Comparative cost analysis

Cost analysis of the production of HR moulds is just one aspect of determining whether use of HR technology is appropriate. 

In the case of products where use of HR is a condition of their manufacture, cost analysis is aimed at establishing whether it would be profitable to take up their production in competition with other manufacturing technologies. In such cases, cost analysis must include all outlay on commencement of manufacture. 

To compare the costs of moulds with different types of gating, a simplified analysis based on the following data may be made  

A - price of raw material, /kg B - annual production volume, pieces/year C - mould depreciation period, i.e., manufacturing period, year D - weight of moulded part, kg E - number of cavities 

F - machine cost, /h (includes depreciation over approximately 10 years and running costs - energy, water) 

---

Take the results for questions 4 and 5 and do a comparative cost analysis. First go the the Web and find suitable equipment suppliers that will provide the equipment in the size ranges you have calculated. Obtain some vendor quotes (rough ones will do). Then perform the fowllowing analysis (a) What are the comparative costs between the two oprions for energy use (b) What are the comparative costs between the two options in terms of maintanance and labor costs (c) Can you combine both equipment options into a single process, and if so, can you justify this and how Assume in the above that the reduction in solids concentration must meet the 1 % weirht criteria described in question 4. 

To demonstrate the use of such a comparative cost analysis, the production of a panel was analyzed according to different processes (Fig. 9-6). In these case studies the following conditions existed (1) the panels measured 61 x 91 cm (24 x 36 in.) with the wall thickness dictated by the process and part requirements so that the weights of the panels differed (2) production was at a level of 40,000/yr. (3) the plastics for all panels were of the same type, except that different grades had to be used, based on the process requirements, so that costs changed (4) each panel received one coat of paint, except that the structural foam also had a primer coating and (5) costs were allocated as needed to those processes that required trimming and other secondary operations. 

A comparative cost analysis showed that the classical resolution route (Scheme 8.2) was 12 times cheaper than the discovery route (Scheme 8.1). The classical resolution route was successfully scaled up and used to launch the product and provide the first year s market supply. However, using a final-stage resolution meant that by definition half of the synthetic materials were thrown away. When an E factor analysis [8] was performed on the pregabalin synthesis it was found that 86 kg of waste was being produced for every kilogram of the desired product, and this inspired a search for more efficient chemistries. 

In a comparative cost analysis of the electron vs. thermal curing stystems, a maintenance cost should be assigned to each system. In the case of the eb unit, it is about one dollar per hour for thermal ovens of this size, it is of the same order. Water costs for the inert gas generator are not included, but would add about 400/hr. 

TABLE 8.14 Parameters Used for Comparative Cost Analysis of Biomass Liquefaction Processes"... 

A comparative cost analysis was performed for the AHTR by scaling individual subsystem costs for either the GT-MHR or the S-PRISM. The result is that the AHTR overnight capital cost (without contingency) is estimated to be approximately 820 /kW(e) (2002 dollars), which is 50-55% of the S-PRISM and GT-MHR costs for similar total output. This is a consequence of economy of scale. The AHTR electrical output is approximately four times that of these other reactors but with a similar plant size and complexity. Relative to light-water reactors, the AHTR should be more economical because of the higher power conversion efficiency, low-pressure containment, and absence of active safety systems. 

Another shortcoming of the process was the large amount of air required for solution regeneration. The plant is equipped with a Uill regenerating tower, and an air volume equal to about 15% of the gas volume treated is required for adequate regeneration. However, the most serious finding of this study came from a comparative cost analysis which indicated that, at the time of the study, the Autopurification process was not competitive with dry-box purification. 

The team should also undertake a comparative economic analysis of the P2 options and the existing situation. Where it cannot quantify benefits or changes (e.g., reduction in future liability, worker health and safety costs, etc.), it should make some form of qualitative assessment. 

Calculate the annual operating costs for the existing process that needs waste treatment, and estimate how these costs would be altered by the introduction of waste-reduction options. Tabulate and compare the process and waste-treatment operating costs for both the existing and proposed waste-management options. If there are any monetary benefits (such as recycled or reused materials or wastes), then these should be subtracted from the total process or waste-treatment costs as appropriate. The expanded cost-analysis scheme discussed in Chapter 8 is appropriate to include at this point in the process. 

Although we did not discuss this, you should be able to readily identify commercial adsorbents that can compete with activated carbon in water treatment applications. What are they, what are their properties, and how do unit costs compare In performing the cost analysis, take into consideration the volumes of adsorbents needed to achieve comparable degrees of water treatment. To do this, you should develop a base case scenario. 

Jubran A, Gross N, Ramsdell J, et al. Comparative cost-effectiveness analysis of theophylline and ipratropium bromide in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A three-center study. Chest 1993 103 678-84. 

Almond S, O Donnell O, McKendrick J (1999). A cost analysis of olanzapine compared with haloperidol and risperidone in the treatment of schizophrenia in the UK. Poster presented at the 12th Congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology, London, 21-25 September 1999. 

A combined comparative WTW analysis of specific global emissions and fuel supply costs is typically presented in a pathway portfolio analysis. Portfolio analysis helps to identify rapidly those alternative fuels and drive trains, or combinations of these, which can lead to the highest specific GHG emission savings. 

The preliminary cost analysis was conducted with the help of Mr. Peter Chan of Chiaphua Industries Ltd. Table 12.8-2 compares the cost of subcontracting the manufacture of plastic and metal appliance components versus manufacturing in-house for a production volume of 1000 units per month. All calculated costs are below the US 100 limit. A cost saving of twenty percent was forecasted assuming that the facility will be built and operated in China where the land and labor costs are cheaper. 

Economic evaluation compares costs and consequences of alternative health care treatments or programs (Drummond et al. 2005). In one form of economic evaluation, cost-benefit analysis, all costs and consequences are valued in monetary terms. However, in health care it is much more common to use cost-effectiveness analysis, where the difference in cost between alternatives is compared with the difference in outcomes measured in units such as life years gained or quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. 

The technology developer, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), has compiled cost estimates (in 1994 U.S. dollars) for the CHEMIC process based on treatment of a simulated waste solution contaminated with metals (cadmium and lead at feed concentrations from 1 to 5 mg/liter) and strontium-90 [from 1000 to 2000 becquerel per liter (Bq/liter)]. The target treatment level is <0.014 mg/liter lead, <0.02 mg/liter cadmium, and <10 Bq/liter strontium-90. See Table 1 for estimates associated with this cost analysis. The AECL analysis indicated that costs of the CHEMIC process compared favorably with the estimated costs for treatment using reverse osmosis or fixed-bed ion exchange. 

TABLE 1 Cost Analysis Comparing Portland Cement/Diatomite Mixtures, Microwave Solidification, Cementation with Portland Cement, and Polyethylene Solidification... 

According to the vendor, soil washing is more cost effective for full-scale cleanups than either stabilization or disposal. Table 1 shows a full-scale project cost analysis comparing costs for soil washing, stabilization, and disposal methods (D14705H, p. 2). 

The cost analysis provides a basis for calculating unit treatment costs associated with the in situ gas treatment. The proposed area, to be treated in the field demonstration, is 30 ft in diameter and has a depth of 40 ft, corresponding to approximately 28,274 ft. Based on the total treatment cost of 342,000, the unit treatment cost is 327/yd or 217 per ton of soil. This cost is comparable to costs for in-drum stabUization/solidification of excavated soils ( 200/yd ) but higher than in situ mixing ( 10 to 20/yd ) (D14727N, pp. 23-26). 

Cost analysis The cost analysis module identifies the costs associated with the baseline process, as well as suitable substi-mtes, and calculates comparative costs between the baseline process and the substitutes. 

The most significant aspect of the book, however, is the detailed cost analysis and comparison. Each technology is evaluated in a summary table outlining-1) vendor and address. 2) waste characteristics, 3) system capacity. 4) labor and supervision requirements. 5) operating costs. 6) capital costs, 7) revenues generated, and 8) total cosis of operation on an annualized and a per unit basis. This information enables potential users to make explicit, detailed comparative assessments and to build their own financial models. The text points out areas of process or linancial uncertainty, where more research and testing are required, and new applications to be considered. 

Reliable capital and operating cost comparisons between pervaporation and distillation are not available. Pervaporation is less capital and energy intensive than distillation or adsorption processes for small plants treating less than 5000 L/h of feed solution. However, because of the modular nature of the process, the costs of pervaporation are not as sensitive to economies of scale as are the costs of distillation and adsorption processes. Distillation costs, on the other hand, scale at a rate proportional to 0.6-0.7 times the power consumption. Thus, distillation remains the most economical process for large plants. The cross-over point at which distillation becomes preferable to pervaporation from an energy and economic point of view currently appears to be 5000 L/h processing capacity. Bergdorf has made an analysis of the comparative costs of pervaporation, distillation and other processes [43],... 

Figure 6.14 Bar graph comparing the analysis All calculations were performed on a 2.5 GHz capacity, in number of ligands bite angles and desktop computer (analysis capacity will flexibility ranges calculated per hour, using improve with better computers and software, topological descriptors (2D), and 3D descriptors but the 2D/3D cost-effectiveness ratio will based on MM force fields, semi-empirical remain constant).

The aforementioned model of a coil coating line provides for a cost analysis of electron curing compared to conventional curing of coatings on a coil coating line. 

---