New waste plan ‘would save a ridiculous amount of cash’
Monday 14th September 2009, 1:00PM BST.
ANTI-INCINERATOR campaigner Rodney Brouard has launched another attempt to get the States to overturn its decision to spend £93.5m. on an energy-from-waste plant.
The Stan Brouard Group has formed a joint venture with Baltic Development Bio-Products – which manufactures Vantage Waste Processing facilities – in a bid to persuade deputies to build a plant using this alternative technology.
It would cost no more than £20m. in the form of a fully-repayable loan to build and Mr Brouard’s newly-formed company would run the facility at no charge to the taxpayer.
‘It definitely works. It’s not that complicated and it will save the island a ridiculous amount of money,’ said Mr Brouard, managing director of Stan Brouard.
Baltic Development Bio-Product is so certain it can offer the island a viable alternative to mass-burn it is holding a private meeting for deputies and senior civil servants on Wednesday. That will be followed by a public meeting on Thursday.
Mr Brouard (pictured) said he would be lobbying deputies to take a requete to the Assembly to reverse the decision to build an incinerator at Longue Hougue.
‘They are deadly serious about it,’ said Mr Brouard. ‘They did not know Guernsey needed a waste facility until after the tender process.’
A Vantage Waste Processor treats rubbish in a 2.7-metre by 16-metre tunnel that continuously rotates and injects waste with high-pressure steam.
The waste is sanitised and the overall volume is reduced by up to 60%, Mr Brouard said, leaving only recyclables and biomass.
- 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
“Mr Brouard’s newly-formed company would run the facility at no charge to the taxpayer.”
I’m intrigued by this statement. No doubt this questions will be answered in the meeting but who exactly will pay for the running of this facility then?
That question aside, there’s nothing to lose by looking into alternatives. Especially as it seems few islanders are in support of the current proposal.
Report abuse
Paul, probably off the earnings on the recyclables.
Report abuse
Paul
I beleive a benefit of the plant is that it produces more energy than required to run it.
It produces heavy diesel which can be either sold, or used to produce electricity and it also produces a saleable composite similar to but stronger than plastic.
Sounds good, but whether we can make our politicians listen to reason is another thing.
Report abuse
The Man
I beleive a benefit of the plant is that it produces more energy than required to run it.
technically thats not possible.
but i like the sound of this new idea. But there is no way Flouquet will give any consideration to anything else.
Report abuse
bcb
Sorry my post was vague
What I meant was that the amount of money it costs to run the plant in the form of energy costs and other overheads, is offset by the electricity that can be produced by the conversion of the waste to Biodiesel. And also by the sale of the other byproducts of the process
Effectively the waste is becoming a source of energy and income.
Report abuse
Any project that is environment friendly deserves to be looked at. Any thing that does not pollute the air and soil must be better than that Mass Incinerator proposed by the States.
Report abuse
My enquiries have failed to find a single example of this system in use anywhere in the world.
I understand that there is a pilot demonstration unit in Bournemouth showing part of the process.
Furthermore, the Latvian company, Baltic Developments does not appear to have had any experience in this field.
It would also be interesting to see if the market for compressed bio-fibre material has a reliable market.
Systems like Compact Power would be a much better bet than Rodney’s and have still failed to be selected.
Report abuse
Roy
Thanks for coming on and putting your point of view accross.
I’ve done a fair bit of research into this since seeing the article because I beleive the Suez option would the biggest folly this island will untertake in many many years.
This is obviously a cutting edge product, I beleive its Reclaim the company that hold the patents who also hold 25% of the Latvian company which are solely building the units.
Reclaim are the designers of this product the Latvians are invloved as basically its cheaper to build in eastern europe (at least thats my understanding of it anyway).
I also beleive they are currently installing one in the Phillipines to be in use late 2009 with advaced discussions also taking place in India and Ukraine.
Being cutting edge there is a risk, however financially you’d have to offset the risk vs the reward of this system working. The financial outlay is significantly lower, the environmental impact significantly lower, the potential benefits significantly higher.
Worth the risk?? Wouldnt you prefer Guernsey to be cutting edge rather than empolying a outdated technology for greater cost?
You also mention other methods, Roy, the view of the General Public seems to be that no other methods were seriously even entertained, let alone considered as you state. And given Mike Hadleys recent comments, this has only added fuel to the fire to the general beleif that Suez were the only option that were ever going to suceed right from the start of the “tendering process”.
Whilst you are here Roy, your comments on that article (the Hadley comments) would be much appreciated too, because a couple of people raise some very pertinent points.
Report abuse