Who really wants mass burn now?
Thursday 18th June 2009, 3:21PM BST.
PROPOSALS from the Public Services Department to spend an initial #80m. on a mass burn incinerator have drawn criticism from a wide range of individuals and groups.
Now, that unease at what is planned for the island’s east coast has come together in a campaign to persuade the States to reject what’s on offer.
It is a tall order to convince deputies yet again to retreat from the brink, especially with Mont Cuet tip filling so rapidly.
Yet the objectors have some prominent voices and a compelling argument against the plans.
The recommended plant is huge, ugly (less so than the earlier design but nevertheless still an eyesore), ruinously expensive, represents yesterday’s technology and has such an enormous capacity that it will have to burn materials that could be recycled simply to stay alight.
So are there alternatives? Emphatically yes, say the objectors. And underpinning their philosophy is recycling, combined with micro-burners. Their bolt-on nature provides flexibility and cheap price means as alternative solutions become available so they can be junked without massive loss of taxpayers’ money.
But the mass-burn incinerator pursued by PSD would lock the island into a once-and-for-all waste ‘solution’ for the next 25 years regardless of better treatments coming available.
There are many other objections that the anti lobby can marshall but PSD’s counter-claims to the headline concerns do not look credible.
Waste arising figures remain open to question and the department’s assertion that it was open-minded to treatments other than mass burn are not, in the objectors’ minds, borne out by the tendering process which they say ruled them out.
The suspicion is that PSD is going for a belt and braces burner with the dubious fig leaf of generating a small amount of electricity because it is a risk-free way of getting the job done if you ignore the cost, the environmental impact and dramatically hiking disposal fees.
Perhaps one way of resolving the dispute is to ask a simple question.
If mass burn incineration is such a good idea, how many such plants has contractor Suez actually got orders for?
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.
Can we have a straight answer from PSD/Suez to your excellent question?
I would add one of my own. When and where was the last Suez incinerator built?
Report abuse
Martyn
Can we have a straight answer from PSD/Suez to your excellent question?
a straight answer from flouquet, you must be joking mate, but good luck.
Report abuse
Martyn and bcb
Seems as if the answer to your question is no!!!!
Report abuse
As read on the other news article on this Suez have no new proposals, Guernsey is the only one looking at old technology!
I bet Suez are rubbing their hands in glee!
Report abuse
“Rubbing their hands”
Too true they are, with a juicy profit generating PFI type deal for 25 years.
The amazing thing is that so many deputies are willing to impose such a financial burden on taxpayers for the next 25 years, and then we start the whole exercise over again.
Financial madness and badness.
Report abuse
What bothers me is the perception (as stated in the Press article above) that this is “a once-and-for-all waste ’solution’ for the next 25 years”
25 years really isn’t such a long time and if we are going to spend £80m then surely we should be looking at a more permanent solution.
New technologies are always going to come and go and I appreciate the States dilemma – at some point you have to make a decision and go for it – I am just not convinced that this is the right one.
Report abuse
CD
The proposal is for a PFI type scheme for 25 years.
After 25 years if you want to continue using the facility then you can look forward to a new contract.
And you can be sure the charges for using the facility will shoot up.
Report abuse
One of my worries about incineration is not so much the obnoxious/poisonous emissions as the attitude of the people responsible for the maintenance and operation of the installation, and thus the nature of the emissions
I have first hand experience only of the former States Electricity Board and the French nuclear installations in Normandy.
Both have exhibited a culture of prevarication, concealment, and in my humble opinion a disregard for health and safety.
This issue needs to be addressed.
Report abuse
http://www.ecomed.org.uk/publications/reports/the-health-effects-of-waste-incinerators
not read all of it but it does seem a bit worrying.
Report abuse