Prosiect Gwyrdd is a joint project between 5 Councils who chose incineration for dealing with domestic waste. They dressed it up with the name “Gwyrdd – Green” and began asserting “technology neutral”. WAG made a ‘freudian slip’ when they welcomed the “energy-from-waste” project in January 2009 *.
Background to the choice was the pro-incineration drive in WAG (contrary to declared policy of minimising landfill and incineration) that promised financial support only if Councils would form partnerships – so that their waste totalled enough to fuel an incinerator. Cardiff was pursuing a 300-400 000 t/yr incinerator to meet “requirements of the wider region”. Viridor then weighed in with 500 000 t/yr
Battle lines drawn over £150m Cardiff incinerator LetsRecycle 15-06-2007
www.letsrecycle.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=37&listcatid=217&listitemid=8850
WAG helped fund P Gwyrdd’s office and staff under the “Capital Access Fund” (70% of costs up to £200k for each of 2007 and 2008), but also set recycling targets and talked of limiting incineration to 25% (as Scotland , then WAG increased ours to 30% and now effectively 35% with no justification).
Under this pressure, P Gwyrdd decided their ‘residual’ waste will be 220 000t/yr and used the WRATE computer programme to show that an incinerator was ‘best’. Getting the result they wanted, they didn’t ask if it’s sound and ‘robust’
* others use WRATE and find MBT scores better - it depends on assumptions, eg. all incinerator ash is used for construction and no MBT outputs used for land reclamation (both invalid in English projects) MBT covers various Mechanical and Bio treatments, including composting.
* a leading consultant using ATROPOS instead of WRATE finds incineration scores poorly compared with gasification and MBT options.
P Gwyrdd dismissed all criticisms, with the promise from WAG for subsidy to make incineration “affordable”. WAG-sponsored consultants, including the PFI-promoting group “PartnershipsUK” were used to push it through.
KEY POINTS in PG PLAN● the only Reference Project in PG's plan is a single mega-incinerator. They have designed financing and a 25-year contract for such a incinerator at an incredible £1100 million.
● Cardiff and other local authorities in P Gwyrdd are aiming for only 65-70% recycling and composting. They are putting this off till 2025, evidently in order to have enough waste to feed their incinerator.
● They say PG is for 'residual' waste after "maximum recycling and composting"; this is false for the Welsh Local Authorities' consultants' report** says they can get 80-90% recycling and composting.
● Cardiff and other local authorities in P Gwyrdd are aiming for only 65-70% recycling and composting. They are putting this off till 2025, evidently in order to have enough waste to feed their incinerator.
● They say PG is for 'residual' waste after "maximum recycling and composting"; this is false for the Welsh Local Authorities' consultants' report** says they can get 80-90% recycling and composting.
HOW DID THEY FUDGE CHOICE OF INCINERATION
1. used the WRATE assessment tool, which is systematically biased against low-tech mechanical and bio processes (FOE Cymru report,www.assemblywales.org/wm_24_-_friends_of_the_earth_cymru.pdf)
2. set no requirement for use of the heat output – the majority of energy from an incinerator. Thus Viridor propose to generate 20MW (megawatts) electricity and waste 50MW heat. As no incinerators in the UK use much heat (except the Sheffield, Nottingham and Lerwick district heating schemes), a requirement for high energy efficiency as under European law would scupper their incinerator.
3. pretend that the grate ash – which is toxic and often hazardous waste – can all be used in building, instead of having to go to landfill as happens in England; ignoring the proximity principle requirement for the hazardous flyash to be disposed of in SE Wales, where no disposal ‘facility’ exists.
4. refused to update their assessment for shrinking waste tonnages - PG assumed growth in waste up to 3% /yr, ignoring the last few years when municipal waste has reduced by around 1% /yr.
--------------
IRRESPONSIBLE REFUSAL TO REVIEW THE MEGA-PROJECT
● Newport ’s chief officer said in discussion they couldn’t reduce the 220 000 tonnes/yr target (35% of the waste stream with 17.5% increase over 2006), as the incinerator would not be viable. Their prospectus (Nov.2009) instead took 160 000 t/yr and PG talk of increasing population to cancel out decreases in waste.
FOE demanded a reassessment on the reduced figures before going to procurement, but they refused – it was evident from simple scaling of their figures that the financial case for the incinerator would vanish if recalculated, just as chief officer Stephen Davison said.
● PG has no fall-back plan for if the mega-project collapses – all the smaller-scale companies and not-for-profit businesses (eg. Newport Wastesavers) with innovative projects have been scared off and Councils will be left to catch up on their own.
PRETENCE THAT PG WILL SURVIVE THE CREDIT CRUNCH
● banking costs have jumped up since the Credit Crunch, so PG hope to get Euro Investment Bank or Prudential Borrowing support, both of which are restricted to ‘sustainable’ developments. As they will probably fail, we’ll be landed with high bank charges typical of PFI.
● £9 million/yr subsidy. The PartnershipsUK group that promotes PFIs arranged WAG funding of £9.124 million/yr (27 Apr 2009 e-mail to Tara King of PG). They say it’s not ‘PBFOM’ not PFI, but is likely to fall back to PFI as pointed out above.
* WAG Press Release
** Eunomia Report
No comments:
Post a Comment