'Not enough waste' to feed planned Gloucestershire incinerator, Liberal Democrats claim

“CommsGuy - modern MRFs are hi-tech - not just magnetic materials - they use various techniques - eddy current, optical sort/air blow based on density, plastic quality, etc, etc, you will be surprised how clever they are, and there are also human operatives along the line for double check - the main thing is these lines can be fine tuned to select particular range/quality of materials depending upon market prices. In terms of material cleanliness - whether a bottle or some other is clean or dirty - given the the low value the returns are paltry except for high value paper, and some types of plastics which find their way into the commercial chain in any case - waste contractors are clever in sorting out what is profitable for them regardless of what the council does.”

“CommsGuy - I am not going to get bogged down into technical arguments over which we have no control - You don't appear to have taken note of my comment that GlosCC has failed to carry out the optimisations necessary for integrated waste management - and EFW is part of that.

Why this or that component has not been put in place is because all are not within the remit of GlosCC or the EFW contractor - where such things are done on an integrated commercial/environmentally best fit manner much of the stages are driven by commercial firms who put merchant plants - that is plants that will take the waste for all comers. The local authority simply pays a gate fee - same as that they paid to the Hempsted landfill or for in-vessel composting at Rosehill Farm. LAs do not and should not get into areas outside their expertise such as tendering for plant - U.K LAs are zero in large commercial/contractual deals - and I don't deny the contract sums look way out of what a commercial developer would have come up with.

That said - some of the issues you raise -

why MRFs not built - there are MRFs in the UK put up by waste contractors and many councils use these - Worcestershire, Nottinghamshire, etc, Tewkesbury uses one. Markets for valuable materials - metals, comercial cardboard, some plastics, paper, textiles, etc, already existed via industry channels - the municipal component is relatively small difficult/costly to collect separately.

But then if Gos councils have tied them into high cost/multi-bin collection systems (cart before the horse) - which commercial operator will have confidence in setting up an MRF in Glos? Added to that the NIMBY attitude which is hindering any industrial development - note the present discussion on the EFW.

Why no heat utilisation from EFW - simply because that requires very expensive district heating pipework, heat meters, etc, the investment in which would be more than in the base EFW facility. Our spread out housing estates are not conducive for economic heat transmission and distribution but there are examples where this takes place - Nottingham, Slough, some other locations.

All EFWs are capable of the heat being utilised - and in Europe where multi-occupancy buildings is the norm this is much easier, and there are dedicated CHP installations including heat recovery from waste - also balancing heat and electricity loads over the seasons is difficult and electricity is a high value form of energy which is in demand always compared with heat.

Plant internal energy use - No power station sends out all the electricity it generates - most use 5 to 10% for internal use - for an EFW there are many more loads than just that related to electricity production.

In any case the electricity produced is a bonus and not the sole purpose of the plant - in terms of economics you need to look at cost of other alternatives including landfill tax and charges - the combined effect should be a net gain - so simply looking at £20M/year is not the answer - and GlosCC are mugs brandishing large sums - £500M over its life time as that is meaningless for most. Check what it costs GlosCC at present for landfill.

Waste targets and recycling ranks - who cares about these - that is what costs an arm and a leg - recycling at any cost is stupid - and most low value materials are better fired in an MRF. What is the point of spending over £150/tonne collecting food wastes, and paying over £50/tonne for in-vessel composting which also needs equivalent garden waste for the process to save £70 + 40 per tonne landfilled - better sent to the EFW?

You should ask your council to work out the environmental footprints of their garden & food waste, and recycling/kebside sort. Also what portion of the supposedly recycled material ends up in landfill. You will be surprised.

Single bin collection and MRF for the high value materials and the rest to an EFW makes economic and environmental sense.”

“Bonkim 2003: CommsGuy you should visit an MRF…

If MRF is so great, why aren't companies queuing up to build one here?

If there is no separation and everything goes in one bin, what will that do to GCC's position in the national recycling league table? If a third party is doing the sorting and recycling they will get the credit not GCC.

Bonkim 2003: Are you simply trying to make the case that energy from waste is bad.

No, despite the fact that the "energy" is electricity only – there are no takers for the heat.

It's the economics that are bad.

Para 1.2 of this document:
http://tinyurl.com/ancgjzp

Says the incinerator will produce 17.4MWh but only export to the grid 14.5MWh
Therefore it appears that it is exporting 83.3% and using 16.7% of the electricity produced for itself [only 3MWh for a plant that size seems a bit low.]
The 14.5MWh generated is nothing in the overall scheme of things.
It is consequently very expensive to produce this small amount of electricity.

Whether this is "green" energy is debatable.

Electricity connection feasibility study is here :
http://tinyurl.com/akqkg3s

The distance to connect to the electricity network is 6km. Will they bother?


My overall concern is the lifetime cost that as council tax payers we will have to pay.
£500Million over 25 years simplistically is £20million a year.
The GCC annual budget is about £400Million (recently cut by around £23Million iirc)
This £20M a year is 5% of the current GCC budget and the costs payable to UBB will increase in line with some industrial index. The coalition government is intent on keeping council tax increases below 2% a year.
What will this incinerator cost GCC (i.e. us) each year in 5, 10 or even 20 years time.
That's my real concern!

Bonkim 2003: "... Best not to get the various issues mixed up or Glos CC's contract expertise to reject EFW

Also notice that you have not answered the request to unpack this and state exactly what you mean.
i.e what are the various issues; how would they be mixed up; and tell us about GCC's contract expertise and why they might reject EFW."”

“CommsGuy - you should visit an MRF and check out cost of collection in your council which would have tripled in the past few years following the introduction of the multibin collections. Also check out the resale value of some of the materials sorted kerbside, add the cost of water, and energy, and added transport miles and compare with landill tax and charges - you will plenty of information on WRAP, and Recycle now websites - ask your council to justify.

Stroud had one of the lowest collect costs in the good old days - check what it is now - and also check out the increased cost of in-vessel composting and what benefits it brings compared with anaerobic digestion of food wastes (non existent in Glos) as also what is left in the residual following the multi-bin collections.

Are you simply trying to make the case that energy from waste is bad - if so check up the Env Agency and Defra websites - unless you believe in the world wide conspiracy theory or believe every half baked justification coming from the pseudo-green lobby.”

“Bonkim 2003: "… materials recycling facilities are high tech, fast …"

Also expensive and who will build, finance and operate one? And in conjunction with the incinerator?
Black bags go in, are emptied, sorted and the sort output goes in one direction, the incinerant in another. These are then repacked for transport to recyclers or the incinerator. Double handling in and double handling out.

This statement : "Will the value of the material recovered be more than the cost of sorting?" still stands; although you have introduced the further cost of a high tech unit now.

My kerbside collection takes paper; cans, glass, plastic milk bottles and cardboard packaging. All of these are separated onto the truck and hence all are "clean" which would not be the case with co-mingled waste. The food waste is also collected separately. I know that Stroud collects plastic and juice cartons. I would suggest that co-mingled waste recyclables will not be clean and hence have reduced value.

I visit Hempsted about once every 6 weeks to recycle stout cardboard boxes, aluminium foil and fluorescent lamps etc. OK I could do cardboard at the supermarkets, but the other stuff has to go to Hempsted.

Bonkim 2003: "… Why should you worry about the waste contractor playing with the throughput of his plant and and improves overall economics/performance? "

What are you talking about here ? It doesn't make sense – you clearly haven't read this through before posting!

Bonkim 2003: "… in fact it makes sense to have large plants along convenient collection/transport routes to reduce transport miles - no need for such plants to be dedicated to a single county/district - but an economic collection area."

So, trucks coming in from Stow-on-the Wold; Northleach; Cirencester; Tetbury; Wotton-Under-Edge; Lydney; Mitcheldean; Newent; Tewkesbury; et al to Javelin Park. How many transport miles here? And time! That's why I recommended distributed no-burn processing – not so many transport miles to the local site and faster turn round time.

Bonkim 2003: "... Assume the Audit Commission will screen any defects… "

Don't assume any such thing!


The Citizen is supposed to be a campaigning newspaper. The only thing they are campaigning for is the incinerator. Any journalist worth his salt would be doing background checks on the process and the companies employed.

Still, you can't expect them to look at all this :

http://tinyurl.com/c83tr75


Just one of these - out of interest you should read this:

http://tinyurl.com/csmvlre

it's a Review of the Submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment undertaken by AXIS for UBB. It doesn't give the original document the thumbs up … quite the opposite!

Bonkim 2003: "... Best not to get the various issues mixed up or Glos CC's contract expertise to reject EFW"

Please unpack this and state exactly what you mean.
i.e what are the various issues; how would they be mixed up; and tell us about GCCs contract expertise and why they might reject EFW.”

“CommsGuy - materials recycling facilities are high tech, fast and there are views on the overall costs/quality of output - conversely kerbside sort is laborious, high cost and prevents many useful components from being recovered such as plastics, cardboard, etc - no single answer and overall cost of collection is the main component of cost - not difficult to look at overall economics/environmental footprint - the question is has your council carried out any serious investigations of the options? Check out.

Why should you worry about the waste contractor playing with the throughput of his plant and and improves overall economics/performance? or where the waste comes from - as long as the plant meets appropriate operational/environmental regulations - in fact it makes sense to have large plants along convenient collection/transport routes to reduce transport miles - no need for such plants to be dedicated to a single county/district - but an economic collection area.

Future2010 - Defra funding/pfi credits, etc, we don't the full details so no point speculating - pfi contracts have been discredited in more than one area - hospitals/schools/power stations - sharp practice, and contractors/financiers smarter than your average council. You need to be one step ahead in the pfi game or get stung.

Whether GlosCC has got the contract or financing right - quite another issue from that of the role of EFW and its economics/environmental effectiveness compared with landfill or the myriad other processes suitable for different fractions.

Best not to get the various issues mixed up or Glos CC's contract expertise to reject EFW Assume the Audit Commission will screen any defects in Glos CC's contractual/financial abilities and they will be called to account if there are black marks.”

“How will GCC compel local councils to transport all their waste to JP?

We know that waste is treated differently in different areas.

Suppose Veolia have contracted to collect waste and their incinerator is short of waste to burn; it will be very tempting to divert the waste to their burner. Council may not be able to prevent this happening under "restraint of trade" rules.

Bonkim 2003 you state:
"collect everything in a single bin or bags every week, send to a central sorting facility close to the energy from waste plant, sell what has any market value, and send the rest to the EFW plant - simple."

That means people sorting through every single bag that comes in : food waste, rotting material; used nappies, packaging, tins, plastics, bottles, batteries of various types, cardboard, foil, juice cartons etc, to fish out any that "has any market value" (bearing in mind that it will all be covered in detritus) and try to sell it. Really?

How big will this sorting facility need to be - and it will need to operate 24/7!
There can be some mechanisation to pull out magnetic material and the like, but there is nothing like this as part of the current proposals.

Who is going to do this? UBB staff?, GCC employed staff?, another contractor to do it?
Will the value of the material recovered be more than the cost of sorting?

No! More likely to feed it all straight into the burner with no checks or sorting at all. All material listed above, along with small electronic devices (radios/walkmans/radioactive smoke alarms - a lot of people don't know or don't care about WEEE) will all go in!

I won't address the environmental issues (which are many) but the biggest concern I have is the cost and associated lifetime cost.

It makes no sense to have a monolithic processor (the incinerator) and a 25 -30 year contract with ever increasing costs.

Distributed processing with half a dozen small plants around the county and 5 - 8 year contracts will give lots of flexibility and no "lock-in".

Unfortunately for the county, the "Waste Champion" is not a waste champion but an Incinerator Champion!

U-turns are quite fashionable in the Tory Party right now. Do the right thing, Stan - take the £15Million hit (which you shouldn't have agreed to in the first place!) and serve the people of Gloucestershire properly, with a no-burn distributed and flexible waste management system.”

“I'm sure the subtext for this application from the outset was that it would be a "nice little earner" not that Mr. Waddington and the administration at GCC are ever likely to admit that of course.”

“Cllr. Jeremy Hilton and Eunomia are not the only voices of concern about the capacity/waste stream issues. DEFRA withdrew funding for GCC's proposed incinerator because they said that it wasn't needed in Glos. Champ. Stan obviously thinks he knows better.”

“Lecorche - sorry - agree this is overkill - but many swimming in a fresh water river fail to find water to drink. Best to look at the basics before imagining things are too complex and that there is a world wide conspiracy to suppress information. We are swimming in a sea of information in easily understandable chunks - no need to look too far.”