Financial Comparison of Incineration and Landfill Projects in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How everyday generated waste is managed has become a crucial part of municipal management. In many parts of the world, waste generation is reaching unprecedented levels as population and urbanization increases. How to manage municipal solid waste is even more of a problem in a country like Canada which ranks second in per capita waste generation, only behind the United States. Residual municipal solid waste mostly goes either directly to landfill or to the incineration plant. These waste management practices have generated debates from various perspectives. Most available literature scrutinize the competing waste management practices from economic, sustainability, and environmental perspectives.\nThis thesis aims to compare these competing waste management practices in Canada as business from the perspective of a private investor. It employs a cash-based benefit-cost analysis to analyze the financial return to the owner. It also analyzes the projects from the perspective of the bank that will be approached for an investment loan.\nThe landfill project returned an NPV of C$ 23.62 million to the project owner while the incineration project resulted in a negative NPV, causing a loss of C$141.1 million below the prevailing 8% discount rate. Also, with the banker’s analysis of both projects, the bank will be reluctant to give a loan to the incineration project due to the negative NPV return and inability to repay its debt unlike the landfill project.\nKeywords: financial analysis, waste management, landfill, incineration
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".