Waste petition has 3,500+ signatures
Saturday 14th November 2009, 2:29PM GMT.
MORE than 3,500 people have so far signed a petition against a mass-burn incinerator at Longue Hougue.
The £93.5m. project has been given the go-ahead by the States but Stan Brouard managing director Rodney Brouard insists he has found an alternative.
Mr Brouard (pictured) has teamed up with the bio-products division of the Baltic Development Group, which manufactures Vantage waste processing facilities, to form a joint venture that would install and run the plant free, apart from an £80 per tonne gate fee.
‘The campaign is really only just building up,’ he said. ‘At the moment the petition is in about 50 businesses where customers go, besides Stan Brouard. Within one week the petition will be in over 100.’
Mr Brouard said the new energy-from-waste incinerator would cost every islander £1,500 to install.
‘With operating cost of £1.8m. per annum plus many extras and finance, the overall total will come to a minimum of £268m. over 25 years,’ he said.
‘I would ask people to sign the petition and include all members of their families including children, because a five-year-old now will be 35 when the incinerator would be dismantled.’
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
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
I have signed it, have you?
If not, why not?
Report abuse
This is nonsense!
The construction and operation of the incinerator will cost islanders very little more than they pay for refuse disposal now.
The charges to the Parishes and commercial operators will pay for the operating costs and capital investment – the taxpayer will pay nothing. The funding will come from States Treasury and be charged exactly the same interest rates that would be expected from other investments and the full amount will be repaid by the end of the 25 year period.
At the end of the 25 years the States will own a fully working and maintained plant that will not be dismantled. Wether or not it will still be based upon an incinerator remains to be seen.
Rodney Brouard’s Vantage & injection moulding system does not yet work. Has not yet worked. And Islanders should not be fooled into thinking it is a good solution. There are several more proven, cheaper and better that also did not tender.
If it is so wonderful let Mr Brouard go ahead with it anyway. There is no reason why he should not. I am sure the parishes will be delighted to send their waste to him at £80 per tonne rather than the States/Suez plant at £195!
Report abuse
It is quite possible that the Brouard promoted Vantage system will prove to be the waste disposal system of choice for the whole world – eventually. Unfortunately, we live in the early 21st century and we must use the present state of the art technology if we are to solve our urgent problem in the near future – eventually is too late.
A hundred years ago, Daimler and Maybach and others would have been telling the world that steam power was the inefficient, expensive, polluting, thing of the past and governments and companies should be discarding steam trains and ships and replacing them with internal combustion engines. Governments and companies, however, operated in the real world and had to deal with their urgent transportation needs at the start of the 20th century; they could not afford to wait for the perfection of the IC engines.
Enough time has been wasted on vaccilation. Let’s get on with it and get the Suez project underway without more ado.
Report abuse
Oh, well. Apparently not many people have read the presentation of this wonder system or, at least, haven’t understood properly what they were reading. If I remember right, the trash is first shredded, then dumped into the wonder autoclave drum, where it is treated with steam, then discharged to be sorted. Interesting sequence. Now, imagine collecting all your household trash for, say, a month. Then you run it all through one of these shredders gardeners use when they are trimming trees and hedges. Dump the stuff that comes out into a cement mixer, add a few buckets of boiling water, and let the thing run for 15 minutes or so. Decant the result. Do you really believe that what you get will contain neatly aligned wood fibers, or plastic that can be used as it is in injection moulding machines? You know what you throw into the trashcan. What you will really get is a soggy mass of mashed-together paper pulp, food remains, metal shreds, wood splinters, glass, china and pottery shards and so on, maybe garnished with half-melted plastic. All you will be able to do with that will be to dump it as it is; that kind of mess cannot be properly sorted anymore and is good for nothing but landfill.
Then there are some specious comparisons between incinerators and the Vantage wonder machine; it is said that an incinerator uses huge amounts of energy and produces sulfur-laden exhaust. Well – the energy comes from burning the thrash (which has a surprisingly high caloric value) and to spare, while on modern incinerators the exhaust is so diligently filtered that it may be cleaner than the local air (if you want to make sure, have it built to German requirements). The Vantage system has no energy output, but a massive input – they want to use steam at 10 atmospheres and 150 degrees C, and you need about a kilowatt hour to boil ten liters of water, let alone turn them into steam. And they want to prevent air pollution by irradiating the exhaust by tanning lamps.
All in all, as far as I am concerned, this sounds suspiciously as if some trickster were trying to take Guernsey to the cleaners, selling a paper concept that looks convincing to technical laymen. At the very least, the Vantage concept should be surveyed by an independent expert and don’t spend a penny on it if they can’t show you a pilot plant operating satisfactorily in some place where officials aren’t as cheaply bought as in the Philippines. Otherwise, you may learn an expensive lesson and be left with a few hundred tons of useless hardware cluttering up the landscape and still have to find a way of getting rid of the trash.
Report abuse
Roy Bisson says “At the end of the 25 years the States will own a fully working and maintained plant that will not be dismantled”
Has anyone seen this in writing and not just wishful thinking?
PFI style schemes usually retain the assets and charge the earth for ongoing use.
Report abuse
Roy Bisson
Many islanders have already been fooled by people like Flouquet and his mouth pieces, and i would much rather trust Rodney Brouard`s explanation of how his system works then those with an interest in the suez plant.
Does anyone realy think he has not looked at this in detail?
As for Guernsey Aficionado`s post that sounds like nothing but scare mongering, Flouquet couldn`t of written it better himself unless he had a bit of help from S Ogier.
Report abuse
Guern aborad
Nope not yet cos I haven’t had the time!!!
How about the administrator offering a vote on this issue?
Report abuse
Guernsey Afficiando is right – we need to safeguard three STRATEGIC RESOURCES. The first is energy, and I have to agree, it does look as though the plant will consume a fair amount of that to produce the steam required. The terms ‘latent heat of vapourisation’ and ‘specific heat capacity’ (product of a grammar education) seem to be prodding me from the depths of long term memory; the second is water, and I havn’t seen any data suggesting how much H2O is going to required, but it seems likely that it will be quite a bit. And take warning, Jersey very nearly ran out of water this year, a small island cannot afford to squander natural resources and water is a necessity. And the third is land – this plant is going to need storage facilities for all the recycled materials and, presumably, wharehousing for any products it produces. Land is already at a premium.
Incineration may not be the best way forward, but at the moment it is the proven way forward.
Report abuse
bcb: Whoa! Scare mongering?
It seems you very much want to cock a snook at certain local political figures. If that is your motivation in promoting that petition, you’d probably be far better off just mooning them in the street when they pass (which might incidentally establish another quaint local habit with which to attract tourists).
By all means, don’t take my word about the Baltic Developments concept, I’m just a regular guy with some technical education, but show it to someone who is an expert in waste management and recycling and IN NO WAY INVOLVED WITH EITHER BALTIC DEVELOPMENT, SUEZ OR THE STATES and ask him his opinion before you decide to adopt it.
Anyway, if this is really such an attractive concept, why don’t Baltic Developments put their own money where their mouth is and build and operate the plant at their own charge, they shouldn’t have problems getting finance for it, as waste management and recycling is a big issue nowadays; the States could provide the premises and guarantee them exclusive access to the Guernsey garbage if the process works.
Guernsey as a community doesn’t exactly have money coming out its ears, so if money is spent, it should only be spent on something that will demonstrably work. An incinerator will work, only the financial package might be questioned, but the Vantage process is completely unproven, both technically and financially.
A full-blown recycling plant would probably be ideal, but would need quite a lot of space, a sizeable workforce, some capital investment, produce both noise and bad smells, and need a revamp of the garbage collection. It would make about 85-90 % of the garbage reusable in some way (even if just as compost) but it might not recover its operating costs and you’d still have to dispose of the remaining 10-15 %. But that technology is proven and available.
Report abuse
bcb
Roy has constantly used the “unproven techonology” line, even though Rodney directly replied to him through the press explaining that all the constituent parts are PROVEN.
Guernsey A’s post is nothing but bluster (as Roy B would put it)and a good attempt at some technobabble, whilst he/she/bernie completely gets mixed up over the concept of an autoclave! (clue, you missed out the most important part of the process in your “home experiment”)
Jersey has already offered to take our waste so in a worst case scenario we would never have the trash lying around, and as for the “trickster” comment, the “trcikster” concerned would have a vested interest in this plant, so that kind of puts that to bed.
Plus Guernsey has already had 1 slap on the wrist from the EU over zero-10 and have also been making noises about phasing out these mass burn incinerators, but still, the EU has never stopped us before has it, but the taxpayer has to pick up the tab.
Report abuse
I find it ironic that for once the States, faced with taking a difficult and unpopular decision or going back to square one, has actually taken it – and everybody is moaning.
Mr Brouard says his campaign is only just building. Perhaps if he’d started it a long time AHEAD of the relevant debate rather than a long time AFTER it then he could have actually influenced the States when they were making a decision …..
The petition against the incinerator is a bit pointless – yes 3,500 support it, but are those against the petition having their views recorded ? And anyway, I don’t think anybody actually WANTS the incinerator – but the relevant question is would you rather the States actually make a decision, or just procrastinate, endlessly debating whilst stuffing rubbish into what’s left of the holes in the ground ………..
Report abuse
Toby
The reason why Rodney has only just started this campaign are on the following document.
http://www.sortourwaste.co.uk/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=XAaxQesK3bo%3d&tabid=39
Regarding the states making decisions, yes great, but at what cost??
Its easy to spend other peoples money, this whole debacle is about an alternative meaning them not having to spend our money, isnt that a decision you would prefer them to take??
Re procastination, even if we delayed for another year, the vantage processor would still be operational before the incinerator.
This really is a no brainer.
Report abuse
Does the petition state what exactly the 3,500 signatories would replace the energy from waste plant with and what they would then do if their alternative was delayed or failed? This has been a long process, well over a decade in the making and whilst no one wants to spend huge amounts of this islands capital the reality is that we need a quick, proven and flexible solution or our landfill will become a landhill very soon…and if you think chimneys might be bad for our health just take a closer look at the impact and range of the vermin and pests that thrive when you bury your rubbish!
Report abuse
Guernsey Aficionado
Re your first post.
So is everything you say a fact or just your opinion? because if it is fact then maybe you could write them a letter and explain that there wasteing their money building these things that DONT work. Maybe you could also tell R B he must be living on another planet if he thinks it will work too.
Did you read his reply to R Bisson?.
Is it all a pack of lies just to con us? shame on them.
Report abuse
I have read Mr Brouard’s letter with interest. Whilst I understand why this proposal has come along so late, it doesn’t change the fact that it has come along late !!!
With hindsight it may seem clear that we should have delayed a decision, but then hindsight is wonderfully clear isn’t it ? The States has delayed and delyed again and again on this issue and I feel it was quite right for them to decide not to put off the decision any longer. And given the facts presented to them at the time I feel they took the only realistic decision they could.
I don’t deny that at some point that decision will be shown to be wrong ( that may even be the case right now! ) but it was right then and it had to be taken. There will always be more information coming along that could sway a States decision ( zero 10 being a very good example ) but if you continually put off hard decisions in the hope that a better alternative comes along then you’ll never get anything done……
Personally I have a lot more respect for a States that actually makes decisions, and sticks with them, even if they eventually turn out to be wrong, rather than a States that constantly refers things for “reports” and “consultation” and seemingly changes it mind every 5 minutes ….
Report abuse
Toby
While i agree with some of what you say we didn`t need any hindsight, Dave Jones tried to delay it for a while, not scrap it.
Were we really guiven all the options (it seems not) or was Flouquet just trying to push what he wanted?
Apart from that why is it too much to ask for the members to look closely at R B proposal and if it is really that good they can make an even better decision and go with it. Isn`t part of the reason its been going on for so long because of incompetence.
Report abuse
Toby
So in essence you are happy for the states to make a decision which was the wrong one just because it was a difficult one??
Also I surmise that you are happy for your taxes to go towards the incinerator when there is a free alternative. May I remind you that the cash not spent on the incinerator would free up much needed funds for many other projects desperately needed on the island.
I appreciate your point of view, but I would much prefer a forward thinking progressive states who are happy to hold their hands up and say “sorry but something better for the island has come along”.
As they say, “it takes a bigger man to admit he was wrong”.
Report abuse
I refer to Roy Bisson’s letter in the Press yesterday. I find it hard to take on board his reasoning for taking so long to respond to Rodney Brouard.
He doesn’t refer to the fact that I have heard it suggested that it is quite likely that the EU will rule against incinceration shortly after we have spent this vast amount of money on the Suez plant.
Nobody ever refers to the fact of how much fuel we use driving to the current re-cycling sites. I understand everytime one of those ghastly low energy lights blows, I should get out my car and take it down to the electricity board for disposal so that it does not leak mercury into Chouet. How green is that?
Roy Bisson was at the same presentation by Baltic as I was so his argument about the “plastic” pallets does not hold water as we were specifically told that at the end of their useful life (100 years or more) they are fed back into the autoclave and recycled.
Report abuse
Roy Bisson makes a number of important impact statements in his letter to the Press.
Amongst them are “First, the overall cost to islanders, domestic and commercial, will not be very much more than it is now – substantial amount that it is – but not more.
Second, as I understand it, the contract is designed to repay the capital sum over the 25 years so there will be no debt at its conclusion. Therefore the amount of interest is half that suggested by Mr Brouard and it all goes to the States Treasury.
Finally, the contract requires that, at its end, there will exist a fully working facility, properly maintained, ready to carry on for a further 25 years. So all the nonsense about demolition, scrapping and refunding is incorrect”
All big hitters but without any evidence to support the claims.
Claims such as these made by Mr bison are without integrity unless supported by data and costings that can be checked.
Mr Bisson does qualify some of the more extreme claims with the caveat “as I understand it”
Unless he produces the data to support this claims I suggest the rest of us taxpayers remember this important qualification, that it is as Mr Bisson understands it, and not necessarily fact.
Report abuse
Guernsey Aficionado
Just thought you might like to take a look at this autoclave in operation. It doesn`t seem to fit with your post of how utterly usless it all is?.
Where is all that useless sludge you were talking about? that is no good for anything apart from lanfill. Good advice you gave about not taking your word for it though (on that we agree).
Roy Bisson, did we hear you say it DOES NOT WORK?.
What else has Bernie told you to say?
Are these the kind of tricksters your concerned about G A ?
http://www.re3group.com/index.php
Report abuse
I’m fairly sure there was a fully working plant similar to this suggested by Mr Brouard that could be demo-d over here?
Toby, you keep going on about “being late” so what if it’s a late idea, better late than never ;) For sure it’s not ideal it being late, and the States already agreeing on that disgusting thing called an “Energy from Waste Plant”, but the idea is great, and a much better alternative.
Report abuse
Stephen John – I believe what you say because I know you to be fastidious about your facts, please understand that I do not make claims that are not supported, in this case by statements in the relevant Billets or by public utterances by the PSD team.
bcb – I certainly did not say that Autoclaves do not work because they do. In strict terms, what is proposed is not an autoclave (a pressure vessel injecting steam), and so previous experience with autoclaves cannot automatically be applied here. Rodney Brouard proposes a non-pressure vessel.
Report abuse
Roy Bisson
If what you say is true then why is it the case that the company who are providing the plant only willing to honour a warranty that is less than a domestic washing machine?
Just goes to show how little faith they have in the longevity of their own product don’t you think?
Report abuse
Roy Bisson
Thank you for the clarification.
I don’t share your belief in what PSD say as refelcting reality or even cases put in the various Billet. The omissions of fact down the line suggest it wise to adopt a sceptical view what PSD want us to believe.
The belief that the plant will be viable for 50 years should be considered in the light of the increasing cases and fines levied agains EFW plants in places such as the USA for excess toxin emissions et al.
Paul makes the excellent point about the warranty. It seems odd that the firm who is to carry out the construction and be paid to operate it for 25 years, appears so lacking in confidence, that it will only guarantee its own product for two years.
Or is this proposed deal in the category of so many PFI type deals seen by the beneficiaries as “taking sweets from kids”
All of this seems to reflect a heads I win, tails you lose attitude.
The losers being the people of Guernsey.
Report abuse
Roy, bearing in mind the enormous amounts of money that the States are planning to spend on our behalf, I think we are all entitled to know what solid, objective, fact based reassurances have been given by the incinerator company regarding it’s long term viability, and whether it will still be environmentally acceptable for the foreseeable future?
Also, if these assurances have been given, does this mean that if the increasingly strong environmental impact issues do force incinerators into extinction, will we be compensated by this company so we can afford the next option?
Report abuse
Frankly, Roy Bisson, your opinion is worthless. Defending crass racist jokes, honestly, and now defending a rubbish system that is doomed to obscelence. 500 votes was it?
well done
Report abuse
Roy, you are quibbling over semantics in an attempt to backtrack over your previous claims that the technology is unproven.
Its not the first time I have seen you do this. Frankly as your arguments become more tenuous, allied with your blatent disregard for the obvious merits of the vantage system, your true motivation in this matter becomes clearer.
Also FYI, there is a very similar system to the vantage processor in operation in Yorskhire, currently handling 100 tonnes of watse per year very successfully.
Your claims that this technology is unproven are unjustified, you should just admit you were wrong.
Report abuse
To all who have commented …. yes better late than never, yes I admire admitting your mistakes, but there is a time and a place …
There is always going to be something better around the corner – but that doesn’t mean precrastination is a good idea.
Anyone who has bought anything hi-tech in the last 10 or twenty years or so will know the problem well – buy something today and something smaller faster cheaper will turn up tomorrow. So you wait and, guess what? Something even faster even smaller even cheaper is just around the corner.
Sooner or later you have to bite the bullet and decide on something, in the knowledge that something much better is always going to turn up. In the case of our much maligned waste-of-energy incinerator, the time to make a decision was already years behind us – we were and still are literally running out of holes in the ground to stuff with our rubbish. And as is always the case something smaller and cheaper seems to have turned up. Yes we could abandon Suez and decide to go with Baltic. But what if someone comes along in six months with something even smaller better and cheaper than Baltic ? By your arguments we would be obliged to stop and rethink yet again. And so on and so on…..
Yes by all means change your mind if you can, but I think we have passed the point of no return already. I only wish Mr Brouard and Baltic could have made a lot more noise a lot earlier on …..
Report abuse
1. Go down the Suez route, its the most proven technology out there, if the states had come up with the Vantage proposal I’m sure the same people would be complaining that its unproven technology so why waste our money.
2. Does anbody else think that although Mr Brouard may have his heart in the right place over this also think that he is exploiting an opportunity to make an extra buck?
3. Of those who have signed the petition how many of them have actually done it because they believe in it rather than because the shopkeeper where they regularly shop have thrust it in front of them.
4. Lets try and let these states members get us out of the hole that previous states have left us in because they were (a) too spineless to make a big decision (see runway/airport) (b) too busy scratching each others back and making sure they had a few extra quid in their back pocket (who was it who claimed that “it was my wife’s business so therefore not a conflict of interest”).
Report abuse
BBB
You say that Mr Brouard “may have his heart in the right place over this also think that he is exploiting an opportunity to make an extra buck?”
Could it be that he wants to save taxpayers and users the best part of £250million plus?
It seems more likely that the quick buck will be made by the providers of the proposed plant.
What happens in , say 3 years (or any number up to 25) that the plant needs significant sums of money to rectify problems? or again if legal cases emerge due to toxic emissions?
Have these been factored into the true cost even though they are possibilities rather than probablilities.
Or are financial projections based on the most optimistic assumptions as were Zero 10?
Still good you have so much faith in public Works.
Report abuse
BBB in answer to your points
1. Yes incineration is proven, however, its also on the EU’s list of technology to be outlawed in the near future.
Plus, its not OUR money we would be spending with Vantage so we would not be “wasting” ANY money.
People do not seem to understand that there is no taxpayers outlay for this system.
2. If you had been following events you would realise that this is Rodneys SECOND solution to the waste problem, the first solution was of no economic benefit to rodney whatsoever.
If you read his website you will see the reasoning behind this second solution.
3. Have you had a questionnaire thrust in front of you?? I havent.
Are you accusing people of lacking free will??
4. You want the present states to dig themselves out of the hole they got in by lining each others pockets and scratching each others backs??
Then how do think the suez proposal went ahead if it wasnt anything to do with scratching backs and lining pockets??
Your solution to the problem is the same thing that caused the problem in the first place
Toby
Procrastination is a very very good thing if the EU follow through on their murmorings and decided to outlaw incinerators dont you think??
Report abuse
The Man – all a petition shows is how many people have signed it. If someone disagrees do they get to sign the back of it and have their dissent recorded? ( so it is say 4,000 for , 500 against, giving a net total of 3,500 ) If not, then for all you know 7,000 didn’t agree but just had their views ignored …
Procrastination is all well and good, given plenty of time. But sooner or later a decision HAS to be made. Whilst we all argue back and forth about the merits of this system, the problems of that, the one remaining hole in the ground we have is filling up with our rubbish. We have an deadline ahead that we cannot move. We do not have the luxury of time.
I still say it is better to have made the wrong decision but actually have a timely solution to our waste problem, rather than wait around for the right solution and consequencially a new tourist attraction in the 100 foot tall Mont Cuet Rubbish Ziggurat …..
Report abuse
Suez and its offshoots are widely reviled.
We are mugs supporting them.
I would prefer to back a local conglomerate with progressive tendencies than an unethical multinat more concerned with profit than local needs.
Bisson needs educating.
Report abuse
Toby
I’m not wanting an arguement here but all I’m trying to get you to realise, is that this isnt a cut and dried “we need to make a decision now” style case.
It also isnt a case of using the most current technology, we need a best fit solution because we are a bespoke environment, the incinerator is not that solution.
Actually we also have the luxury of time because even if we delayed for 5 years, no problem, Jersey have offered to take our waste for 10 years.
Ironically they will do this because they will soon have an incinerator which will be too big for the amount of waste they produce and they dont want it to run un-efficiently
Sound familiar??
Arnald
Bisson wont listen because he’s firmly in Flouquet’s pocket over this.
Report abuse
Roy Bisson
Can you answer my questions please?
Report abuse
You’re right. The decision actually had to be taken years ago.
The only reason Mont Cuet isn’t overflowing right now is because somehow the people of Guernsey seem to have got into recycling in a big way. Despite the best efforts of the States at times it would seem ….
That is the ONLY reason we’ve been able to put the decision off for this long. As for the Jersey option …… much as I like the idea of dumping all our rubbish on them, is that really a better option than our proposed incinerator ? Ignoring the fact that the infrastructure to do it isn’t yet in place, how can shipping our waste to someone down the road to burn be any better than burning it ourselves?
And in 10 years time, when they decide actually they don’t want our rubbish anymore, where will we be? We still won’t have anything here, because we’ll keep putting off a decision because something better has come up, safe in the knowledge that we can just dump our rubbish on someone else whilst we procrastinate…..
Don’t get me wrong, I am under no illusions that the Suez option is best for the island – save for this – we can be confident it will work and we can be confident it will be in place in time, with no other stop gap measures needed.
Report abuse
Toby
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this.
A decision should have been made years ago, but it wasnt. With all the new information and technology that has become available in the time that we were dithering, to then make the same decision that only would have been valid years ago because you are under pressure to make a decision, is fundamentally flawed logic, if you cant see that, then there is no point continuing.
Re Jersey, no brainer, we dont have to pay 96M capital expenditure, and the gate fees were comparible to what we will have to pay for our propsed incinerator(and that included shipping).
So less tax for us to pay, and no incinerator on our doorstep.
As for the actual burinig of the rubbish, I’d much rather that be in Jersey, I assume you dont live near the propsed site, thankfully i dont, but I really feel for the people who do.
Maybe I’m being idealistic with the calibre of Guernsey politicians, but I hope that our island can come out of what could have been a mess with a decent environmentally friendly and less expensive option.
However I do feel Rodney Brouards efforts are going to turn out to be futile because i dont beleive our politicians are man enough to admit they are wrong.
I admire you standing up for our deputies for making a decision, the rest of your points I am completely not getting because there is no fundamental benefit to any of what you are saying.
If it was up to you we should …….
Be happy to pay extra tax to build the incinerator.
Put up with whatever health problems and increased pollution that come with it.
Pay massive gate fees so our refuse rates will increase… again.
Have to deal with what the EU decide which could render our expenditure worthless.
Pay extra to have the plant dismantled.
Have virtually no warranty so any problems(and there are bound to be problems) will again be footed by the taxpayer.
All of the above when there is a viable free alternative.
As long as we’ve made a decision though eh ;-)
Report abuse
Toby
With respect to some of your comments they sound very much like the same things Flouquet and his supporters were saying in the debate (if we dont act right now we`ll be up s creek).
Why not give a true business man a chance to show us what he can do to solve the waste problem?
Totally agree with The Man.
p.s.
Did you look at the re3 video Toby ? what did you think?
Report abuse
It seems rather double standards to me that the States are hell bent on spending squillions on and being right fighters for this incinerator, whilst still allowing gallons of untreated poo to be deposited into the sea around our shores on a daily basis….
still, as long as we’re all focussing on that debate and tucking into copious amounts of moules, I guess it takes our minds off it.
Report abuse
Paul – I am sorry I cannot answer your question about guarantees. You need to ask Public Services.
“The Man” – I am in nobody’s pocket, so don’t judge others by your own standards.
My own research leads me to agree with much of the criticism of incineration expressed here – although I have no fear for Islanders’ health.
However, regretably Rodney’s solution isn’t the answer.
The Suez contract will dispose of all of our waste, albeit at the present high cost rate.
Report abuse
Roy
What “standards” would they be??
I’m just calling it as I see it…….
…..you appear to be using your position of relative influence over the guernsey populace to speak about a subject that you dont have an expert knowledge of, and I honestly cant think why.
Why else would you get so vociferously involved in something which is not in your area of expertise??
Yet again you make a sweeping statement “Rodneys solution is not the answer” and yet again you fail to provide any hard evidence to back up your opinion.
Although at least you appear to have grasped how innapropriate incineration is for Guernsey, shame you couldnt have spoken out about it when Bernie was pushing it through, although it would be nice if you could inform us all why you didnt speak out then, yet you are now.
Report abuse
It seems that the current States, lead by a gentleman who’s strong arm, school yard, bully boy tactics are becoming increasingly unprofessional and equally unpalatable to many by the day (see wreath laying tantrum, thank goodness the tabloids consider it trivia in the face of everything else going on in the world) are determined to be right, even when they are wrong.
Issues such as the incinerator are inadequately debated, ill informed decisions made, then all the right fighting starts, as the people who invariably fund these projects (the money from the States Treasury not, I suspect, having come from Mr Bisson’s money tree!) voice genuine concerns on this forum, only to have the politician concerned jump in and try to shout them down, before having to duck into the trenches again and redirect us to Public Services, because he CANNOT answer one of the most pressing questions regarding an issue that he is apparently so clued up on and passionate about.
– i think his reaction pretty much sums things up, don’t you..?
Report abuse
Roy
You are talking a load of rubbish!
Do you realy think Rodney would waste £10m of his own money on something that doesn’t work?
Report abuse
The Man’s 24 Nov 4.26pm post ends by asking “If it was up to you we should …” and a list that justifies accepting the offer from Jersey and looking again at the Brouard alternative.
Whilst Roy Bisson dismissed any possible health issues the facts are that EFW plants are being subjected to stronger scrutiny re emissions etc.
This whole episode is full of uncertainties, especially the what if financial questions about the warranty, what happens after the original contract expires. I feel those thinking that the plant would be handed over and work for a further quarter of a century, without cost would be in for an unpleasant surprise, if they were about in 25 years
Report abuse
Roy Bisson
I would suggest you reread what you have already posted on this thread and have a good think about your replies in future.
You wish to be seen as a voice of reason with all the answers with regards to the Suez proposal. However, when specific questions are put to you you clearly sidestep the points raised and refer the questioner elsewhere.
Why?
You either know about what’s on offer here or you don’t. I am of the view that you don’t, for the record.
Neither do many, other than the very select few who are driving this crazy proposal forwards.
Furthermore, could you please qualify the exact reasons as to why Rodney Brouard’s proposal is not the solution so that these facts, that only you possess, can be raised?
I will be happy to raise them personally with Rodney if they prove to be valid and worthwhile.
With the amount of millions that are at stake here, a quarter of a billion actually, only a complete idiot would be foolish enough to look a gift horse in the mouth.
I believe it is closer to the truth that some states members awarded the contract long before any proper debate actually took place. And it is now locked into a deal that it cant back out of with out losing face as well as embarrassing legal consequences.
Report abuse
Roy Bisson
The Man is spot on again with his post.
And you most certainly are in Flouquets pocket and many people know it.
Please tell us all what R Brouard isn`t , as just saying it wont do for us is not much of an explanation as to why.
Report abuse
“The Man” – You are obviously a recent entry to this subject. I was making my play 8 years ago with Pyrolysis and Gasification. I have kept up with the industry ever since, so although not a qualified engineer I have more than just a passing understanding of what is involved.
I put my reasoning about Rodney’s idea in a letter recently published in the Press.
I was a vociferous objector to incineration and assisted Deputy Ogier in his Requette. Not on health grounds but on cost.
“Scarlett” If you believe that incineration has been ‘inadequately debated’ you must have been asleep for the last decade!
“Adrian” There is nothing stopping Rodney from setting up his plant tomorrow – I have no doubt the parishes will let him have their waste.
“Paul” I have not changed my view. Guernsey has to make a decision. It has taken far too long and lost many good opportunities. The States went out to tender on as open a basis as possible (when spending public money) and the best it got was Suez.
“bcb” Hiding behind your pseudonym you can make all the ill informed accusations you like but they mean nothing until you ‘come out’.
Report abuse
Roy
I have more than a passing interst in Autoclave technology. I operated a commercial one for 4 years in the U.K, I am well aware of their capabilites and potential uses, pressurized and otherwise. This is why I am vocal on this subject.
I read your letter in the press and it was baseless, which is why I said (and stand by) the fact that I beleive you know nothing about the inherent matters involved here.
You also admitted to agreeing with some of the statements on here, yet now you claim to have more than a passing interest (even hinting at a working technological knowledge) in related scientific fields, if you have as much knowledge as you claim, then I find it interesting that suddenly you agree with few posts on an internet forum about Incineration, yet didnt say anything when Bernie was pushing the incinerator, surely if you are as clued up as you claim you would have said something then??
Also you are continuing to do a fantastic job of cherry picking the questions that you answer, would you care to answer the last question on my previous post whilst considering your comment “My own research leads me to agree with much of the criticism of incineration expressed here ”
Also please stop using phrases such as “I was making my play 8 years ago with Pyrolysis and Gasification” which proves nothing, and certainly does not answer any questions that have been put to you, it merely deflects them. We are still waiting for you to give us the empirical hard evidence the Rodney Brouards proposal will not work.
If you cannot provide this, then I suggest you duck down back under the parapet.
Report abuse
I’m embarrassed to find myself coming to the aid of those I’ve disagreed with so much in the past.
What will the usual suspects say when we dump Suez and embrace Baltic/Brouard and some other notable local businessman comes up with an even more attractive scheme which offers to pay us for our waste, rather than charge, as well as giving even bigger “donations” to local charities (btw isnt that usually called bribery and corruption?). Do we pospone our decision even further into the future until some other better, fantastic solution comes along? Something better will always come up but we just cant wait another ten years.
We should have had this facility up and running years ago. Call it incinerator, waste disposal plant or what you will, we need it now not at some indeterminate time in the future.
Report abuse
Mr Bisson, thank you so much for sharing with the class. I feel soooo reassured by your expertise in this area now that I’m going to climb that big chimney the day its fired up and gulp huge amounts of beautiful fresh air and shout “see Roy was right it’s all fine, you scallywag doubters dont no what you’re talking about!” Then i shall climb down and nurture my lovely cancerous growths until the day i die knowing that Roy Bisson was right all along. WELL DONE ROY!! TOP OF THE CLASS
Report abuse
Ted
Are you Toby in disguise??
All your points have been discussed above to the n’th degree, take a look.
re bribary and corruption, not sure on that one, you’ll have to ask Suez, although I know I’d rather the money in a charity than a politicians back pocket.
Report abuse
“The Man” You misquote me. I have not said that Rodney Brouard’s scheme will not work, I have said that it is not been sufficiently proven.
I also have grave concerns about its sustainability credentials packaging the waste in oil based resins as an alternative to releasing its energy deserves some serious consideration. Perhaps you can expand on that?
Report abuse
Roy Bisson
It is now time to answer the individual questions. People are waiting to be enlightened by your superior wisdom on this subject.
Report abuse
Are you still here, Roy Bisson.
For all your ‘knowledge’ you support a dirty great burnie.
Man of the people? Sham of the sheeple.
Report abuse
Roy
Surely by using recycled materials in the production of the resin this meets the very definition of sustainability.
Thats why the products get green credits as they are sustainable.
By releasing its energy you are creating pollution and you cannot convince me that the energy release does not release pollution also, given that the EU are very concerned about the products released in the process.
Surely pollution by very definition contradicts sustainability.
And anyway, a couple of posts ago you voiced concerns about energy release??
Oh and people are clamouring for you to answer their questions!
Report abuse
Roy Bisson
Until you can come up with answers to some of the very sensible questions, I suggest you desist on rubbishing an obvious competitor in some vested interest you may have along with your close friend Flouquet.
If you are seriously suggesting that the Guernsey tax payer should shell out an initial £93M along with the £100′sM of other costs (sooner than you think if we are to be internationally compliant) as opposed to backing a scheme that can be assembled and dismantled at a fraction of those costs then I can only presume you have something to hide.
Report abuse
The Man
If the choice were between
1) a tender fron Suez, based on proven full scale technology, passing scrutiny, costing 90million
and
2) a tender from Baltic, based on proven full scale technology, passing scrutiny, costing nothing
then Baltic would win hands down. It would be a no brainer. But that isn’t the case. At least we know Suez will work – which is a fairly major consideration.
If someone can bring a Baltic proposal to the States immediately, that meets with the scrutiny required for a States contract, then I would be as happy to wave goodbye to Suez as the rest of you.
If that can’t be done then what? Wait around until it can ? If we can just ship our waste to Jersey as a stop gap, why bother with any on island solution at all, ever ?
Report abuse
All it does is highlight how Guernsey inertia in the past has lumbered the future generations with filth and dirt and expense. Like all short termist governments, whatever suits their pocket at the time.
It continues apace. A few people will get very rich, us Gulls will get fat, but the folk that matter, the folk that drive Guernsey’s everyday commerce will suffer.
A local company should have had this, no question about it.
I can’t believe some people are even daring to defend it.
Report abuse
Toby
Yes Suez will work, until the EU outlaw it. What do we do then??
There are processors very similar to Vantage in operation today.
Report abuse
If you were in the know as much as you claim Roy, you would be aware that our proposal from 4 years ago included, Autoclave, Gasification, AD, WPC composites and Incineration.
This was at no cost to the taxpayer, other than supplying the land, with a 10% equity holding for the States.
Their response. “Not the way the States want to go.”
I fully support Rodney’s efforts in getting the Suez plant delayed, but I want re tendering to include local companies, rather than a kneejerk acceptance of an eleventh hour proposal.
Autoclaving works, composite extrusion works, these are facts.
I don’t believe Rodney’s proposal is a complete solution on its own, but could play a part as one fraction of a multi technology solution.
Report abuse
JL Seagull
you say ” A few people will get very rich”
that was also suggested by a deputy. I would love to know who`s on the pay roll apart from the obvious that is.
Toby
I think most people just want to give R Brouard a chance so we can see what it does. Flouquet and his supporters dont want him anywhere near the subject never mind coming up with an alternative and Roy Bisson is doing his best to help his master by trying to rubbish everything else and i`m sorry to say you seem to be helping him.
Again did you see the re3 video? what did you think?
Report abuse
“The Man” said “Surely by using recycled materials in the production of the resin this meets the very definition of sustainability.”
As I understand it the use of “recycled materials in the production of the resin” is not the proposal. The residue of the ‘autoclave’ will be used as a ‘filler’ for mouldings made with new, imported resin produced from oil. It has been suggested that the ‘dispersal’ of wastes in the proposed way, that may contain heavy metals, may not conform to international regulations.
“Toby” You have the point exactly, although the two proposals could be described as ‘Suez’ – £290 per tonne and ‘Baltic’ – £80 per tonne.
I believe that shipping to Jersey works out at more than £80 per tonne.
“Total Waste” – I was aware of your proposals because you made them very public. I was sorry that you did not tender. If you did not make the tender list – why not?
“bcb” As usual applying your own low standards to others without coming out from behind your mask.
Report abuse
Roy Bisson
I see you failed to get elected. Was that because of your own low standards or because we dont need two Flouquets in the states.
Not others either, just you.
Report abuse
As the public are the wage payers of the states surely it would be in the interest of the Guernsey people to stop their pay until they listen to their employers the Guernsey people as its not their 93 million they are spending
Report abuse
Peter
One of the so frequent tactics of those who don’t wish the public to know how their money is spent is to claim the deal should remain secret due to client confidentiality.
People in Nottinghamshire were told this and when the French company involved with their new incinerator tried to stop the council giving required information sought an injunction to prevent this happening.
The High Court judge however saw things differently saying that those who paid through taxation for the provision had the right to an involvement in ensuring the money was well spent. Importantly, Mr Justice Cranston said that taxpayers should be allowed to inspect and copy accounts and other related documents.
The outcome is that the judgement provides legal support to those who resent public authorities hiding behind the confidentiality clause to keep taxpayers in the dark.
Report abuse
Then you should also be aware that we were not alowed to tender Roy.
Hence having to go public.
You would be aware that the tender conditions were drafted after we aproched the States and the conditions subsequently precluded us from tendering.
You will be aware that several deputies claim to be unaware of the proposal despite several mailings and e mailings and some were even handed a hard copy personally.
Including one member of PSD who still claimed on the BBC phone in this morning to be unaware of any proposals, despite reading the proposal at a waste forum meeting 3 years ago, in front of me.
Are these the high standards you allude to in your attempted belittling of a concerned tax payer?
Report abuse
Roy
Thanks Roy, I understand the process, it was the wording of your question I was struggling with.
Could you please point me in the direction of the research that raises the concerns regarding heavy metals?
It was my understanding that biomass based plastics were completely environmentally friendly and approved.
Report abuse
Roy Bisson is creating his own hole deeper and deeper. Landfill here we come!
Report abuse