Total Cost Assessment method

Cost elements of LCC are defined in various definitions such as internal and external costs and direct and indirect costs. Among the definitions, the total cost assessment method, which is one of LCC methods, classifies costs into five categories (Little 2000). These are ... 

The Total Cost Assessment (TCA) method, proposed by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers Center for Waste Reduction Technologies (AIChE-CWRT) is perhaps the most relevant work for the design of chemical processes. ... 

The AIChE-CWRT Total Cost Assessment (TCA) Method for Evaluating Environmental Costs... 

In an illustrative example assume that a test method cannot be readily improved. The number of measurements n is then optimised to reduce the statistical uncertainty and minimise expected total costs related to a specified reference period. The optimum number of measurements can be assessed as ... 

The LCOE is a measure of a power source that attempts to compare different methods of electricity geno ation on a conq>arable basis. It is an economic assessment of the average total cost to build and operate a power-generating asset ovct its lifetime divided by the total energy outyut of the asset over that lifetime. The LCOE can also be regarded as the minimum cost at which electridty must be sold to break even over the lifetime of the project. 

There are clear advantages in obtaining direct evidence of performance by exposing the total component or product. This is particularly so in cases involving complex degrading environments and critical applications. Unfortunately this is rarely possible, particularly for accelerated tests, due to limitations of exposure space and costs. When it is possible, it is better to use functional tests on the product to assess the environmental effects, rather than the standard material methods. Increasingly, product specifications include such tests but in many cases it would be necessary to devise methods for the product in question (see Chapter 5). 

An extensive benchmark stndy has been carried ont in order to identify the optimal mass redaction principle(s) [6], This was achieved by assessing and validating the almost nniversally nsed mass redaction approach, grab sampling, as opposed to a comprehensive series of more advanced techniqnes and methods, 17 in total. All techniqnes and methods were tested with regard to a fall snite of qnality parameters, some scientihcally important, others related to cost and minimizing practical operating conditions and expenses. The most important merit of any mass redaction method is the ability to deliver an unbiased split of material with the smallest possible variation in repeated rnns snbject to the best possible accnracy. These two featnres are summed up in the TOS qnantitative measnre of representativeness. 

Interlaboratory trials with the organiser making detailed assessments of the laboratories is clearly particularly suited to helping individual laboratories and will at least qualitatively indicate the parameters requiring attention. This approach is, however, very expensive in total effort. The Intercal approach does not identify the causes of variability immediately but certainly alleviates the effect and, because trials are on-going, allows improvement to be monitored. Systematic quantification of the effect of individual parameters is probably the most cost effective approach and is the most useful for aiding standards committees to improve the specification of methods, but is of less direct help to individual laboratories. 

---