t h e r b e n e f i t s m o v i n g 、 c o m m u n i c a t i o n
Prediction of living expenditure (total cost per person) 10 6 Economic Economic growth growth ↓ ↓ 人当たり実質年間消費支出総額 (1995 year based 10 6 yen/person) 1.6 Total real living expenditure Increase Increase income Aged household income 1995 年基準・円) ↓ ↓ Increase of Increase of household household expenditure expenditure The other household 1.2 ( 積極ケース Positive growth → Prediction 中間ケース Intermediate growth 1 停滞ケース Zero growth 0.8 年 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Year
Scenario of population change and aging 1 3 0 0 0 0 Ratio of aged households (%) 4 0 % Peak at 2007 year Population (10 3 persons) Population 千人) 高齢者世帯率 3 0 % 人口( 1 2 5 0 0 0 Ratio of 2 0 % aged households 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 % 1 9 9 5 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 5 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 5 年 Year ( 国立社会保障 ・ 人口問題研究所 )
Prediction of household waste Total weight of household waste 2 4 0 0 0 ) t Peak at 2018 year 家庭ごみ総量( Effect of Peak at 2013 year population 2 2 0 0 0 decrease 積極ケース Positive growth 中間ケース Intermediate growth 停滞ケース Zero growth (t) 2 0 0 0 0 1 9 9 5 2 0 0 5 2 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 年 Year
Recommend
More recommend
