Incinerator: There is nothing better

Tuesday 24th February 2009, 3:00PM GMT.

From Robert Kisch.
DAVID Rotherham (JEP, 20 February) and others calling for the rescindment of the incinerator contract appear to ignore the years of searching for an alternative with at least two years pro-ven track record.

Despite supporting the modular steam pressure and gasification technology as the best alternative put forward, I had eventually to withdraw my support until such time as a proven installation of this system could be demonstrated with a record of reliability and costings.

Despite repeated promises of a site visit to a proven installation, nothing materialised over the years from the detailed composite strategy presented to the Public Services Committee in 2002. It seems that David Rotherham refers to this system in particular.

Faced with the deteriorating condition of the Bellozanne plant, PSD, which became TTS, examined many types, but none met the stringent criteria required to avoid vast costs in the event of fail-ure even if ‘fully insured against failure to meet specification’.

Chicken and egg it may be, but the decision to stay with the pro-ven technology must be right.
Certainly Germany and other EU countries have embraced further incinerator building as the best alternative to landfill, recycling and so on. Only the very cleanest and high quality materials can be viably recovered, especially in this recession period.

Recessions don’t last for ever — 1973 was the last, and it started the long bull market. The La Collette incinerator will have two streams so that either or both tracks can operate. This allows for some flexibility as demand increases and covers maintenance.

Much as I like improving technologies, in this case we would do well to stick with incineration. The various new technologies being put forward at this late stage can be developed and considered at a later date.
For now, just let TTS get on with the agreed system.

I understand that Ramsar acknowledges that you cannot prettify a port through which the lifeline of an Island flows, and there is provision for this.

This was a part of the years of preliminary planning, and there is no doubt that it will be clarified in the States.
Villa Martinique,
Chemin du Moulin,
St Ouen.

1
chris mccarthy

February 24, 2009 at 6:08 pm

There is nothing new about taking a long time to make the wrong decision.

In simple terms the proposed incinerator does not meet the islands waste management brief compared to other technologies and the basis upon which the decision to proceed with this inappropriate technology is economically, socially and environmentally flawed.

It is never easy to accept a mistake has been made.

Even more difficult if it is a big mistake.

Sustainability is a journey of continuous improvement. Great technical advancements are contiously being made to minimize the social, economic and environmental negative impacts of waste processing as well as optimise the positive impacts

In London the incineration of solid waste is no longer considered an appropriate sustainable process for managing waste for our local authorities in comparison to other technologies and that is why Greater London Authority greatly oppose the construction of solid waste incinerators.

To progress with the proposed incinerator regardless of its negative social; economic and environmental impacts and not to optimise the positive impacts of other technologies will be one of the greatest economic; social and environmental disastrous decisions made to date.

No doubt we would all have preferred that the French did not construct a nuclear power station so near to the islands.

After a nuclear power station the next most potentially hazardous ways of making energy is from burning solid waste.

The difference to the French nuclear power station and the Jersey proposed waste incinerator power station; is that it is soley our choice whether we have or do not have a solid waste incinerator up wind of our most densely populated area of jersey with most of the Islands schools.

Over 3 million people die prematurely world wide due poor air quality compared to
1 million in car accidents.

Remember 1st year physics: ‘mass cannot be destroyed.’

All the incinerator does is to convert the harmless inert solid waste into toxic particles, which will either end up in the air we breathe or in our jersey soil and water.

Jersey has great air from the Atlantic so why destroy this great natural environmental blessing with an incinerator when there are so many alternatives more effective and less costly.

To avoid a unsustainable economic; social and environmental catastrophe

Please consider to Vote against the incinerator.

Christopher McCarthy Sustainable Engineer Consultant

Report abuse
2
Harry

March 1, 2009 at 7:45 pm

In response to Mr McCarthy:-

He quite rightly points out the first law of physics, that mass cannot be destroyed.

Unfortunately he then wrongly states that the waste starts off as harmless inert waste but then converts it into toxic material.

The waste is not inert, as it will react, so cant be inert. incineration will however break down many complex molecules into less harmful molecules such as carbon dioxide and water. It of course wont destroy heavy metals, but they were in the original “inert waste ” anyway.

Modern incinerators have extensive gas cleaning, which the current one at Bellozanne does not have, but the politicians have been happy to keep that running!!!! So if incineration is going to do that much harm, we have done it already from Bellozanne, and have been for almost 30 years. Say if the new plant emitts 1/10 of the current Bellozanne emissions then in its life of say 25 years it will be the same as running Bellozanne for 2.5 years…………. Duhammel and co have delayed the new plant by far more than that.

The Greens will of couse say that the CO2 from the new incinerator will add to global warming, but hang on, I dont see any attempt to stop the burning of oil fired heating , gas or even open fires, all of which will produce CO2. As for the open fires, which are all too common in Jersey, what are their particulate emissions, and even worse at a very low height, so inhaled very quickly by any passer by. If I’m not mistaken burning of wood produces dioxins? and burning coal, sulfur dioxide?

Surely as paper and cardboard is from renewable sources, then burning them is carbon neutral? If you ship them you are burning fossil fuel, so recycling them is not carbon neutral?

So much for Recycling being green?

The recycling should concentrate on the toxic elements of the waste, eg electronic waste, batteries etc, not on hydrocarbons which are perfectly good fuels, which we all use already.

Report abuse