Toward sustainable waste-to-energy solutions: risk allocation and technological innovations in public-private partnerships

Figures & data

Figure 1. MSW generation over the years.

Table 1. Comparison for WTE technologies [35–41].

S.NO	WTE- Technologies	Benefits	Limitation	Principal Product	Application
01	Incineration	Suitable for high calorific value Reduce up to 70% and 80% of the volume and mass, respectively.	Pollution is caused by the high cost of building, maintenance, and operation.	Heat	generation of steam and heat, and electricity
02	Pyrolysis	the development of superior fuel minimizes the volume of MSW by up to 90% with flue gas treatment compatible with carbonous waste.	High viscosity of pyrolysis high costs for operating, maintenance, and capital	Flame, bio-oil, and syngas	electricity, chemicals used in manufacture, and solvents
03	Gasification	production of fuel oil or gas, which has a range of applications	High failure rate due to developing, inflexible, and less competitive technologies	Gas produced by syngas production	producing chemicals and electricity.
04	Landfill	Soil is created by the low-cost recycling of natural materials.	To remediate groundwater and soil pollution, a sizable land area is required.	Landfill gas	Electricity
05	Anerobic digestion (AD)	high water content biomass is preferred Methane (CH4) content is higher and carbon dioxide (CO2) content is lower compared to landfill	Unfit for wastes with a lower organic content Lignin can linger for very long times before degrading.	Dig Estate and Biogas	power and high-nitrate fertilizer Agriculture and food biorefineries
06	Ethanol fermentation	doesn’t raise the quantity of emissions of CO2	It is limited to MSW that contains rich, cellulose, or starch.	Bioethanol	Biorefinery for agriculture and fuel
07	Photobiological process	Photosynthetic bacteria can utilize a broad spectrum of energy	In the presence of oxygen, nitrogen-fixing enzymes are hindered. Low light conversion effectiveness	H2 gas CO2, organic acids	Bioelectricity
08	Dark fermentation	There are numerous biodegradable substrates in use. A more realistic method that is independent on light for manufacturing vast amounts of H2.		Gas H2	Bioenergy
09	Microbial fuel cell (MFC)	An effective means of producing power and getting rid of smells caused by waste without increasing greenhouse gas emissions	It is unable to function at very low temperatures because of the delayed microbial reactions at low temperatures.	H2 gas	bioelectricity, biohydrogen production, and wastewater treatment
10	Microbial electrolysis cell (MEC)	Dark fermentation, high product (H2) recovery, MFC, and more substrate degradation than in photos high efficiency of hydrogen translation with less energy required Use with a variety of organic substrates	The impact of substrate composition on yield increased internal resistance Dense construction high cost of capital	Hydrogen peroxide, formic acid, acetate, hydrogen gas, and CH4	used for quick wastewater treatment and energy generation

Table 2. Cairo and Giza statistics.

Governorates	Cairo	Giza
Population Size (persons)	10,200,000	9,098,204
Waste generation per person	0.7kg for urban areas	0.6 kg for urban − 0.38kg for rural areas
Total MSW generation per governorates/year (M.ton/y)	6,342,970	2,832,400

Table 3. Questionnaire: respondents’ profile.

Respondent Profiles	Categorization	Percentages
Agencies	Environmental consultancies	62%
	Ministries & Municipalities	38%
Work Experience	From 15years to more than 20 years	37%
	From 7 years to less than 15 years	63%
Types of Solid waste	MSW	52%
	CDW	15%
	Both MSW & CDW	33%

Table 4. Risk categories contribute to waste-to-energy (WTE) projects [20–27].

Code	Risk Category	Description
A	Land accessibility, availability, and site risks	selecting appropriate land, ensuring legal ownership, attending to indigenous rights, obtaining planning approvals, allowing site access, providing security, and examining the site and its assets are all part of the project.
B	Social Risks	The project poses significant risks to surrounding properties, the impacted population, public protest, resettlement, indigenous land rights, and industrial action.
C	Environmental and human health Risks	Pre-existing conditions, permissions, legal compliance, conditions brought on by the project, outside events, and climate change are among the risks.
D	Design Risks	The potential that the project’s design will not function as expected; approval of the design; and design revisions.
E	Construction Risks	Building projects may have risks such as insufficient funds, tardiness, quality standards, health and safety concerns, intellectual property infringement, labor disputes, and vandalism.
F	Operational Risks	Risks include inadequate execution, increased costs, resource availability, intellectual property rights violations, maintenance needs, labor issues, and vandalism.
G	Financial Risks	The risk of not having insurance, inflation, exchange rate fluctuations, interest rate changes, and refinancing.
H	Risks Related to Strategy and Collaboration	Risks include ownership changes, disagreements, interference from the Contracting Authority, and poor decisions made by the Private Partner or subcontractors.

Table 5. Risk allocation matrix RAM for WTE-PPP projects.

NO.	Risk Sources/Factors	Risk Allocation			Total Count			Statistics
		PB	PR	SH	PB	PR	SH	Mean	Standard deviation
A)	Land accessibility, availability, and site risks
01	Availability of necessary land - Land Ownership, papers and allocation confirmed	√			35	7	8	1.560	0.605
02	Timing of provision of required land	√			40	0	10	1.480	0.608
03	Provision of permanent additional land	√			29	0	21	1.620	0.596
04	Provision of temporary additional land	√			30	10	10	1.720	0.694
05	Heritage/indigenous and neighbor land rights	√			34	6	10	1.640	0.592
06	Suitability of land-Geological factors (Soil Permeability & bearing capacity			√	21	0	29	1.580	0.494
07	Key planning consents			√	10	0	40	1.800	0.400
08	Subsequent planning approvals			√	20	4	26	1.680	0.614
09	Access to the site and associated infrastructure- (Ground water level			√	21	0	29	1.580	0.494
10	Site Security			√	7	15	28	2.160	0.644
11	Site Utilities and Installation			√	7	8	35	2.020	0.547
12	Existing Site Condition			√	14	0	36	1.720	0.449
B)	Social Risks
01	Community and businesses	√			25	3	22	2.100	0.458
02	Resettlement	√			39	3	8	1.740	0.594
03	Heritage/indigenous people	√			29	4	17	1.980	0.374
C)	Environmental and human health Risks
01	Pre-existing conditions			√	16	4	30	1.760	0.585
02	Heterogenous nature of MSW on human health			√	0	12	38	2.240	0.427
03	Obtaining environmental consents			√	4	16	30	2.240	0.585
04	Observance of legal requirements and environmental permissions			√	4	16	30	2.240	0.585
05	Environmental circumstances caused on by the project	√			26	4	20	2.320	0.614
06	External environmental events- Earthquakes/Rainfall			√	4	4	42	2.000	0.400
07	Site Climate change			√	0	4	46	2.080	0.271
D)	Design Risks
01	Suitability of design and Technological Option		√		11	35	4	2.140	0.529
02	Approval of designs			√	14	17	19	2.160	0.731
03	Changes to design		√		7	30	13	2.260	0.799
E)	Construction Risks
01	Cost increases		√		7	33	10	1.940	0.580
02	Works completion delays		√		6	33	11	2.100	0.574
03	Managing projects and interacting with other resources and facilities			√	7	20	23	2.260	0.687
04	Assurance of quality and additional construction regulations		√		3	24	23	2.420	0.603
05	Health and safety compliance		√		5	35	10	2.320	0.581
06	Third-party liability as well as accountability for death, physical injury, and property damage		√		3	28	19	2.460	0.607
07	Defects and defective materials		√		3	26	21	2.320	0.786
08	Industrial action		√		10	26	14	2.380	0.485
F)	Operation Risks
01	Increased operating costs and affected performance		√		3	29	18	2.520	0.608
02	Resource Receiving and waste collecting fee		√		4	24	22	2.400	0.632
03	Waste storage and processing conveyance		√		3	26	21	2.460	0.607
04	Fire Explosion during operation			√	10	14	26	2.080	0.688
05	Performance/Price Risk (Energy Production)		√		7	22	21	2.280	0.694
06	Operational Technical Resource (Input Risk)		√		7	29	14	2.440	0.726
07	Vandalism		√		10	21	19	2.220	0.756
08	Health and safety Compliance		√		0	25	25	2.500	0.500
09	Maintenance standards		√		10	22	18	2.400	0.693
10	Disruptive Technology risk		√		4	29	17	2.240	0.763
11	Interface		√		6	27	17	2.260	0.594
G)	Financial Risks
01	General principles & Considerations			√	3	3	44	2.000	0.346
02	Supply & Higher demand than anticipated			√	7	0	43	1.860	0.347
03	Inflation			√	3	4	43	2.020	0.374
04	Exchange rate fluctuation			√	11	11	28	2.000	0.663
05	Interest rate fluctuation			√	7	8	35	2.020	0.547
06	Unavailability of insurance			√	14	8	22	1.880	0.652
07	Refinancing			√	14	11	25	1.940	0.705
08	Compliance with applicable law			√	8	18	24	2.180	0.623
09	Change in law and taxation			√	0	22	28	2.080	0.595
H)	Risks Related to Strategy and Collaboration
01	Private Partner failure/insolvency			√	8	14	28	2.200	0.693
02	Sub-Contractor failure/insolvency			√	0	22	28	2.440	0.496
03	Change in Private Partner ownership			√	8	18	24	2.120	0.652
04	Permitted Contracting Authority step-in			√	3	11	36	2.160	0.504
05	Change in Contracting Authority ownership/status			√	0	18	32	2.360	0.480
06	Disputes			√	3	7	40	2.080	0.440
07	Force majeure events			√	13	4	33	1.820	0.555
08	Material Adverse Government Action Risk (MAGA)			√	6	14	30	2.160	0.612
09	Contracting Authority default termination			√	10	15	25	2.100	0.700
10	MAGA/Change in law termination			√	7	12	31	2.100	0.608
11	Voluntary Termination by Contracting Authority			√	16	15	19	1.980	0.787
12	Force Majeure and Unendurability termination			√	13	16	21	2.060	0.759
13	Strength of Contracting Authority payment covenant			√	13	12	25	1.980	0.707
14	Condition At Hand back Risk			√	7	12	31	2.040	0.528

Table 6. Major criteria for evaluation of waste-to-energy (WTE) technologies.

Major Criteria of Evaluation waste to energy technologies
State of technology	Technical performance	Technical resources	Facility sitting and Public Acceptance	Financial Resources	Environmental criteria	Sustainability	Economic risks	Project overall risks
How much of the system can be commercially validated?	Compliance with the entire range standards (Volumes and composition)	Proven contractor experience in waste processing	Acceptable Site, Public acceptance, and Sufficient utilities	Vendor’s capacity to fund the project without using public funds	Statistics to support the ability of air pollution	Impacts on local resources	Requirement of public capital investment	Economic circumstance
Operating environment and accessibility?	Having capacity to produce marketable by products	Proximity of technical support	Synchronicity with nearby activity	Capacity to meet performance targets throughout an extended startup and testing phase	Data to support the effectiveness of residual control technologies	Impact on neighboring communities and impact on natural habits	Commitment for delivery of waste	Technical risk and siting risk
Being free of risky failure mode	Preprocessing is required	Being able to continue and help	Inexpensive and inadequate electric connectivity and local economic impacts	Capacity to reimburse the municipality for all expenses and investments if technology fails	Data to support the ability of outdoor emissions and noise	Compatibility with local environment and local waste reduction goals	Reasonable contract terms and circumstances, financial impact, and community benefit	Procurement issues and critical flaws
System reliability that has been proven	Dark fermentation checks for operating such as temperature		Coordination with regional infrastructure	In case of failure, escrow accounts with payment reserved for dismantling	Reduction in greenhouse gases	Synergistic with municipal utilities and recycling process	An accurate assessment of the project’s income	Contractual risks