Comments on: ‘Outdated? It’s the best technology’

By: Arnald

Arnald — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 07:39:33 +0000

Does the GEP store the recorded votes on debates reported?

It would be good to be able to build up a picture of voting habits.

The electorate need to know how their votes are being represented in the House so that they can make informed decisions should sitting members put themselves forward for re-election.

Report abuse

By: bcb

bcb — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:29:42 +0000

I would like to know why mass burn flouquet will not listen to well informed people who know far more than he does about this subject? also some very good business leaders.
I don`t trust a word this man says.
Lets just hope the poloticians can see through his propaganda.

Report abuse

By: Ray

Ray — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:54:06 +0000

The general mood of the population suggests that to vote yes to this monstrosity will be political suicide
Recorded votes can sometimes appear to be a waste of time ( I wonder that no-one has yet asked for one when they vote to take their jackets off )but somebody must ensure there is a recorded vote on this issue

Report abuse

By: russm

russm — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:52:46 +0000

PSD have come up with only one solution for the States to vote on with a choice of suppliers. They should have been made to present different options and not decide themselves that all other options were not suitable. Their PR exercise includes misinformation eg they say there are no more holes in the Island left to fill but we all know there are. I don’t believe there is much appetite amongst the population for a solution that is so expensive and for a relatively short-term, hopefully the States will vote the right way and then the members of PSD can resign like the PSRC – and good riddance to all of them.

Report abuse

By: rosie

rosie — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:55:40 +0000

Darren…

Do the research. A 41,000 tonnes incinerator is larger than our needs and £93million pounds is WAY beyond our budget.

As you rightly say….. the vast majority of our waste can be recycled and we should be encouraging private businesses to develop in that field so that the ‘residual’ waste that needs end disposal is kept to the absolute minimum. This solution does not do that.

The plant will only create excess energy (over and above what it needs to run itself) to sell to the grid if it is burning at full whack. This will then be an encouragement for us to keep it topped up. It is also a VERY dirty way to be making energy.

At the moment, we are only recycling about 31% of our waste. (We tipped 37,000 tonnes in Mont Cuet last year…. this year it is on line to be only 34,500 tonnes.) The States are mandated to get our recycling (domestic & commercial) up to 50%. We will then not have enough waste to keep this plant burning and as Suez have told us…. the plant would have to be turned off for extended periods. This would mean (a.) Our waste would have to be baled and stored (smelly…. also a fire risk) (b.) Incinerators are particularly polluting when they are not up to temperature so stopping & starting them is bad news. (c.) to start them up, you have to use huge amounts of fossil fuels to get them going and up to temperature……. lots of CO2 emissions. And (d.) why spend £93m on a plant that you then leave idle? Crazy investment!

There are alternatives. A small (half the size of the Suez one) twin-stream micro-incinerator would cost a fraction of this proposal. They can be bought off the shelf ( as opposed to bespoke as Suez is) and could therefore be up and running in half the time. And as a bonus, they have a much higher compliancy rating (ie cleaner) So… cheaper, quicker and cleaner. This would buy us time and we could work at enhancing our recycling etc. with the aim of eventually turning off first one stream and then maybe even the second.

See here for more details http://www.g-can.net/articles/detail.aspx?articleid=179

A public meeting will be held 14th July St Sampson’s High School.7.30pm to discuss the alternative.

Report abuse

By: Jamie

Jamie — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:49:18 +0000

Darren,

I don’t think there is any dispute that an inceinerator of some description / size is required.

It’s that what has been brought forward is far in excess of what is required and at a cost which is just too high.

Incineration should be the absolute last resort to use once all other reasonable avenues have been exhausted.

It has a capital cost of ~£1400 for every man, woman or child on the Island and far higher ongoing costs than we currently pay.

Whilst I think that the Suez plans are good, adressing aesthetics, staying within the PSD’s tender process and using catchy accronyms like EFW. This whole process represents a major ‘cop out’ by PSD who just wanted a single solution to the whole problem rather than reducing the problem and dealing with whats left.

Report abuse

By: Darren Fusellier

Darren Fusellier — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:27:45 +0000

I feel that people are not really grasping our waste issue properly.
The new proposals for a waste to energy plant are excellent and just what Guernsey requires.
The vast majority of waste can be recycled and only a small amount will need to be incinerated, the incineration will also supply the energy needed to run the waste to energy plant without relying on our power grid.
Think about it what other options do we really have that will work?

Report abuse

By: rosie

rosie — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:05:21 +0000

Everyone commenting on here seems to have seen through PSD’s ‘greenwash’ and appears not to be happy with their determination to push this project through. However, this project will go through unless more people speak out about it. Write, email or phone your Deputies and make sure that they know how you feel. This is going to be the most costly contract that Guernsey has ever entered into……. and it is only buying something that will last for 25 years. Then we will have to start forking out again.

We simply cannot afford it.

Luckily…. there are cheaper, quicker and cleaner options out there, and they are waiting in the wings for the green light to put an offer on the table. We just have to make sure our Deputies know that we do not want them to saddle us with this over-sized, over-priced, over-specified waste plant.

Report abuse

By: Guern abroad

Guern abroad — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 15:34:03 +0000

It had been replied to before, Suez have no new orders and no other new proposals.

This method is out dated.
This is the lazy way of dealing with waste it is not facing the root cause of why there is so much waste.
Until people start thinking about the future, not theirs, but many many generations ahead nothing will change.
Cultivated (commercialised) Man is just too lazy and everything is now now now and easy and quick.
Until we grow up and face actually uncomfortable decisions about how we live nothing will change. Western man is plain pig selfish.
I had really hoped this global down turn would have been the kick start to romving so much greed from everywhere, but it looks to be not the case.
If there was less greed there would be less waste and if we were not so lazy there would be more reclycling.
I have a horrible feeling this waste plant is just going to get bulldozed through and built.
I am not a fan of PMIs I would rather see internal investment in running a facility as then there is more control on both quality and quantity of service being paid for and less corner cutting.

Report abuse

By: Steve Le Cheminant

Steve Le Cheminant — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 18:04:53 +0000

They just don’t get it, do they.
It does not matter how clever your technology is.
It is the fact that you are burning 80% of all the waste.
There is a lot of value in waste, if its dealt with correctly.

Paying £200M to burn valuable dwindling resources is barking, plain and simple.

Report abuse

By: starscream

starscream — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:37:05 +0000

Would it be possible to combine this idea with a landfill? as in use the methane burners to produce power instead of waste? obviousbly it’s still burning, still a bit of an eye-sore but can help give even a little bit of power for our island.

Report abuse

By: Jamie

Jamie — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:37:12 +0000

To be fair, they still didn’t answer the real question … how many orders do they have for new installations?

I’m sure their mass burner is the latest technology of ‘mass burner’. It’s the principle of burn it and forget it that is outdated.

Report abuse

By: Martyn

Martyn — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:21:44 +0000

The so called ‘technology’ at the centre of this plant is fire – it’s primordial. The technologies in the chimney stack, the filters, have become slightly more advanced and effective over the decades but this plant does nothing, absolutely nothing, to reduce the amount of dioxins produced by the burning process.
The fly ash and the bottom ash are as poisonous and as toxic as ever and while the amount of toxic matter going into the atmosphere is reduced, it simply means that more poison is captured by the filters, which also have to be disposed of at the end of the day. This plant is no more technologically advanced than a well managed landfill site with methane capture. More greenwash from Suez and PSD.

Report abuse

By: Bingo-Jane

Bingo-Jane — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:18:07 +0000

So Flouquet says this is the best and cheapest.

TL, listen to the Big Man. Peerlessly able to run Guernsey, he is. Universally adored for his good sense and tactful approach. Never rubs anyone up the wrong way. Gets his decisions on the money every time. His entire demeanour exuding trust and competency.

Go on Burnie, tell us another gag, we love you!

Report abuse

By: TL

TL — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:18:31 +0000

Frankly, we don’t really know who to believe.

It is times like this that I wish that the GP could do some proper investigative journalism, but unfortunately that is beyond their resources.

As a result, we have to rely on forming our own opinions baswed on snippets or internet surfing (which really just produces more snippets and biased comment).

Report abuse