Zero Waste incinerater policy greenwash

 What Jane Davisdson Greenwash report TOWARDS ZERO WASTE doesn't say!

 Incinerators produce TOXIC ash which report fails to mention so where is that going?

Q what is the risk of choosing Viridor-type incineration, if incinerator bottom ash is found to be hazardous waste

HELP WALES reduce its carbon footprint  the report shouts - impossible if you build incineraotrs! You simply add to it! But you can get around that by not counting these emissions! But that may change in the future!  

Q what is the risk if CO2 from incineration is counted (it isn't at the moment) as adding to the carbon-footprint of 'waste management/disposal', as needed to conform with the EU ETS scheme, whereby the waste sector has to reduce CO2 equiv emissions by 16% (2020 levels compared with 2005)?

 Q Myth recycling bottom ash?

and Jane Davidson proposes that the recycling of EfW residue bottom ashwill be included as counting towards recycling targets!!

TOXIC WASTE It is a Myth that an incinerator turns rubbish into nothing! for example The Viridor incinerator just given planning permsission in Cardiff  will produce around 120,000 tonnes of waste ash per year!
for some of this bottom ash it is assumed, will find a use in the road building and construction – hence, they classify this waste as 'recycling'. However, at present, only half of the bottom ash produced by incinerators finds a market with the rest being landfilled. One third of waste will become ASH. 17,500 plus  tonnes of that will be toxic and need special hazardous waste disposal.
What do we do with the 17,500 tonnes plus of hazardous toxic ash?
They expect to send it to England at great cost to dumps with huge local opposition. This is Non compliant with TAN 21 concerning minimisation of transport movements and the Proximity Principle *(should be disposed close to the point at which it is generated 

 Q Increasing incineration!!!

recycling target for individual Local Authorities is 58 per cent for 2015-16,

Now 42 per cent of municipal waste can be sent to incineration!counted as being subjected to energy recovery. Plans for a 30% cap on municipal waste shelved? With increased recycling building big burners is shortsighted and will lead to a reluctance by councils to increase recycling rates.

 Incineration is quite simply the wrong option environmentally. The climate change impact of a mass burn incinerator is far greater than many other technologies, including mechanical and biological treatment.

Greenhouse gases - ultra fine particles and dioxins
Incinerators have the highest emissions of harmful substances compared with other waste management options. It produces of poisonous dioxins -An incinerator of this sort has toxic emissions, particularly ultrafine particles (nanoparticles) Incinerators emit varying levels of heavy metals such as vanadium, manganese, chromium, nickel, arsenic, mercury, lead, and cadmium, which can be toxic at very minute levels.

Cheaper alternatives

 Alternative technologies are available or in development such as Mechanical Biological Treatment, Anaerobic Digestion (MBT/AD), Autoclaving or Mechanical Heat Treatment (MHT) using steam or plasma arc gasification PGP, or combinations of these treatments. Erection of incinerators block out the development and introduction of other emerging technologies. A UK government WRAP report, August 2008 found that in the UK median incinerator costs per ton were generally higher than those for MBT treatments by £18 per metric ton; and £27 per metric ton most for modern (post 2000) incinerators.

Costs compared for waste treatment options". letsrecycle.com. 15 August 2008. http://www.letsrecycle.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=37&listcatid=217&listitemid=10309.

WAG energy from waste con

The welsh assembly gov and local councils under pressure to reduce landfill are
opting for incineration of waste under the pretext that they can make
electricity from the process! 

This is Waste incineration disguised as 'renewable energy'!!

Wwe know the electricity from one of these large incinerators is pretty small, 20 or 30MW, compared with normal power stations (several 100MW up to Aberthaw’s 1450MW) and produces toxic ash and air pollution.They set no requirement on energy efficiency, despite Welsh strategy on 60% minimum.

Can WAG justify, a guarantee of £9 million per year to this waste incineration project while 

telling us they are GREEN? 
Can  Jane Davidson justify an INCREASE incineration to 30%!!!  

Various mechanical and bio-treatments (MBT) are roughly half the cost of incinerators, but WAG’s officials were so set on incineration that they approved the £9 million/year despite adopted policy to minimise waste disposal by landfill and incineration.

Prosiect Gwyrdd is NOT  Green! The partnership is not to "recycle and compost" but to dispose of the "residuals" by unwanted incinerators at huge cost.  

Shift away from EfW incinerators

Four planned energy from waste (EfW) incinerators are to be reviewed pending decisions on whether they will go ahead at all, pointing towards a shift away from incineration as a method of waste treatment.

Spiralling costs and a dramatic reduction in residual waste arisings have put a question mark over the plans to build EfW facilities in Hull, Coventry and Leeds.

The planning committee of Bristol City Council has made a decision to block an application for a 350,000 tonne a year energy-from-waste (EfW) facility proposed by Viridor.

Targets 

False to say no policy change from Wise About Waste, which said minimise disposal to landfill and incineration. This plan says reduce landfill to 5% and expand incineration up to a level of 30% - it's dishonest of WAG to pretend no policy change. 

Targets set by the Welsh Assembly Government which is to recycle 52% of our waste by 2012-2013 - just not ambitious enough to claim they are pursuing a carbon lite sustainable policy!

Putting off 70% recycling till 2025 means going slow on recycling, when some countries (Falmand/Berlgium) and municipalities have already reached this level

FOE Cymru proposed 70% by 2015 and 80% by 2020 are very feasible.

WAG claims that "a minimum level of 70 per cent recycling would be the most cost effective and deliverable level", but 'deliverable' means the dodgy deal with fractious Local Authorities in December 2008.  Over 80% recycling would be cost effective and the best way of reducing greenhouse gases

Cardiff Planning Officers give incinerator ahelping hand

Do we believe the officers that 'no urban incinerator will accept a visit' -?

THIS is an INCINERATOR even though it avoids this word where possible!!!
NOT a clean 'ENERGY from Waste' ??? Who are they kiddding and there is no customer for this dirty energy!

A HUGE amount of emphasis in the report on energy from Waste
8.6 Sustainability
The proposed facility would provide (at capacity) approximately 30 Mega
Watts of electricity, enough to serve 30,000 homes. This is considered to be in
accordance with the aims of Planning Policy Wales and TAN 21. This is an
important feature of the proposal and..

The Welsh Assembly Government states that energy from waste facilities are
only acceptable if ‘they form part of an integrated approach and that they only
recover energy from residual waste that remains after as much recyclable and
compostable material as practically possible has been removed; they include
heat and power wherever practicable.

The applicant states that the proposed facility is intended to treat residual waste and that materials (such as metals) are to be recovered for recycling..

The carbon footprint of the development
Chapter 5.3 of the submitted Environmental Statement analyses the carbon
footprint of the proposed facility compared with landfill...(WRATE). Compared with Landfill an overall carbon saving of
between -108,000 tonnes and -196,000 tonnes will be achieved in the year 2013. Provided a user for the heat produced can be located the carbon footprint of the proposed facility is estimated to be in the order of -30,000
tonnes CO2eqv in 2013

Hazards of disposing of toxic fly ash sdismissed in this ONE para so this is big issue no 2 to tackle!!
The toxic fly ash is the residue of combustion removed from the flue gases
prior to release into the atmosphere, in order to reduce the pollutants emitted.
The facility would produce approximately 10,500 tonnes per annum. The fly
ash would be removed from the facility using enclosed tankers and would be
transported to a hazardous waste landfill (currently there are none in Wales)..


Looks like this will clash with SEW Waste group meeting - do we have a protest outside..etc7.5 Cardiff Friends of the Earth and South-East Wales Friends of the Earth Waste

From the report..the objections in addition to those by cllrs.
Then 8. ANALYSIS starts
8.1 This is a major application for an energy from waste facility which will comprise
14,400 square metres of internal floorspace and will treat approximately
350,000 tonnes of residual waste per annum.

FROM THE PAPERS to be found here
http://www.cardiff.gov.uk/content.asp?id=2292&$state=calendarmeeting&$committeeID=1423&$meetingdate=06/05/2009&$eventrec=5616

Group object to the proposed development on the following grounds (The full
objection letter is available for public viewing as a background paper):
• The proposed incinerator will, during the long period of its contract,
contravene the requirements laid down in the Waste Hierarchy to;
minimise waste arisings by reduction / prevention, and secure every
possible recovery of materials by re-use, recycling or composting before
burning.
• The proposed incinerator is not demonstrated to be the Best Practicable
Environmental Option, particularly with respect to climate change impact.
• There is public concern that the proposed incinerator will constitute a
health risk because hazardous substances produced, for example ultra
fine particle (
8. ANALYSIS
8.1 This is a major application for an energy from waste facility which will comprise
14,400 square metres of internal floorspace and will treat approximately
350,000 tonnes of residual waste per annum. The facility has a predicted
lifespan of approximately 25 years but may operate beyond this timeframe.
The proposed development includes a waste reception area including tipping
hall and bunkers, offices, a visitors centre, two stacks a weighbridge and
parking for HGVs and cars. The site will employ approximately 50 employees
on a shift basis and will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days per year. Deliveries
to the facility will generally be between the hours of 0700 and 1700 hours.

8.2 The agent has advised that there are approximately 22 energy from waste
facilities which are operating within the United Kingdom, treating residual
municipal, commercial and industrial waste and that there are also
approximately 10 further energy from waste facilities which are in the pipeline.
The applicant Viridor currently operates a clinical energy from waste facility in
Plymouth and is currently developing additional facilities in Exeter, (permission
was granted in May 2008 for a 60,000 tonne per annum facility) and Slough
(planning permission was granted in 2000 for a 400,000 tonne per annum
facility). Viridor has also submitted planning applications for similar facilities in
Oxford and East Lothian, which are being considered currently by the relevant
local planning authorities. It should be noted that the energy from waste
facilities which have been approved by other local planning authorities have
also given rise to a great deal of opposition.

8.3 There is an identified need for another method of disposing of residual waste
for not only Cardiff but for all of the Project Gwerdd Local Authorities of South
East Wales: Caerphilly, Cardiff, Monmouthshire, Newport and the Vale of
Glamorgan. The Lamby Way landfill site had a remaining capacity of only
approximately 200,000 tonnes in September 2008, with historic rates of
300,000 tonnes of waste per annum. The only other operating landfill site
within the Project Gwerdd authorities is at Dock Way Newport which has a
remaining capacity of approximately 300,000 tonnes with a disposal rate of
approximately 90,000 tonnes per annum (ie. approximately 4 years
remaining).

8.4 It is considered that the key planning considerations are as follows:
• European and National Policy
• Sustainability
• Land use policy
• Landscape and Visual Amenity
• Amenity including Air quality and health
• Water resources
• Transportation
• Archaeology and Cultural heritage
• Impact upon the Statutory Designated sites (ie. the Severn Estuary
Special Protection Area (SPA), Site of Conservation Importance (SCI) and
Wetland of International Importance (Ramsar Site) and Cardiff Beech
Woods Special Area of Conservation (SAC).
8.5 European and National Policy
In accordance with the requirements of European Directives, it is necessary to
divert the amount of municipal solid waste disposed of by landfill. Technical
Advice Note (TAN) 21 states that another potential for the waste resource is
as a fuel. ‘Recovery of energy can be done in a number of ways including
direct incineration of parts of the waste arisings that are otherwise of limited
use. Proposals that incorporate combined power and heat plant could
contribute towards district heating schemes. Energy recovery via incineration
is known not to be popular with some sectors of the public, even thought the
industry is now using cleaner and safer technologies than ever, with vastly
reduced and controllable emissions. In a policy area that is aiming to rely less
and less on landfill, the potential for energy from waste facilities is growing’.
The provision of an energy from waste facility accords with the local authority’s
overall commitment to reducing the amount of waste generated within Cardiff,
the reuse of waste materials wherever possible, and the recovery of value
from the residual waste fraction. It is considered that such a facility is required
as part of an integrated and sustainable waste management strategy. The
proposed development is considered to be in accordance with the Deposit
Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003), which states ‘Proposals for
the development of waste management facilities will be permitted if: g) they
include suitable proposals for energy recovery and the beneficial after-use
products’.
8.6 Sustainability
The proposed facility would provide (at capacity) approximately 30 Mega
Watts of electricity, enough to serve 30,000 homes. This is considered to be in
accordance with the aims of Planning Policy Wales and TAN 21. This is an
important feature of the proposal and, in the interests of sustainability, it is
considered that if planning permission were to be granted, persons having
relevant interest in the application site should enter into a binding planning
obligation in agreement with the Council under Section 106 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 requiring them to use best endeavours to use and
market the energy generated from the incineration process and to produce an
annual report detailing the outcome of these endeavours for presentation to
the local planning authority and also to use reasonable endeavours to market
the bottom ash derived from the incineration process for use as a secondary
aggregate, as indicated in paragraph 1.2 (iv) above.
8.7 Land Use Policy
In terms of land use policy the principle of the development of the site for such
a use is considered acceptable. The site falls within an area of land with
planning permission for business, industry and warehousing. The proposal is
considered in accordance with the aims of Policy 55 of the Local Plan and the
supplementary guidance on ‘Locating Waste Management Facilities’(2006)
which both state that such proposals will generally be encouraged toward
existing areas or allocations for general industry. (see the Strategic Planning
Manager’s advice, paragraph 5.1)
8.8 Landscape and Visual Amenity
The design and external appearance of the development is considered
acceptable. The site is located within an industrial area which is typified by
utilitarian looking industrial buildings. The Strategic Planning Manager
(Design) comments that the quality of the design is high for a facility of this
type (see paragraph 5.2 above). The design has also been endorsed by the
Design Commission for Wales.
8.9 Amenity including Air quality and health
The closest residential areas are a distance of approximately 580 metres away
at Adventurer’s Quay, Galleon Way and Lewis Road (see paragraph 1.2(ii).
The Environmental Statement (ES) contains an assessment of ‘Amenity
Issues’ (Section19) which covers the following matters: Litter, vermin and
pests, waste, discharge to water, air quality, dust and odour, traffic and noise
and concludes that the proposal would not have any detrimental impact on the
surrounding environment.
The submitted Environmental Statement (ES) addresses emissions in two
categories; traffic emissions and emissions from the stack. The ES states that
the majority of traffic will access the site via Rover Way and Ocean Way. A
DMRB assessment was carried out in relation to the Gypsy / Traveller site at
Rover Way. The assessment indicates that ‘long term and short term air
quality objectives / limit values for NO2 and PM10 will be achieved, with or
without the operational traffic for all assessment years’. The ES states that the
maximum predicted short term and long term ground level process
contributions from the facility at the appropriate WID emissions limits have
been classified as extremely small or very small (ie. <5%>2000) between the highest predicted soil concentrations and soil
assessment criteria that are protective of the most sensitive human receptors’.
Furthermore, following consideration of the proposal including the submitted
Environmental Statement neither the Environment Agency (EA) nor the
Operational Manager Environment (Pollution Control) have raised any
objections, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions (see paragraphs
5.3 and 6.1 above). It is not considered that the proposed development would
prejudice the amenities of residents etc. within the surrounding areas.
It should also be noted that the proposed facility will require an Environmental
Permit from the EA prior to beneficial operation. The potential emissions from
the incinerator will have to be analysed very stringently by the EA to ensure
that the emissions comply with EU legislation. The EA is the competent
authority for assessing the detailed impacts upon the environment from
emissions.
In view of the public concern regarding the proposal (see section 7 above), it is
recommended that the persons having relevant interest in the application site
should enter into a binding planning obligation in agreement with the Council
under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requiring them
to establish and support a Liaison Group to involve, (inter alia), the operator,
the local planning authority, local members and representatives of the local
community.
Furthermore, it is considered that the Environment Agency should be
requested to give consideration to the inclusion of a condition to secure a
programme for monitoring and mitigation of emissions to air using a
continuous sampling system on any pollution prevention and Control
Authorisation, and if not, to continually monitor the need for the inclusion of
such a condition in any subsequent review of this authorisation.
8.10 Water Resources
There are no water features present on the site and the site is not within an
area which is prone to flooding. The submitted Environmental Statement
states that the main potential for impact upon hydrogeology is during the
construction phase. Conditions 4-7 regarding contaminated land measures will
ensure that risks to ground water during both construction and operation are
monitored and minimised (see the consultation response received from the
Environment Agency paragraph 6.1 above).
8.11 Transportation
The applicant has carried out a Transport Assessment which was submitted
as part of the Environmental Statement. The Transport Assessment indicates
that the proposed development would generate approximately 82 additional 2-
way trips on the local highway network during the morning peak (ie. 0730 to
0900) and some 62 trips during the evening peak. The additional traffic
generated from the energy from waste facility is predicted to represent an
increase of 3%. Many of the objections received relate to the increase in traffic
from the proposed facility. However, on the proviso that the applicant is willing
to enter into a section 106 Agreement with regard to the provision of a
financial contribution of £180,293 towards public transport movements, traffic
management and telematics, the Operational Manager Transportation has no
objections. The applicant would also be required to enter into a section 106
Agreement with regard to the provision of a revised Travel Plan, in order to
promote travel by sustainable modes of transportation amongst employees
(see paragraph 5.4 above).
8.12 Archaeology and cultural heritage
Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust (GGAT) advise that due to the ground
conditions it would be inappropriate to require a scheme of archaeological
work to be undertaken prior to commencement of development on the site, as
this could result in damage to archaeological resource which may otherwise
remain undisturbed on the site. GGAT have advised (see paragraph 6.3
above) that subject to a condition requiring the applicant to submit a detailed
programme of investigation for the archaeological resource following the
outline given in the environmental statement being attached to any consent
then there would be no objections (see Condition 22).
8.13 Impact upon the Statutory Designated sites
In response to the objections received from CCW (see paragraph 6.2 above),
regarding the need for an Appropriate Assessment to be undertaken by the
Local Authority prior to the determination of the application, the Strategic
Planning Manager (Ecology) (see paragraph 5.5) advises that Cardiff Council
has to reach a view on the possible significant effect of these proposals in the
context of European sites. The possible significant effects would be through
the media of aerial and water pollution, which are regulated by the
Environment Agency. The facility would require an Environmental Permit to
operate even if planning permission was granted. Furthermore, if an
Appropriate Assessment were to be undertaken for this proposal then this
would be inconsistent with the local authority’s stance on previous proposals
(such as Celsa Steelworks and Biomass Plant 08/2653C), and would set a
precedent for future projects. It should be noted that the local planning
authority does not have the technical competencies in assessing complex
issues relating to emissions.
8.14 Many objections have been received to the proposed energy from waste
facility (see section 7 above). In response to objections received and not
already addressed within the above report:
Concerns regarding emissions and the resultant impact upon health
The Operational Manager Environment (Pollution Control) and the
Environment Agency (EA) have been consulted with regard to the emissions
from the proposed facility and both have no objections (see paragraphs 5.3,
6.1 and 8.9 above). It will fall to the EA to consider the emissions very
stringently during the Environmental Permit stage. It should be noted that
without an Environmental Permit the facility will not be permitted to operate.
Incineration is not an efficient method of waste treatment and will discourage
recycling
The Welsh Assembly Government states that energy from waste facilities are
only acceptable if ‘they form part of an integrated approach and that they only
recover energy from residual waste that remains after as much recyclable and
compostable material as practically possible has been removed; they include
heat and power wherever practicable. The applicant states that the proposed
facility is intended to treat residual waste and that materials (such as metals)
are to be recovered for recycling. It should be noted that significant investment
has been made in recycling and composting within the local authority in recent
years and the local authority is committed to increasing rates of recycling and
reducing residual waste.

Hazards of disposing of toxic fly ash
The toxic fly ash is the residue of combustion removed from the flue gases
prior to release into the atmosphere, in order to reduce the pollutants emitted.
The facility would produce approximately 10,500 tonnes per annum. The fly
ash would be removed from the facility using enclosed tankers and would be
transported to a hazardous waste landfill (currently there are none in Wales).

The carbon footprint of the development
Chapter 5.3 of the submitted Environmental Statement analyses the carbon
footprint of the proposed facility compared with landfill. The calculations are
carried out in accordance with Waste and Resources Assessment Tool for the
Environment (WRATE). Compared with Landfill an overall carbon saving of
between -108,000 tonnes and -196,000 tonnes will be achieved in the year
2013. Provided a user for the heat produced can be located the carbon
footprint of the proposed facility is estimated to be in the order of -30,000
tonnes CO2eqv in 2013.

Height of chimney stack
There is currently a chimney stack on the site which measures approximately
80 metres in height. The proposed measures a maximum of 90 metres with an
additional 10 metre lightning rod. The facility is located within an area of
industry and is a typical feature which one would expect to see in such an
area. It should also be noted that the Strategic Planning Manager (design)
has no objections (see paragraph 5.2 above).
8.15 Subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement (see paragraphs 5.4,
8.6, 8.9 and 8.11 above), it is recommended that planning permission be
granted, subject to appropriate conditions.

Rodney Berman hot under the collar!

Dear Ms

I thank you for your latest e-mail. However, I have answered many of these points before and you repeatedly ignore the explanations you are given and repeatedly distort what I say. You also repeat allegations over and over again that I have previously refuted.

On that basis, could you please explain why it is that you look forward to my reply?

Yours sincerely,

Rodney Berman

Leader Cardiff council

Yes Rodney

I would have thought that pointing out these NEW serious flaws, described below, would be appreciated and you would address these extremely serious points now that you are aware of them. Your officers have not brought these matters to your attention! You have not addressed these points as yet. Friends of the earth and the green party will continue to ask these very questions and deserve an answer. In addition we will be asking how the Environmental Assessment on the air quality affects of the incinerator was done.

I had hoped you might respond with an open mind.

There are HUGE serious flaws in project ‘green’ and the Viridor planning application in skipping due process. The Viridor site has not been a llocated for waste management purposes in the Development Plan. If allocated in the future LDP, it would be subject to stronger tests, potentially through the public examination process, and to a soundness test

How can you ignore the development plan?

The Cardiff LDP itself is still awaited so has not allocated sites, has not been subject to consultation and would still have to go through public examination. The proper process is for Viridor to argue for this site through the LDP. To grant planning permission would allow them to skip due process and so unfair to both the public and to promoters of alternative residual waste treatments. It should therefore be turned down on grounds of prematurity.

It is clearly an important function of the planning process to determine whether allocations for waste treatment facilities meet the test of ‘Best Practicable Environmental Option’ (BPEO) at a strategic level.

The applicant has not undertaken an SA/BPEO appraisal of the proposal and, because the Authority did not recognise that it was their responsibility to do so. There is, therefore, no support for the allocation being BPEO as required by National Policy. The National Waste Strategy, “Wise about Waste” specifies the minimising of landfill and incineration.

The Viridor proposal amounts to a huge expansion of incineration, both for municipal waste and for industrial waste, instead of the alternatives that exist for both categories. Viridor make a case for 170 000tpa of residual MSW arising in the sub-region. We have shown that even Prosiect Gwyrdd’s assumption brought up to date would give 140 000tpa. Viridor make no case for the 170 000tpa of commercial or industrial waste. Their incinerator would therefore tout for business and encourage incineration rather than waste recovery – preferred in the waste strategy as well as by the basic waste hierarchy (mandated by the Waste Framework Directive…….).

On waste growth, the figures show that municipal waste is stagnant or falling in Wales as well as England. It’s your officers who have to justify projected20increases (as they supported in the Regional Waste Plan), and learn lessons on waste reduction.

They have overlooked the dangerous fact that the process produces vast quantities of Ash which in landfill20produces toxic dust and leachate. A Ministerial answer last week in the Commons specified that incinerator ash has to be tested for being hazardous waste – no mention of that in the project greenwah report or the planning application.

And of course there is a big question to of the propriety of the officers fixing with Viridor a site visit to their incinerator still under construction. No one was informed - that Colnbrook is Viridor's incinerator and not yet operating!!! So what point is there in visiting that? And what opportunities for the public to join that visit?

best wishes

and still hoping for a reply

Cardiff food waste going to Derby?

Heard a rumour saying that food waste collected in Cardiff is being trucked to Derby to be composted as facilities are not built in Cardif yet. Plus, not going to be available
until summer next year. In order to meet targets, needed to put in place now, so went to
cheapest tender.. Derby??!

Shell and Gallons of Greenwash article

Energy Companies' Gallons of Greenwash
Source: The Guardian (UK), December 11, 2007

"Shell, the oil company that recently trumpeted its commitment to a low carbon future ... has quietly sold off most of its solar business," reports Terry Macalister. "The move, taken with BP's decision last week to invest in the world's dirtiest oil production in Canada's tar sands, indicates that Big Oil might be giving up its flirtation with renewables." A Shell spokesperson said the company's solar operations were "not bringing in any profit." Shell still invests in some wind farms and biofuels operations. Pratap Chatterjee questions the environmental impact of "the world's largest bio-diesel facility," which Finland's Neste Oil plans to build in Singapore. "The scheme could exacerbate global warming," he reports for CorpWatch. The "$800 million plant will use palm oil," boosting "demand for new palm oil plantations that displace environmentally sensitive forests." Chatterjee is also skeptical of General Electric's "clean coal" claims. "'Clean coal' technologies are only marginally more efficient [at reducing emissions] and far more expensive. Others ... are still on the drawing board and may never work."

Councillors stage sit-in at incinerator meeting..

Sorry .. not here...news from else where

Councillors stage sit-in at incinerator meeting Sussex Express - Lewes,England,

LibDem councillors staged a dramatic sit-in after Tory councillors tried to throw them out of a meeting to discuss the Newhaven incinerator yesterday ...

Incinerator set for Suffolk Suffolk Evening Star - Ipswich,England,
Suffolk County Council is to go ahead with proposals to build an incinerator and power station to deal with residual waste which can not be reused, ...

MP lobbies county council over incinerator plans Aylesbury Today Bucks Herald - Aylesbury, England By Richard Hartley-Parkinson FEARS over proposals for an incinerator in Aston Clinton have been addressed in a letter to Aylesbury MP David Lidington. ...

Rodney Berman - What incinerator plans?

Thanks Cllr Berman but you are being rather pedantic! Not funny!! Shouldn't the people of Cardiff be fully informed and consulted now before you spend £1,085,000 having consultants just looking in to it ? I can tell you for free that it is a very bad idea!

Work is at an early stage? Is it Rodney?

When will plans or applications be made to the council for a "energy from waste plant" or to you and me - an incinerator be made to Cardiff council? How do you explain this? Opportunity for Cardiff to lead the way in waste and resource management June 2007....." By recovering energy from household waste, the new facility would provide a substantial amount of electricity to the city."

Energy from waste = a waste of energy. Plastics and paper are the main source of calorific value in an incinerator. Burning plastics, which are oil based,
is effectively burning fossil fuels – the main factor behind global warming. Paper is produced from wood by an energy intensive process. Burning it
wastes energy and resources as well as generating pollution.

How to comply with the landfill directive without incineration Greenpeace Scientific Journal

EXECUTIVE BUSINESS MEETING: 5 JULY 2007 MUNICIPAL RESIDUAL WASTE TREATMENT

REPORT OF CORPORATE DIRECTOR AGENDA ITEM: 8 PORTFOLIO: ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT - Reasons for this Report
1. To seek authority for the Council to:-
(i) work collaboratively with up to four other South East Wales Local authorities to develop the Outline Business case and carry out all other pre-procurement preparatory work for the proposed joint procurement of a residual waste treatment facility (Prosiect Gwyrdd),
which is in line with the Council’s Municipal Waste Management Strategy; and

9. The strategy clearly identified a need for a residual waste treatment facility in order for the targets to be met and for punitive landfill tax and infraction penalties to be avoided. ...The emphasis on residual waste treatment – and energy from waste in particular – was given renewed emphasis in the Secretary of State for the Environment’s Waste Strategy for England announced on 24 May 2007.

25. Meanwhile, officers have jointly been exploring the following preprocurement
works: project scope, procurement partnering structure, market appetite, key assumptions, and initial affordability models for each authority, site availability and project timescale.

(Approval to join Prosiect Gwyrdd and undertake pre Procurement work required to procure a residual waste treatment - Indicative date July 2007
Completion of detailed outline business case and other prep procurement work – Dec 2007 )

35. The proposed procurement is based on a notional 300-400,000 tonnes of residual waste- per annum when fully developed, responding to the current requirements of the partnership and the contribution to landfill diversion in the context of the region and the rest of Wales. However, changes in law/policy on a European or national level could have a significant impact on any proposed procurement in progress. Increased levels of recycling would reduce the amount of residual waste. (how does this promote recycling?)

The existing stated policy of the Welsh Assembly Government is:-
......· The overall level of energy from municipal waste in 2013 should not exceed an overall figure of 25%. What legal status this proviso enjoys and precisely what it means (e.g. is it 25 % for each authority or the whole of Wales?) is unclear.

I think we all should be in on this at an early stage. After all this outline buiness case and pre procurement stage is expensive as your council document indicates

"for Whilst this preserves flexibility for each authority, it should be appreciated that the costs of the
procurement exercise is likely to be considerable and if the rights are
exercised to abort the process/not to award a contract, then such
expenditure will prove abortive;"

Programme Manager with
Office £100,000 per year for 3 years

Specialist Advice:Legal, Financial, Technical accommodation £185,000 first year and £600,000 for next 2 years = £1,085,000

EXECUTIVE BUSINESS MEETING: 5 JULY 2007 MUNICIPAL RESIDUAL WASTE TREATMENT "Cardiff Council being authorised to enter into contracts for the appointment of external consultants to advise on Prosiect Gwyrdd (within approved funding levels and subject to agreeing the apportionment of costs between the authorities);"

Row over Viridor Waste Management Incinerator in Exeter

Local authority row over Exeter incinerator - As proposed in Cardiff Viridor Waste Management is Devon's waste management contractor and the company hoping to develop the Exeter incinerator..

17-07-2007
Local authorities in Devon have become embroiled in a row over proposals for a new incinerator in Exeter. Councillors in Exeter are meeting today to discuss their concerns that Devon county council's intention to build an energy-from-waste facility on the Marsh Barton Industrial estate, south of the city……............ In denouncing the project, Cllr Connel Boyle, lead councillor for the environment and leisure raised his concerns about dioxin emissions. The city council has claimed that waste incinerators in the UK account for "80% of dioxin emissions in the UK (from regulated emissions)", and therefore needed to be monitored more closel