4. 12/16/15 4
Technical feasibility
Availability and reliability
of equipment
Requirements for utilities,
process monitoring and
control, space etc.
Maintenance
requirements
Operator and supervisor
skills
Ease of retrofitting into
existing system
Projected material
balance
Projected energy
balance
5. 12/16/15 5
Assess technical feasibility
Consumption Rates: Before implementation After implementation
Inputs:
raw materials
labour
energy
water
etc.
Outputs:
products
solid waste
wastewater
Gaseous emissions
etc.
6. Parameters Weight Score Weighted Score
Level of meeting
specifications
3 5 15
Availability and
reliability of after
sales service
2 2 4
Utility
requirements
2 3 6
Availability of
auxiliary
equipment
2 3 6
Compatibility with
other systems
2 4 8
Total 39
12/16/15 6
7. If technically not feasible,
12/16/15 7
Reject the option
Not necessary to evaluate financial
and environmental feasibility
9. 12/16/15 9
Assess financial viability
Data collection (from technical evaluation):
1. Investment:
equipment, construction, training, start up etc.
1. Operational costs and benefits:
before and after comparison
10. 12/16/15 10
Operational costs and benefits
Electricity
Man power
Chemical
Maintenance
Training cost
Interest and
depreciation
Direct savings
(tangible benefits)
Indirect savings
Treatment cost
Disposal cost
Health and safety
11. 12/16/15 11
Timing of Cash Flows
Working
capital
Annual Operating Costs
Annual Tax Payments
Annual Financing
Payments
Salvage Value
End of project:
Time zero:
Initial Investment
Working Capital
TIMEYear 1 Year 2 Year 3
Annual Revenues/Savings
12. 12/16/15 12
Profitability Indicators
A profitability indicator, or “financial
indicator”, is: “a single number that is
calculated for characterisation of project
profitability in a concise,
understandable form.”
Common examples are:
Simple Payback
Return on Investment (ROI)
Net Present Value (NPV)
Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
13. 12/16/15 13
Simple Payback
This indicator incorporates:
the initial investment cost
the first year cash flow from the project
Simple
Payback
(in years)
Initial Investment
Year 1 Cash Flow
=
14. 12/16/15 14
How to Interpret Simple Payback
The simple payback calculated for a
project is usually compared to a
company rule of thumb called a
“hurdle” rate:
e.g., if the payback period is less
than 3 years, then the project is
viewed as profitable
16. 12/16/15 1616
Question:
If we were giving away money,
would you rather have:
(A) $10,000 today, or
(B) $10,000 3 years
from now
Explain your answer...
17. 12/16/15 17
Inflation
Money loses purchasing power over time
as product/service prices rise, so a dollar
today can buy more than a dollar next
year.
costs $1 costs $1.05
inflation 5%
nownow next yearnext year
18. 12/16/15 18
Investment Opportunity
A dollar that you invest today will bring
you more than a dollar next year —
having the dollar now provides you with
an investment opportunity
Interest, or
“return on investment”
Investing
$1 now
Investment
Gives you
$1.10 a year
from now
19. 12/16/15 1919
Present Value Factors
Value of $1 in the future, NOW
Discount rate (d): 10% 20% 30% 40%
Years into future (n)
1 .9091 .8333 .7692 .7142
2 .8264 .6944 .5917 .5102
3 .7513 .5787 .4552 .3644
4 .6830 .4823 .3501 .2603
5 .6209 .4019 .2693 .1859
10 .3855 .1615 .0725 .0346
20 .1486 .0261 .0053 .0012
30 .0573 .0042 .0004 .0000
20. 12/16/15 2020
Net Present Value (NPV)
• Net Present Value (NPV) = the sum of
the present values of all of a project’s
cash flows, both negative (cash
outflows) and positive (cash inflows)
• NPV characterises the present value of
the project to the company
If NPV > 0, the project is profitable
If NPV < 0, the project is not
21. 12/16/15 21
Environmental evaluation
Comparison between the current material
balance and the projected material
balance
Reduction in quantity of waste
Less hazardous materials
Reduction in energy losses
Reduction in water consumption
Reduction of material consumption
22. 12/16/15 22
Selection of feasible options
Tabulate the results of technical,
economic and environmental evaluations
Eliminate technically non-feasible options
Eliminate options without significant net
environmental benefit
Combine the results to rank the options
24. 12/16/15 24
Weighted matrix method
Technical – cannot be negative
Economical – can be negative
Environmental – no option should be
negative
Ranking – prioritize according to your
needs