Fib dems /Plaid Prosiect Gwyrdd 'GREEN'wash is out of date on motivation, waste data and policy, it would fail tests for soundness, including (non)consistency with Cardiff's waste policy.
The biggest inconsistency is the claim to meet the residual waste level of 150kg /person/year.
..arguments about uncertainties, figures going up and down each year, are skewered by this number. Current population (830 000) times 150kg gives 125 000 t/yr (perhaps 140 000t/yr with some population growth) far below the 220 000 t/yr of P Gwyrdd.
No big Burner required!!
- the single big facility (incinerator) is likely to be old technology, cutting out the newer methods for extracting materials and value from residual waste.
- their out-of-date projections assumed continual growth in residual waste - it’s now reducing with a WAG target 40% lower (PG needs the high level to make incineration a 'viable proposition')
- they ignore the landfill needed for the ‘reference’ incinerator, for non-combustible materials and for thousands of tonnes of incinerator ash
- they assume all incinerator bottom ash to be re-used in building, yet much of it will be hazardous waste (the EU’s waste incineration regulations are beginning to bite)
- they excluded the cheapest, most flexible and environmentally preferred Mechanical+Biological treatments (MBT) stabilising biowastes for soils (WAG was planning to ban this but have now changed policy, over to using quality protocols as in England)
- they have pushed through the policy without public consultation, afraid of the anti-incineration backlash, so have no public consent to this hugely costly gamble.
It was not just Prosiect Gwyrdd, but also WAG that went off course, chasing incinerators. Now WAG’s defeat over banning MBT-output to soil or landfill and their dismissal of incinerator ash and dioxin issues leaves PG on an unsound basis.
PG really wantes to be technology-neutral and flexible, it should go for
* preference for flexible projects, less than 10 years (as Sterecycle’s autoclave)
* reduce the guideline tonnage from 220 000t to a realistic level (under 140 000t/yr)
* any incinerator bid to meet the efficiency standard and deal with its hazardous ashes
* high importance to carbon footprint, assessed on the international (IPCC) methods
The consultants’ report for Friends of the Earth “A changing climate for Energy from Waste?” 2006 http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/changing_climate.pdf was important in showing the way to a non-incinerating strategy.
The study for
Greenstar 2008,
“Meeting Ireland’s Waste Targets: The Role of MBT”,
shows that MBT is environmentally much preferable in switching from landfill into high recycling and waste treatment. WAG says it wants to do this but has been diverted into incinerators.
No comments:
Post a Comment