DOCSLIB.ORG

Brandon Biomedical Waste Treatment Facility Brandon, Manitoba

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Brandon Biomedical Waste Treatment Facility Brandon, Manitoba Tel: 519.823.1311 Fax: 519.823.1316 RWDI AIR Inc. 650 Woodlawn Road West Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1K 1B8 Brandon Biomedical Waste Treatment Facility Brandon, Manitoba Final Report Environmental Assessment RWDI #1301084 October 30, 2014 SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY: Raj Rathamano Melissa Annett, d.E.T. [email protected] Senior Project Manager / Associate [email protected] Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship Environmental Approvals Branch Peter Klaassen, P.Eng., MBA 123 Main Street, Suite 160 Senior Consultant Winnipeg, MB R3C 1A5 [email protected] Michael Ratcliff, Ph.D., P.E. Senior Specialist [email protected] Brian Sulley, B.A.Sc., P.Eng. Senior Specialist [email protected] Andrew de Jong, B.Sc., M.A.Sc., EIT Environmental Engineering Intern [email protected] This document is intended for the sole use of the party to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential. If you have received this in error, please notify us immediately. ® RWDI name and logo are registered trademarks in Canada and the United States of America Reputation Resources Results Canada | USA | UK | India | China | Hong Kong | Singapore www.rwdi.com Brandon Biomedical Waste Treatment Facility Final Environmental Assessment Report RWDI#1301084 October 30, 2014 Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 1 2. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .............................................................................................. 1 2.1 City of Brandon and the Brandon Regional Hospital .................................................................... 2 2.2 Preliminary Design Considerations ............................................................................................... 3 2.2.1 Biomedical Waste Generation ........................................................................................... 3 2.2.2 Biomedical Waste Characterization .................................................................................. 4 3. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROPOSAL PROCESS ............................................................. 5 3.1 Applicable Legislation ................................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Scoped Project Evaluation ............................................................................................................ 7 3.2.1 Surface and Ground Water ............................................................................................... 7 3.2.1.1 Effects on Surface Water Quality, Quantities or Flow ......................................... 7 3.2.1.2 Effects on Ground Water Quality, Quantity or Movement ................................... 8 3.2.1.3 Cause of Sedimentation, Soil Erosion or Shoreline or Riverbank Erosion On or Off-Site 8 3.2.1.4 Effects on Surface or Ground Water from Accidental Spills or Releases to the Environment ...................................................................................................................... 9 3.2.2 Land ................................................................................................................................... 9 3.2.3 Air and Noise ................................................................................................................... 10 3.2.4 Natural Environment ........................................................................................................ 10 3.2.4.1 Wildlife and Fish Habitats .................................................................................. 10 3.2.5 Resources ....................................................................................................................... 10 3.2.6 Socio-economic ............................................................................................................... 10 3.2.7 Heritage and Culture ....................................................................................................... 10 3.2.8 Aboriginal ......................................................................................................................... 11 3.2.9 Other ................................................................................................................................ 11 3.3 Approvals .................................................................................................................................... 11 3.3.1 The City of Brandon ........................................................................................................ 11 3.3.2 Manitoba Conservation and Water Stewardship ............................................................. 11 4. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED UNDERTAKING (“THE PROJECT”) .................................... 11 4.1 Proposed Facility Location .......................................................................................................... 11 4.1.1 Design Considerations .................................................................................................... 12 4.1.2 Location and Zoning ........................................................................................................ 13 4.2 Conceptual Layout ...................................................................................................................... 13 4.2.1 Design Concept ............................................................................................................... 16 4.2.2 Considerations for Energy Efficiency .............................................................................. 17 4.3 Proposed Technology ................................................................................................................. 17 4.3.1 Proposed Technologies ................................................................................................... 17 4.3.1.1 Incineration ........................................................................................................ 18 4.3.1.2 Autoclaving ........................................................................................................ 18 4.4 Assessment of Transportation and Collection Logistics ............................................................. 19 4.4.1 Process Flow of Waste .................................................................................................... 19 4.4.2 Transportation Route through Brandon ........................................................................... 20 4.4.3 Waste Receiving and Containment ................................................................................. 21 4.5 Operational Parameters .............................................................................................................. 22 4.5.1 Current Operations .......................................................................................................... 22 4.5.2 Brandon Hospital Operating Structure ............................................................................ 22 4.5.2.1 Autoclave ........................................................................................................... 25 Reputation Resources Results Canada | USA | UK | India | China | Hong Kong | Singapore www.rwdi.com Brandon Biomedical Waste Treatment Facility Final Environmental Assessment Report RWDI#1301084 October 30, 2014 Page ii 4.5.2.2 Yellow Bag Waste / Autoclave Process............................................................. 25 4.5.2.3 Incinerator .......................................................................................................... 26 4.5.2.4 Red Bag Waste / Incineration Process .............................................................. 26 4.5.2.5 Improper Waste Segregation ............................................................................. 27 4.5.2.6 General Housekeeping Procedures .................................................................. 27 4.5.2.7 Equipment Downtime Procedure ....................................................................... 27 4.5.2.8 Employee / Operator Training ........................................................................... 28 4.5.2.9 Equipment Specific Operation ........................................................................... 28 4.5.2.10 Emergency Response ....................................................................................... 28 4.5.2.11 Health, Safety and Environmental Procedures ................................................. 28 4.6 Remote RHA Operations ............................................................................................................ 28 5. EMERGENCY PROCEDURES ........................................................................................................... 29 6. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................................................................. 30 6.1 Construction Phase ..................................................................................................................... 30 6.1.1 Noise ............................................................................................................................... 30 6.1.2 Dust ................................................................................................................................. 30 6.1.2.1 Dust Control ......................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • USAID Sector Environmental Guidelines Healthcare Waste
    SECTOR ENVIRONMENTAL GUIDELINES HEALTHCARE WASTE Partial Update 2015 | Last Full Update: Prior to 2003 1 This document was prepared by The Cadmus Group, Inc. under USAID’s Global Environmental Management Support Program, Contract Number GS-10F-0105J. The contents are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. Cover Photo: USAID/Honduras Health Service Improvement: A mother and child in a clinic in Taulabé, Honduras. For the past five years, USAID has helped local governments in Copán take over the management of area health care systems through a process called decentralization, which transfers health care management responsibilities and resources from the central government to the local government. The central government continues to finance health care services, while local governments implement and manage them. Photographer: Hector Medrano About this document and the Sector Environmental Guidelines This document presents one sector of the Sector Environmental Guidelines prepared for USAID under the Agency’s Global Environmental Management Support Project (GEMS). All sectors are accessible at www.usaidgems.org/bestPractice.htm. Purpose. The purpose of this document and the Sector Environmental Guidelines overall is to support environmentally sound design and management (ESDM) of common USAID sectoral development activities by providing concise, plain-language information regarding: • the typical, potential adverse impacts of activities in these sectors; • how to prevent or otherwise mitigate these impacts, both in the form of general activity design guidance and specific design, construction and operating measures; • how to minimize vulnerability of activities to climate change; and • more detailed resources for further exploration of these issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments Xxx (2017) Xxx–Xxx
    Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments xxx (2017) xxx–xxx Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/seta Original article A review of sustainable energy access and technologies for healthcare facilities in the Global South ⇑ ⇑ Andrea Franco ,1, Marjan Shaker ,1, Dikolela Kalubi, Silvia Hostettler Cooperation & Development Center (CODEV), Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Station 10, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland article info abstract Article history: Access to reliable, affordable and sustainable energy is essential for improving living standards, develop- Received 15 October 2016 ment and economic growth. From a healthcare perspective, energy is a critical parameter for delivering Revised 6 February 2017 and improving healthcare services and life-saving interventions in the Global South. This review provides Accepted 28 February 2017 an estimation of the energy needs of different healthcare facilities as a function of patient capacity and Available online xxxx services provided. It also presents the strengths and limitations of several energy sources that can be used to meet these needs. The review focuses on energy provision in off-grid scenarios and for satisfying peak Keywords: demands of grid-connected hospitals. Energy access The initial key observations are that fossil-fuel generators are the main energy source because of their Healthcare facilities Global South low investment costs. However, this technology can no longer compete with the energy produced from Sustainability renewable sources in terms of levelized cost of electricity (LCOE). Photovoltaics (PV) has an LCOE of Renewable energy 0.09 USD/kWh, versus an average 0.25 USD/kWh for diesel generators.
    [Show full text]
  • Waste Management Acquires Medical Waste Processing Facility and Business in Phoenix
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Carrie Griffiths (603) 929-3350 [email protected] Waste Management Acquires Medical Waste Processing Facility and Business in Phoenix PHOENIX – June 4, 2010 – WM Healthcare Solutions, Inc., a subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc. (NYSE: WM), today announced that it has acquired a medical waste processing facility and certain other medical waste business assets located in Phoenix, Arizona, from Milum Textile Services Co., a provider of linen services and medical waste collection and treatment services. Terms of the deal were not disclosed. The purchase of the medical waste autoclave facility fits into Waste Management’s strategy to manage solid waste, medical, recycling and pharmaceutical waste for the healthcare industry. The 35,000 square-feet facility today serves approximately 250 licensed healthcare facility customers, employs six people and has the capacity to process 30 tons of medical waste per day. “Our acquisition of Milum’s medical waste autoclave facility is another step forward in growing our medical waste business,” said Mike Archer, general manager of WMHS. “This investment represents an important strategic opportunity to offer disposal options, consulting and cost savings for hospitals, clinics, laboratories, doctors’ offices and a variety of other healthcare businesses in Arizona. Our integrated solutions approach allows us to not only provide safe medical waste treatment and disposal services, but also solid waste, recycling, and construction and demolition materials collection, processing and disposal services to the healthcare industry. The acquisition also adds to our capacity and geographic presence to treat and manage waste from healthcare customers,” Archer said. About Waste Management and WM Healthcare Solutions Waste Management, Inc., based in Houston, Texas, is the leading provider of comprehensive waste management services in North America.
    [Show full text]
  • Annex Iii Infection Control and Waste Management Plan
    ANNEX III INFECTION CONTROL AND WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN (ICWMP) FOR KENYA COVID-19 EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROJECT (P173820) UNDER THE COVID-19 STRATEGIC PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE PROGRAM AUGUST, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABBREVIATION / ACRONYMS............................................................................................ iv 1.0 Introduction........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Context and Components..............................................................................................2 1.2 Targeted Healthcare Facility per project Component............................................................... 2 1.2.1 Component 1. Medical Supplies and Equipment [US$8,472,500 equivalent]......................2 1.2.2 Under Component 3: Quarantine, Isolation and Treatment Centers [US$12,676,400 equivalent].........................................................................................................................................3 1.2.3 Component 4. Medical Waste Management [US$3,387,600 equivalent].............................3 1.2.4 Component 6: Availability of Safe Blood & Blood Products [US$10,000,000 equivalent] 3 1.3 Design Requirement..................................................................................................................4 1.3.1 Laboratory Facilities............................................................................................................. 4 1.3.2 Quarantine / Isolation Rooms
    [Show full text]
  • Chemical & Biological Hygiene Program
    Chemical & Biological Hygiene Program Environmental, Health & Safety Office January 2018 Contents 1. PURPOSE ................................................................................................................................................................... ‐ 1 ‐ 2. OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................................................. ‐ 1 ‐ 3. RESPONSIBILITIES.................................................................................................................................................. ‐ 1 ‐ 4. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES ............................................................................................................ ‐ 2 ‐ 5. LABORATORY CHEMICALS ................................................................................................................................. ‐ 7 ‐ 6. LABORATORY FUME HOODS ............................................................................................................................ ‐ 12 ‐ 7. ELECTRICALLY POWERED LABORATORY APPARATUS ............................................................................ ‐ 13 ‐ 8. SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR PARTICULARLY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES .............................................. ‐ 16 ‐ 9. CHEMICAL DISPOSAL .......................................................................................................................................... ‐ 17 ‐ 10. BIOLOGICAL WASTE ..........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Suffolk County Solid Waste Management Report and Recommendations Table of Contents
    SUFFOLK COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2 2. Synopsis of Suffolk County Law 5 3. Members of the Commission 6 4. Recommendations 8 5. Evolution of Waste Management on Long Island 10 6. New York State Regulations 14 7. Current Conditions for Waste Disposal in Suffolk County 30 8. Transportation Issues and Solid Waste 78 9. Alternative Technologies 101 10. Waste Reduction and Recycling 120 11. Yard Waste 130 2 Introduction While many people do not like to think about what happens to household refuse once it leaves their curb or they drive it to the local transfer station, Long Island faces a mounting crisis over what to do with the things we throw away. The average Long Islander produces nearly four pounds of garbage each day, not including yard waste or recyclables. Traditionally, disposal has been a function of town governments, which have operated landfills to receive household garbage. However, since a New York State law ordered all Long Island landfills closed by the year 1990, Long Islanders have had to find alternative ways of disposing of their garbage. Currently, about 35 percent of the waste stream is consumed at one of the Island’s four waste-to-energy facilities. The remaining portion, about 1.1 million tons, is transported by truck to landfills in states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia at rates approaching $100 per ton. The practice of long haul trucking comes at an enormous price tag which is reflected in Long Island’s property tax bills or transfer station fees or bag fees in several eastern Suffolk Towns.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Inventory Dec 2006.Pmd
    FOR PROPER DISPOSAL: A Global Inventory of Alternative Medical Waste Treatment Technologies Jorge Emmanuel and Ruth Stringer JANUARY 2007 Acknowledgements The authors owe a debt of thanks to the following individuals whose research efforts, expert advice and support were essential in the production of this report: Pawel Gluszynski Cesta Hrdinka Ed Reid Karolina Ruzickova Mitzi Sabando Fatou Souare Hann and Kevin Stech. Disclaimer Health Care Without Harm (HCWH) does not have any vested commercial interests in any of the technologies or companies listed in this inventory. Furthermore, HCWH does not endorse any specific technology or company. Even though HCWH exercised care in ensuring the accuracy of the information provided, HCWH does not guarantee, and accepts no legal liability, arising from or connected to, the reliability or currency of material contained on this inventory. Moreover, HCWH does not claim that this inventory is a complete listing of all commercially available technologies. HCWH recommends that users carefully evaluate the accuracy, currency, completeness and relevance of the data for their purposes and that users exercise their own skill and care with respect to the use of the information. For More Information Contact Health Care Without Harm at: 1901 N. Moore Street, Suite 509, Arlington, VA 22209, USA Email: [email protected] Website: www.noharm.org Table of Contents Introduction 1 Basic Types of Alternative Treatment Technologies 3 Treatment Approaches 5 How to Use this Inventory 10 Global Inventory of Alternative Technologies 11 Index Of Technologies By Country/Region 35 Index Of Technologies By Technology Type 43 FOR PROPER DISPOSAL: A Global Inventory of Alternative Medical Waste Treatment Technologies Introduction In 2004, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants came into force and the World Health Organization released its Policy Paper on Safe Health-Care Waste Management.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Workshop on Health-Care Waste Management
    Regional Workshop on Health-care Waste Management Kathmandu, Nepal, 7-9 December 2011 Regional Office for South-East Asia SEA-EH-579 Distribution: General Regional Workshop on Health-care Waste Management Kathmandu, Nepal, 7-9 December 2011 Regional Office for South-East Asia © World Health Organization 2012 All rights reserved. Requests for publications, or for permission to reproduce or translate WHO publications – whether for sale or for noncommercial distribution – can be obtained from Publishing and Sales, World Health Organization, Regional Office for South- East Asia, Indraprastha Estate, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, New Delhi 110 002, India (fax: +91 11 23370197; e-mail: [email protected]). The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the World Health Organization concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted lines on maps represent approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement. The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers’ products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by the World Health Organization in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters. All reasonable precautions have been taken by the World Health Organization to verify the information contained in this publication. However, the published material is being distributed without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied.
    [Show full text]
  • Eco-Industrial Park Waste-To-Energy Project (People’S Republic of China)
    Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors Project Number: 51399-001 November 2018 Proposed Loan Shanghai SUS Environment Company Limited Eco-Industrial Park Waste-to-Energy Project (People’s Republic of China) This is an abbreviated version of the document approved by ADB's Board of Directors that excludes information that is subject to exceptions to disclosure set forth in ADB's Public Communications Policy 2011. CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (as of 21 August 2018) Currency unit – yuan (CNY) CNY1.00 = $0. 1458 $1.00 = CNY6.8584 Currency unit – euro (€) €1.00 = $1. 1482 $1.00 = €0. 8709 Currency unit – yen ( Y) Y1.00 = $.0091 $1.00 = Y110. 0700 ABBREVIATIONS ADB – Asian Development Bank EIP – Eco-Industrial Park ESMS – environmental and social management system EU – European Union FIT – feed-in tariff GW – gigawatt MSW – municipal solid waste MW – megawatt PPA – power purchase agreement PPP – public–private partnership PRC – People’s Republic of China SPS – Safeguard Policy Statement SUS – Shanghai SUS Environment WTE – waste -to -energy NOTE{S} (i) The fiscal year (FY) of Shanghai SUS Environment ends on 31 December. (ii) In this report, “$” refers to United States dollars unless otherwise stated. Vice -President Diwakar Gupta, Private Sector and Cofinancing Operations Director General Michael Barrow, Private Sector Operations Department (PSOD) Director Jackie Surtani, Director, Infrastructure Finance Division 2, PSOD Team leader Christine Chan , Senior Investment Specialist, PSOD Project advisor Hisaka Kimura, Advisor,
    [Show full text]
  • How an Organization's Environmental Orientation Impacts Environmental
    Southern Illinois University Carbondale OpenSIUC Dissertations Theses and Dissertations 12-1-2010 How an Organization's Environmental Orientation Impacts Environmental Performance and its Resultant Financial Performance through Green Computing Hiring Practices: An Empirical Investigation of the Natural Resource-Based View of the Firm Andrew Aken Southern Illinois University Carbondale, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/dissertations Recommended Citation Aken, Andrew, "How an Organization's Environmental Orientation Impacts Environmental Performance and its Resultant Financial Performance through Green Computing Hiring Practices: An Empirical Investigation of the Natural Resource-Based View of the Firm" (2010). Dissertations. Paper 194. This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at OpenSIUC. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of OpenSIUC. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HOW AN ORGANIZATION’S ENVIRONMENTAL ORIENTATION IMPACTS ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE AND ITS RESULTANT FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE THROUGH GREEN COMPUTING HIRING PRACTICES: AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE NATURAL RESOURCE BASED VIEW by Andrew Joseph Aken B.S., Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, 1991 M.S., Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, 1993 A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree. Department of Business Administration in the Graduate School Southern Illinois University Carbondale December, 2010 DISSERTATION APPROVAL HOW AN ORGANIZATION’S ENVIRONMENTAL ORIENTATION IMPACTS ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE AND ITS RESULTANT FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE THROUGH GREEN COMPUTING HIRING PRACTICES: AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE NATURAL RESOURCE BASED VIEW By Andrew Joseph Aken A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the field of Business Administration Approved by: Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Cavitation Options for Waste Autoclave Technology for Power Generation A.S. Kudryavtsev
    Cavitation Options for Waste Autoclave Technology for Power Generation A.S. Kudryavtsev Currently, one of the most promising areas of recycling is the transfer traditional sterilization technologies for the processing of municipal solid waste. The development of autoclave technologies in the recycling of household waste goes in directions of improving quality of fractionation and increasing efficiency. On dumps of our planet we already have millions tons of waste. One percent efficiency of waste treatment means billions MW additional energy capacity Autoclave technology is the mass in garbage handling autoclave at pressures of from 4 to 7 bar of superheated steam at a temperature of 120 to 200 С. In the most basic applications as the primary treatment vessel is used the horizontal rotating autoclaves combined with some debris grinder. In the processing of plastic bottles pulverization occurs, packets, boxes, etc. and their partial softening and melting. Organic wastes decompose into cellulose, lignin and other fractions, wherein the cellulose content after autoclaving is 50%. The main element of autoclave technology is horizontal rotating autoclave. Our project based on autoclaves GV-2,0 of Degtyarsk Plant (DMZ). Here we have introduced an additional option of cavitation by acting on the mass of treated garbage inside autoclave electric field and ultrasound influence. Then autoclave begin to rotate high frequency voltage inside autoclave begin to charge cellulose particles. Steam and high frequency voltage together begin cavitation process. These particles is a initiator of cavitation processes. Cavitation creates micro bubbles. Then bubbles begin to collapse with high energy discharging and extremely high velocity. A lot of collapsing bubbles begin to destroy rubbish particles.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Sustainable Energy Access and Technologies for Healthcare
    Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 22 (2017) 92–105 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/seta Original article A review of sustainable energy access and technologies for healthcare facilities in the Global South ⇑ ⇑ Andrea Franco ,1, Marjan Shaker ,1, Dikolela Kalubi, Silvia Hostettler Cooperation & Development Center (CODEV), Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Station 10, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland article info abstract Article history: Access to reliable, affordable and sustainable energy is essential for improving living standards, develop- Received 15 October 2016 ment and economic growth. From a healthcare perspective, energy is a critical parameter for delivering Revised 6 February 2017 and improving healthcare services and life-saving interventions in the Global South. This review provides Accepted 28 February 2017 an estimation of the energy needs of different healthcare facilities as a function of patient capacity and services provided. It also presents the strengths and limitations of several energy sources that can be used to meet these needs. The review focuses on energy provision in off-grid scenarios and for satisfying peak Keywords: demands of grid-connected hospitals. Energy access The initial key observations are that fossil-fuel generators are the main energy source because of their Healthcare facilities Global South low investment costs. However, this technology can no longer compete with the energy produced from Sustainability renewable sources in terms of levelized cost of electricity (LCOE). Photovoltaics (PV) has an LCOE of Renewable energy 0.09 USD/kWh, versus an average 0.25 USD/kWh for diesel generators. Moreover, PV is a modular tech- Poverty nology that can efficiently meet energy demands in an environment-friendly way.
    [Show full text]