Martin Kirby Column; Burning Issues, Altar-ations and a King's Night Out

“How can anyone say that Javelin Park will be efficient when it will vent its heat to open air.In its present form it will just be a big ugly burner which will struggle to find enough rubbish to burn by the time it is built”

“standishgreen it is difficult to reason with strongly held beliefs and prejudices. stand at the next council election and change their strategy on waste..”

“What Bonk fails to address is the simple fact that we dont need it. Over -capacity and falling waste volumes equals a half billion quid waste of our money.”

“standishgreen - agree with you on AD from source segregated food waste particularly if combined with catering/food industry wastes in large plants. Yes the county food waste collection and in-vessel composting is hugely expensive and environmentally third rate, if anything increasing the carbon footprint compared with landfill. However food waste collection is inefficient and very costly particularly in rural/spread out districts.

All that does not make a waste to energy plant inappropriate subject to effective design specification, and commercially effective contracting.

Bio-waste is only a small part of the total, and there is considerable dry combustible materials left which has low recovery value but which provides heat energy upon combustion, although not the primary objective, byproduct heat and/or electricity lowers the overall cost of dealing with waste, also displaces fossil fuels in the energy recovered.”

“Waddington & Kirby - what a team! One couldn't ever admit to being wrong & the other would never know if he was - but knows who to crawl to. Simple facts: so many incinerators are being built, all at a huge cost that the waste experts Eunomia say over-capacity by 2015/16 is already a certainty. That's the year ours will be built you halfwits - work it out. Our very sensible businesses are reducing their waste dramatically, so are households. Electricity from all waste is not efficient. Energy from compostable waste via an AD is, as recommended by DEFRA. The rest of it is inert, doesn't produce methane when buried and most of it can be recycled. It's got nothing to do with emissions - although nobody really knows the truth about that - WE JUST DONT NEED IT.”

“Beekeeper - not sure what you mean by latest technology - appropriate commercially proven technologies are specified for such plants and the environmental regulator will have to approve design, installation and tests after start-up for the plant to get its operating licence. This is not something to be voted in by populist cries.

In regard to your point about changes in regulatory standards during the life of the plant - regulatory changes when imposed require operators to modify their plant or back-fit equipment to accommodate the requirement - so no concerns regarding changes to environmental or other regulation affecting the present design.”

“Mr Kirby - good to see someone with some sense in the jungle - but two points you may wish to note -

Latest technology - may be under development, untried in commercial applications, and not be the best - what is needed is current commercially proven, and meeting standards set by the regulator. If not the plant will not get its licence to operate. Comparisons with the incinerators of the 1960s and 70s meaningless - and as you say emissions are all controlled and after scrubbing and particulate capture - what goes out far cleaner than you average central heating boilers - leave alone the wood burners.

Furthermore, the byproduct heat and electricity generated displaces equivalent fossil fuels; you may also wish to check the carbon dioxide released in EFW plants is no different in quantity than that released if the materials were left to decompose naturally - worse, if landfilled or left in piles including composting, when gases other than carbon dioxide, methane and ammonia for example, are released.

The second point about GCC capability - as demonstrated by their tendering process asking contractors to work out the disposal options- they just don't have the technical or contractual capability to specify such plant or what to expect when operated, relying upon a motley bag of consultants without direction - hence no point asking them to set standards for emissions or how best to manage the plant. This will fall on the operator - assuming that to be the contractor - and the best that can be hoped for is that the environment agency will keep competent watch.

It is a pity there are no large merchant (commercially financed) plants located strategically, that would take waste from a number of authorities including business, and industry wastes, on a gate-fee basis - that is the norm overseas and such plants give much better value for money, operate more efficiently. But of course private developers are wary of dealing with amateur local authorities - which takes far too long and wastes considerable amount of time and money as in this case.

GCC has been developing their strategy since before 2005, still inconclusive, and in the mean time the district and city councils have put in various collection systems totally inefficient and mismatched to getting the best value for money, and environmental efficiencies.”

“Martin Kirby justifies the planned incinerator on the grounds that people have bonfires in Tuffley! If we want to be sure of "the latest technology" what we don't want is to lock ourselves into a 25 year contract now based on the present technology.”