EXAMPLE OF CONSTRUCTION AND O&M
COSTS - CONTINUED
16 shows the cost comparison between SSP and conventional stabilization.
The cost comparison in
16 and financial model in
17 were based on utilizing a “high” percentage sidestream
(10%) combined with “low” percentage CO2
recovery and re-use (10%), and an airstrip of the blended stream.
Based on the data shown in Table 16 and 17, even using assumptions
that are detrimental to SSP (such as lifespan of 10 years, raised
electricity costs for SSP, risk discount factor of 30% per annum,
minimum required return of investment of 10% per annum and low
percentage CO2 recovery), SSP still provides
significant financial advantage over conventional lime/CO2
stabilization with a project payback period of 4.3 years, Net
Present Value of R 2.7 million and Internal Rate of Return of
52% (De Souza et al., 2002).
Based on the financial assessment studies, direct comparison
between the SSP and Simplified SSP is not possible due to the
variations of chemical costs. The cost variation may be due to
the quality of the chemicals, Rand exchange rate and the region
to which the chemical is transported. In this case, it is due
to conducting the studies at separate locations.
|
