Plant’s £101m. cost to be paid by gate fees
Thursday 21st May 2009, 1:00PM BST.
PLANS for a waste plant that could eventually cost up to £101m. were released today.
In 2004, the decision to spend £80m. on a 70,000-tonne capacity incinerator was put on hold before it was eventually overturned by the States.
Public Services’ preferred option this time around would be built and operated by Suez Environnement and couples together a material recovery facility and an energy-from-waste plant. Its initial cost has been put at £85m., with a capacity to deal with between 45,000 and 57,000 tonnes a year. A second phase could then increase this to 70,000 tonnes a year at a cost of £16m., but this would not be expected until 2026 at the earliest.
Public Services minister Bernard Flouquet hoped that people would be ‘pleasantly surprised’ by the plant on offer.
‘We have been through an exhaustive and rigorous selection process, as a result of which we are now able to put forward a solution that we believe best meets the island’s needs and also represents the least cost option of all the tenders received,’ said Deputy Flouquet.
‘This is a modular solution, based on proven technologies and encompassing a high level of recycling and recovery. It can also evolve over time, with the flexibility to incorporate other waste treatment solutions in future. Overall, it represents a much better and far more sustainable method of treating our waste than landfill.’
The cost of the plant itself and its operation for 25 years will be paid for by gate fees.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
This “Public Services’ preferred option this time around would be built and operated by Suez Environnement and couples together a material recovery facility and an energy-from-waste plant” looks very much like a dreaded PFI scheme.
Taxpayers should demand the alternative costings as if the plant were to built by the States, paid for by the States etc.
If the plant is being built and operated by an outside body what protection is there should the developer go bust, or if the developer / opersator wanted to refinance, or to increase gate fees?
Does this proposal mean higher
Report abuse
I hope they monitor birth defects after its built.
Report abuse
Good. Get it built.
Report abuse
I have read in the GP that Deputy Flouquet will not release the failed bids to the Tresury Department if they were to request them. I suppose this means he definitely won’t release them to us.
If ultimately the Treasury are going to fund this, shouldn’t they have been at least invited to persue and comment on all bids.
So much for clarity and transparancy in the States.
Report abuse
Looks very pretty. A bit like Oatlands’ pitch n putt.
Report abuse
Doesn’t do much for the Island chasing the eco credentials dream.
Report abuse
Greenwash. An utter monstrosity. Go back to limited landfill but manage it better than Mont Cuet. Step up the recycling with or without kerbside. Go back to Jersey and arrange putting much of our waste in the mega plant they have on order. After all we’re supposed to be working together with the other island on solutions to save money and their new plant is hugely over capacity for their needs.
Also stop calling it an energy from waste plant. It’s an incinerator. A nasty big brute of an incinerator, no matter how much they try to disguise it up with pretty (awful) landscaping.
Anyone fancy a picnic there when it’s up and running? I don’t!
Report abuse
Same old, same as before?
What is the story please?
Surely someone knows?
Spill the beans please if you do.
Incinerator/incinerator?
Why?
We don’t want one Never have and won’t bloody have.
Why don’t they get it?
Report abuse
i is a good thing but it will be to much
Report abuse
Something is wrong or at least rather worrying here……….
So “Plant’s £101m. cost to be paid by gate fees”????
OK going by the figures in the next article in yesterday’s Press Mont Cuet took circa £2m in revenue (not profit) last year. That means in the region of 50 years to pay this off and that assumes that it comes in on budget (hahahaha!), all employees are very public spirited and work for free and there are no running costs at all.
Of course if the charges for refuse disposal go up in the region of 500% then the payback time might come down to a reasonable period………………………………
Report abuse
If sea levels are going to rise as predicted, is this the best place to build it?
Report abuse
Mrs P
We will be paying a lot more to dispose of rubbish than we pay now.
CD
The life span for the proposed plant is 25 years!!
What needs considering is that in 25 year a new facility will be needed. What will be the effect of the cost of the replacement?
Seems the generations of the future are going tp have to dig deeply in their pockets to finance this scheme and the one that will have to replace it.
Caveat emptor
Report abuse
This is a great idea and it’s been kicking around for a while…. Suez Environnement are world leaders in this sort of thing. They sort the waste, remove the recyclable stuff and sell that on and the non-recyclable stuff is incinerated for energy (in accordance with emissions guidelines) which they can sell back to us. Didn’t Greenpeace say a few years back that incineration was the best bet for clean energy??
So what we’ve got is a private company with a proven track record offering to sort all our waste in a cheap, green and friendly way and we’re STILL not happy?!?!
Report abuse
“Press Mont Cuet took circa £2m” Gate fees are obviously going to go up, which means our costs will go up. That £2m, after the police investigation may be a bit shy of the true figure.
Cost paid by gate fees? Really? Is that after Suez operating costs come out of it? Headline looks questionable.
Report abuse
Student Bob asks: “Didn’t Greenpeace say a few years back that incineration was the best bet for clean energy??”
This from the Greenpeace International website on incineration:-
Despite what industry and governments would like people to believe, incineration is not a solution to the world’s waste problems, but part of the problem.
Incinerators may reduce the volume of solid waste, but they do not dispose of the toxic substances contained in the waste. They create the largest source of dioxins, which is one of the most toxic chemicals known to science.
Incinerators emit a wide range of pollutants in their stack gases, ashes and other residues. The filters used to clean incinerator stack gases produce solid and liquid toxic wastes, which also need to be disposed.
The only way to improve the situation is to avoid toxic waste production by improving our products and processes.
Public opposition to incineration is growing worldwide. People are recognising that there is no place for the incineration of waste in a sustainable society.
Report abuse
Hmmm … Suez is going to want payment in Euro’s ?
I hope the SOG don’t get caught out like Jersey with exchange rate movements between the initial quotation date and when they actually come to buy Euro’s.
Come to think of it, I would love to know the date of the conversion rates for the quote, I bet they are not too recent.
Report abuse
Fact is having a monster burner goes totally against Guernsey tradition and more, mentality.
Guerns are not wasters, we like to re-use, its in the genes.
To just Buy and Burn EH?
NO WAY
Report abuse
Loved the ’79m’ price tag. just 1 million short of Lurgis 80m. Coincidental eh? LOL
PSD budget conversation:
PSD: How much for a bonfire?
Suez: What’s your budget?
PSD: Well, be useful if it was under 80m – that was Lurgis price for something twice as big.
Suez: About 79m?
PSD: Done!
Suez: My thoughts exactly
Report abuse
As said by previously, it will last only about 25 years.
They have in Jersey Bellasane at present and a new one to be built at La Collette.
Where is our second site to be or not to be, this should be decided on now.
We should be saving Les Vardes for landfill, as we have enough water storage and unused water running to waste already, compared to other places.
This is all part of prioritization that we have still not undertaking yet.
We have still not sorted out the polluter pays, recycling and auditing, what comes in rather than after it is here.
Report abuse
Jackie
Loved the ‘79m’ price tag. just 1 million short of Lurgis 80m. Coincidental eh? LOL
PSD budget conversation:
PSD: How much for a bonfire?
Suez: What’s your budget?
PSD: Well, be useful if it was under 80m – that was Lurgis price for something twice as big.
Suez: About 79m?
PSD: Done!
Suez: My thoughts exactly
Are you suggesting there could be some personal interests £££ in your statement ? lol
Report abuse
Deputy Floquet says that the proposed plan is “the least cost option of all the tenders received”. We taxpayers are left with no evidence to support this claim.
Why?
Do the figures support this claim of Deputy Floquet? Sorry Bernard but I will only believe your claim when I see the evidence.
David J has picked up on my point that the scheme is for 25 years, after which it must be replaced, at further significant cost.
Another aspect of this PFI type venture is who takes the risks involved in this exercise? Is it the taxpayer or is it Suez?
If it is Suez it would be woorth remembering that one of the partners in the Little Venice venture was RBS!!
There is a need for total transparency in this project. Excuses such as client confidentiality should be rejected.
The costs and further potential costs of this exercise are so substantial that the needs of Guernsey people are far greater than the wish of Deputy Floquet to hise behind the veil of client confidentiality.
The scheme might at first sight be the answer, but if accepted at face value could be financially catastrophic for , the people of Guernsey for decades to come.
Report abuse
I am cheered to see that most of the comments on this thread show concern for PSD’s waste solution, but I remain concerned that there seems to be no public outcry about it. It would appear that dressing a mass-burn incinerator up to look pretty is enough to seduce many people into thinking that it is okay.
It is however, a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It will add considerably to our CO2 emissions, just at a time when we should be making serious in-roads into the reductions we are committed to make by 2020. Even without the incinerator we are not on-line to achieving those reductions.
And then there is the cost…….. The WDPP’s solution that the States threw out without even bothering to study, would have cost us only £16m up front, and £40m over the 25 yr period, as opposed to PSD’s £85m up front and £170m over the 25years (at today’s prices).
We can’t afford this kind of mistake!
Report abuse
PSD cannot be allowed to make this decision without fully consulting the public. The proposal is a Trojan horse
Would we rather work towards Kerbside recycling at a cost of £1M per annum or just fill black sacks to our heart content at a cost of £85M?
Our waste problem could be completed for far less money and be more environmentally sustainable in the long term, there are other options.
Report abuse
rosie
Unfortunately that is the stupidity of the public. Paint it green, lower the chimney a bit, lower the profile and make it a million less than the last one and don’t forget a few guided tours. Bob’s your uncle!!
Report abuse
It is a wolf in sheeps clothing.
Why is Bernard Flouquet so keen to push this on Guernsey people
Most people are recycling and this is not being taken into account.
Also the huge debt it would incur is unthinkable for the future generation.
I for one dont want our beautiful island spoilt by this monstrocity.
This needs much more thought!
Report abuse
Wow it sure does look tidy coloured in all green and nice on Photoshop like it is…………
How about when the area is piled high with industrial detritus like the Le Murier vinery site or covered in plastic bags like the Mont Cuet headland?
Report abuse
Jackie
I think you are on to something there.
They should put a real crazy golf course on the roof and charge £10 adminssion, with a facemask rental costing anoher £5.
It will pay for itself in < 1 year
Report abuse
france is well known as having some of the worst reputations in the world for waste managemnt they all seem to have terrible enviromental effects suez deal mainly with water purifaction and waste,however an awful lot of the waste produced in france gets shipped to middle east somewhere??? japan who are very very strict on enviromental issues condemn these machines as being totally unecessary and highly hazardeous the ommisions produced from these beasts will be awful, but bear in mind there will also be added traffic etc and all the other infrastructure they are building in this area it isn’t going to be nice for anyone who lives here the air will look clean and pretty but it will be a toxic minefield this is not just an issue for st sampson residents this is an island wide problem,that everyone yu should take more seriously.
also they are planning to build a fab harbour for all these super yachts and wealthy cruise liners… will they really want to be moored next to a toxic spilling incinerator?? ..welcome to Guernsey… we have a hard enough time getting tourists here as it is .
Report abuse
There is a public presentation by Suez tomorrow (Thursday 28th) at the St Sampsons High School at 7:00pm. I am sure it will be a slick presentation but Suez are simply fulfilling a tender brief and it is the tender document that is dodgy. There will be an opportunity for questions. If you want to read more about the tender process and the possilbe alternatives that could be up and running quicker than this Suez solution, and at a fraction of the cost, then visit http://www.g-can.net/articles/detail.aspx?articleid=169 See also the links on the right under the heading ‘Further Reading’.
Report abuse
Burning waste really isn’t the answer. As a couple of posts have intimated this needs real thought. And Planning.
To buy some time what about punting Ronez a few bob and moving them from Les Vardes to Belgreve Vinery? We then get many years of landfill and have chance to properly recycle and actually think about waste management for the future.
Oh – and we wouldn’t be in the financial plop.
Report abuse
It would seem as if memories are indeed very short; and the reason I say that; if you can remember;
The market was given away; and for years nothing happened- and it is still on-going- anhd like so many things that belonged to our people, we can do nothing about it.
This to my way of thinking is a big Con Job, the <Con being like Pontius Pilot; he too washrd his hands as now this Flouquet feller is doing_ get rid of him; and the Idea of some outsider having full control-
I foresee that rubbish coming to our Island from other places, and the Island can have no say in the matter–
I predict A Disaster for the Island if allowed to go through.
Report abuse
Thanks Rosie for pointing us to http://www.g-can.net/articles/detail.aspx?articleid=169
If you don’t read anything else, just read the conclusion, and then also think of the enormous debt future geenerations will be saddled with.
Report abuse
If it was true that the full cost of the incinerator was to be paid by gate fees with no lock-in then you should go for it, since the incineration company would be taking on the risk that it’s an expensive white elephant and will be obsolete almost as soon as it’s built. However I’d bet that they will want a lock-in for the life of the plant, so the population will be forced to keep paying long after it’s obvious that this ‘solution’ is anything but sustainable either economically or ecologically.
I’ve been in the Middle East this week, talking about how to get economic revival by throwing away the silly habit of wasting; see http://www.wiserearth.org/resource/view/6cde9add775de8a2ead56e6234d9ec7a
Report abuse