weights are the transfer coefficients associated with each receptor. That is, for SPM, it
is not the marginal costs of emission reduction that are equalised across sources in a
cost-effective allocation (as would be the case for uniformly mixed assimilative
pollutants), rather it is the marginal costs of concentration reduction at each monitored
receptor that are equalised.
3. Abatement Cost Functions
Constraints on data required for estimating economic cost functions led us to
use engineering cost functions for SPM abatement. In deriving the cost of SPM
abatement, only the operating costs of pollution abatement are considered. Capital
costs of abatement, devices are treated as sunk costs since the model is based on the
existing clean up operations at the steel plant. Annual operating cost of SPM
abatement is taken to be a function of the volume of SPM laden gas and the
concentrations of SPM in the gas before and after the abatement (Pandey, 1998). This
can be written as:
operating cost = f (volumetric flow of gas, concentration of SPM in the gas before
subjected to treatment, concentration of SPM in the gas after the
treatment).
The abatement cost is expected to vary in the following manner.
AC = {Q (SPMbt - SPMtJF (9)
where, AC = abatement cost (Rs.)
Q = volumetric flow of gas (Nm3/day)
SPMbt = concentration of SPM before treatment (mg/Nm3)
SPMat = concentration of SPM after treatment (mg/Nm3)
<× = different variable for every abatement facility.
the value of <× is a constant and is expected to lie between 1 and e (2.71).
ix
More intriguing information
1. Inhimillinen pääoma ja palkat Suomessa: Paluu perusmalliin2. The name is absent
3. The name is absent
4. The name is absent
5. New Evidence on the Puzzles. Results from Agnostic Identification on Monetary Policy and Exchange Rates.
6. The name is absent
7. Constrained School Choice
8. CONSUMER PERCEPTION ON ALTERNATIVE POULTRY
9. ‘I’m so much more myself now, coming back to work’ - working class mothers, paid work and childcare.
10. The name is absent