Minister stakes career on Suez plant being the answer
Monday 25th January 2010, 11:30AM GMT.
Facing the callers, from the left: Public Services technical adviser Paul James, deputy chief officer Colette Brown and minister Bernard Flouquet. (Picture by Tom Tardif, 0906567)
THE Public Services minister yesterday said he would resign if plans for an energy from waste plant went up in smoke.
Deputy Bernard Flouquet came under fire yesterday morning on the BBC Guernsey phone-in.
‘No solution is going to find universal approval,’ he said.
Asked to stake his reputation and position on the line he said: ‘If it caused a major upheaval for the population of Guernsey, my own conscience would force me to resign.’
He was joined by PSD deputy chief officer Colette Brown and the department’s technical adviser, Paul James, to answer calls from islanders who said the incinerator was a ‘glorified bonfire which was too expensive’.
‘There has to be some sort of trust from the public that we are doing our job properly,’ said Deputy Flouquet.
He said nothing was ‘signed and sealed’ but this was a 21st century way of dealing with island waste.
- Read the full story in the Guernsey Press. See below for subscription details.
- 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
It might be a 21st Century Solutions, lets just hope that when we get to the 22nd century we don’t look back and regret it.
Report abuse
So when does his resignation take effect ?
Report abuse
The thing that amazes me most about the waste debate is the number of people still in favour of the 5 thousand year old technology of burying our rubbish in holes in the ground ….
At least move on a few millenia and switch to the 13th century method of burning rubbish …
Even mass incineration is Victorian in origin ( Nottingham had an energy from waste plant in 1874 !!! 11 years before the yanks and their first mass incinerator .. )
It seems to me the choices for Guernsey boil down to
1) the Creten method of circa 30000 BC … bury our rubbish
2) The middle ages method of just burning rubbish and burying what’s left
3) the Victorian method of energy from waste
4) the untried and untested 21st century Brouard proposal and it’s ilk.
Given that Guernsey currently favours the 5,000 year old option 1 ( and many would seek to continue it ) and our government is already struggling to bring Guernsey kicking and screaming into the 19th Century with Suez and option 3, I don’t think option 4 stands a chance. But good luck to it anyway …
Report abuse
Another reason for opposing Suez! Thank you Deputy Flouquet!
Report abuse
More reason for the Incinerator not to happen, we get rid of a complete idiot!
Report abuse
Obviously the Gollygate saga didn’t effect his consience
Report abuse
Flouquet asks for trust!! Is there a less worthy deputy to ask the public to trust them, I don’t think so ! The incinerator is certainly dead now, so lets make the decision before Suez can claim more compensation for relocating their staff here.
Report abuse
This beggars belief!!
Trust Deputy Flouquet? I’d sooner trust a fox in a barn full of chickens!
Report abuse
Toby;
Landfill is bad news because of the methane and leachate that is created from the decomposing biological matter. However, if you remove all the biological waste at source you solve that problem.. If you also remove everything that can possibly be recycled, you end up with very little that needs to be dealt with, and then landfilling in a properly run landfill site becomes perfectly acceptable. If we did this and used Les Vardes, that would sort us out for centuries. As time progresses, rubbish will become more and more recyclable and we could end up with less and less to dispose of if we allowed the recycling businesses to develop here. I would hazzard a guess that long before Les Vardes was half-way full, rubbish as we know it today, would have become a thing of the past.
Report abuse
Did he have a smile on his face when he was asked to be trusted or did he just pop out for a good laugh?
He hinted at maybe not standing for the next election? wonder if he has another interest to pursue?
Report abuse
Would this be the same ‘conscience’ that guided him after ‘Gollygate’ ? !!
Report abuse
Does Flouquet not realise that people don’t like him and want him out? Now the population will want the incinerator to fail. For it to succeed would incorrectly be seen as a triumph for Floquet, which the entire population seems to not want.
I wonder how many of the NIMBYs have an informed idea of the proposed incinerator and its workings? Moreover, how many of the people who take the time to shout about how it’s not wanted have taken the time to research its workings?
Folk who’re about to respond with,
“it’s a glorified bonfire eh!” RESIST!
Report abuse
Is Bernie saying that if the Suez plant doesnt go ahead he will resign?? Or is he saying if the Suez plant turns out to be wrong for the island he will resign??
If its the latter then of course he’ll be happy to resign….
Given the way these things go I would imagine it’ll be 2014 at the very earliest before this thing is running.
By then Bernie will be long since voted out and will have made more than enough money from those suckers on an island just off the north coast of France to walk off into the sunset a very happy man with no conscience.
If he is somehow still in office when it goes on-line then does he honestly think that his resignation would make up for the fact that he has sold us down the river for 30 years and financially crippled us??? No chance Bernie.
If its the former and he is saying that if the requete is successfull he will resign, then this either gives a damn good reason to vote for the requete, or constitutes emotional blackmail towards the other deputies “If you vote for the requete I’ll resign and my career will be in tatters etc”
Either way its an unsurprisingly pathetic stance from an increasingly desperate man.
Report abuse
The more I listen Rosie Dorey the she makes sense.
Report abuse
@James, people don’t need a reason to not want a glorified bonfire, it’s disgusting and out of date. You obviously come from that period, so why not tell us about bonfires?
Report abuse
Rosie
my point is that energy from waste is a 19th century idea, not the 21st century one Bernie would have us a beleive.
Any other form of incineratio pretty much the 13 th century method
and however you dress it up landfill is a 30th century BC solution.
Recycling is great in theory, but in practice I feel difficult or impossible to implement. Whilst my family of 5 now produces less rubbish than
my family of 2 used to 15 years ago, I fear I am the exception rather than the rule. We are always going to produce rubbish, and sticking it in holes in the ground is a hopelessly outdated , and is not a viable long term process – sooner or later there will be no more holes to fill
yes we should recycle whatever we can , yes we should compost ALL organic waste, but whatever is left needs dealing with somehow ….
Report abuse
I too feel Rosie Dorey is makeing a lot of sense, and thinking what is best for Guernsey.
The recycled waste will be nothing more than a back up fuel, otherwise why not give us a gaurantee it wont be used?
Report abuse
I really hope the rest of the States Members use this opportunity to get rid of this self opinionated waste of space.
Of course he`ll take the blame if it goes wrong and resign but will he repay the tax payers for the millions they will have lost?
Get rid of him now and vote against this Suez Incinerator Plant because it is the WRONG choice.
Report abuse
I think the really important thing is that as well as putting opinions forward on sites like this, that everybody gets in touch with their deputies and tells them….we do not want this incinerator.I’m thinking of resorting to begging them to vote it out!
Report abuse
I believe the motor car can be considered to be a 19th Century technology/solution to transport – how many of you would abandon your cars in favour of walking because they are old hat? Not many of course. The modern motor car – petrol or electricity driven – has evolved throughout the decades as has almost every other item we use nowadays. Current models are technologically far removed from those of just a decade past. So it is with incineration and the attendant gas cleaning. So all your “old technology” labeling is fatuous.
That does not mean that we should encourage its use more than absolutely necessary, so I for one will strive to reduce the amount of waste going in to the black bag in the hope that the EfW unit can be turned off for as long as possible.
Incineration is not my favoured method of waste treatment, but it is the only one available to us just now.
Finally, as a friend of Bernard Flouquet, I get to be around when he goes out to restaurants and the pub. I am amazed as to how many people approach him, shake his hand and encourage him to keep going and to disregard criticism. Many, many more than the few rude and ignorant anonymous ‘posters’ on this site. If you are serious, face up and use your real names.
Report abuse
Ah Roy Bisson.
The old ‘I’ve seen many approach and shake hands’ approach. How many is that really? How many more people are just too polite to come up to him and tell him what they really think?
He scraped through a vote of no confidence purely on the basis that the House was new and didn’t know its own mind (does it now?), but the Code of Conduct panel was damning in its criticism. So how do I gauge these multitudes that adorn him with platitudes?
I am still yet to meet anyone who has anything supportive to say about him, racist remarks or not. The expensive PSD PR was factually incorrect in its 4 page pull out. Money well spent on tarnishing his name further?
This scale of spending is irrational and backward. The people set up to investigate the options say so, they are educated and articulate. I believe them.
Report abuse
Roy
my point is that nobody tries to market cars as “the 21st century transport solution” because we all know it isn’t. Yes it’s been refined, but in principle most car work on the same 19th century principle of exploding flammable vapour to create rotary motion in an engine.
The Suez plant is no different in principle to the 19th century Energy from waste plants ….. You burn rubbish to generate heat and then you use that heat to generate a different form of energy. The process may be refined and more efficient but the underlying principle is he same …
Unlike the capture, storage, transmission and reproduction of the various audio visual media we enjoy. Whilst they all had their origin in 19th century technology, the methods we now employ ARE radically different ( compare still and motion film to digital cameras, chemicaly developed photographs to those from a laser printer , wax cylinders to mp3 players, even analogue and digital tv and radio are fundamentally different ……. )
if Bernard came out and admitted that an EFW plant was an old, but refined technology, rather than trying to ‘spin’ it as shiny and ultramodern,
then he might gain himself more respect and support.
just because something’s old, as long as it’s still useful and effective there’s no point in throwing it away….
Report abuse
Roy
I thought criticism of a poloticians policies were to be listened to and not ignored?.
How many thousands shuke his hand?.
You say “Incineration is not my favoured method of waste treatment, but it is the only one available to us just now”.
Shouldn`t that be, Incineration is not my favoured method of waste treatment but it was the only one Mr FLOUQUET MADE AVALIABLE TO US?.
And don`t be too concerned about his feelings of what people say because i know he doesn`t care, and you know that yourself.
Report abuse
@Roy Bisson, I’d be quite happy to punch him in the face, he isn’t needed on this island, like nearly all States Members they will be gone once they’ve made a mess.
Incinerator isn’t the answer, he knows this, but would much rather keep quiet about it, than get embarrassed infront of his “friends”.
Report abuse
Roy.
I’m happy to use my real name – on Rodneys petition, along with over TEN THOUSAND OTHER ISLANDERS who think that your ‘mate’ bernie
is wrong and will do whatever we can to stop it happening.
I suggest you get out more. We are not rude and certainly not ignorant
to the facts. Stop trying to put your fellow Islanders down just because
you cannot see a different point of view. it really is sad.
Report abuse
A friend of Bernies Roy?
We would never have guessed, not.
At least we now know why you manage to spout such rubbish.
If emissions are so harmless, why do they increase the standards every year Roy?
Report abuse
Roy
That’s an awful analogy
To compare the internal combustion engine based car to an EFW plant purely on the fact that they are 19th century technologies plant is baseless.
When was the last time you were offered a cost effective alternative to your car that performs the same purpose with the same level of convenience and performance (i.e walking, cycling, mopeds and motorbikes don’t count) with none of the environmental impact???
I’m guessing never Roy
However the island has been offered at least 2 cost effective alternatives to EFW both of which have less environmental impact and the same level of convenience and performance.
Next
Report abuse
Roy.
I don’t claim to have any knowledge of Bernard Flouquet’s private life, and frankly I have no interest in this. What I do care about though is the environmental impact of this incinerator and the effect this will have on future of the island and the rest of the world. I care about his performance as a Deputy which I can’t say I have thought much of, before or after the disgraceful “joke” he made(after which he clearly should have resigned). I don’t know know anyone who wasn’t ashamed and embarrased about that incident, and I don’t know anyone who wants the suez incinerator.
Report abuse
Roy Bisson
You need to learn when its time to shut your mouth. Very vocal when it suits. When it comes to answering simple questions you retire back to your shell.
Your mate is an embarrassment for this island. I know 100 to every 1 person that would rather punch him in the face than shake his hand.
You have reached the happy slap stage. Start answering questions rather than going straight on the defensive.
OK!
Grrrrrrr
Report abuse
Well Arnald- whoever you are – you must mix in a tight circle! I daresay that both you and those for whom you are responsible have made the occasional error, but you have not the guts to serve your island. Bernard was elected several times, took on the most difficult departments, is one of the hardest working States Members, cares greatly about Guernsey and has been fundamental in many cost saving initiatives. What have you done?
Toby – You must live in a box if you are not aware that car manufacturers are constantly selling their products as the “21st Century Transport solution”! When you find a way of digitising waste – then you will make a fortune. In the meanwhile your last sentence says it all: “just because something’s old, as long as it’s still useful and effective there’s no point in throwing it away….” I presume you refer to EfW plants.
bcb – wrong again as usual.
GG – I wonder who you are – gutless for sure. Come on out and punch Bernard, but talk to him first and find out what he rally thinks – which is not very different from what was said on Radio G.
Steve – “They” don’t increase the standards every year. What the Environmental Health agencies around Europe and the world do is to monitor what happens and adjust their regulations to preserve our safety. That is why I and others who have taken time to look and read understand that Suez (as well as any other business or individual) will not be allowed to operate any plant that will endanger our health.
Report abuse
Roy Bisson
Try those excuses to the Jersey electorate. See what they will have to say. Standards slip all the time. Businesses like to maximise profits at the expense of health & safety everywhere nowadays.
All like to let the outside world think that all is well. The truth of the matter tells a complete different story.
We can’t afford this monster & neither can the environment. So toddle off n have a word with your mate. Cos he is either suffering from an acute sense of cloth ears or is just plainly ignorant. Like his sense of humour.
By the way GG was not wanting to have talks. Actions speak louder than words & you are sliding up the scale also!
Report abuse
Seriously Roy, if you think that BF is a popular man on this island then you are seriously deluded, that and your belligerent attitude which makes people even less respectful of you.
Roy, a lot of us are fully aware that Suez wont be allowed to operate if the plant is deemed damaging to our health, that way when the EU finally decides to outlaw them due to health concerns as has been mooted, we will be stuck with a brand new one that we canot use.
If Bernie has guts and is very hard working so do you honestly beleive that this makes up for his blatent disregard for the publics opinion, public gaffes which damage the reputation of the island and repeatedly not listening or acknowledging the concerns of the electorate.
Actually, dont answer that, because you also seem to have a similar attitude towards opinions that dont match your own.
Also whilst you are on here, could you please address the concerns that were raised on a previous thread regarding the tender process for the incinerator, and the blatently narrow conditions that ruled out practically all other incinerator alternatives effectively making it a one horse race.
When these comments came out you conveniently dissapeared while previous to that you were very vocal.
Report abuse
I’d rather use my initials than come out with my full name, Bernie might start to think that my first name is Golliwog!
What he really thinks? He really has no clue what he’s thinking, if he is so loyal to Guernsey, why would he accept this disgusting bonfire?
Report abuse
Roy
No i am not wrong, but then your not likely to admit it are you?
That guy has a serious attitude problem and anyone who knows him and is not his friend knows what i am talking about.
Report abuse
Toby:
Anaerobic digestion is a form of energy from waste (EfW) and the by-product is good useable compost. Not all energy from waste (EfW) is bad.
Incineration is a very inefficient form of EfW, and so should be referred to as incineration to differentiate it from environmentally better forms of EfW. ‘Incineration’ describes properly the process that is being used and avoids ‘greenwashing’. As you say…. incineration is an out dated form of waste disposal.
Landfill, if practised as I described in my earlier post, is not too bad because you are not destroying the materials, nor are you releasing the locked up carbon in them, or any other noxious gases. Provided you have removed all the putrescible elements from the waste stream, the waste you would be burying would be inert so would not create the problems our present land fill does.
The example you give of your own waste reduction shows just what is possible. We simply need an island wide system that ensure everyone reduces their waste like you do. We put out one bag about once a month… so it is possible! Recycling as a ‘voluntary’ activity is what is 19th Century!
With source separation and kerbside collections, recycling could be incentivised so as to make it mandatory. Our ‘residual’ waste pile would shrink considerably and would continue to shrink. Les Vardes would see us out indefinitely.
Rubbish is a ‘design’ problem. The world is beginning to realise that and pressure is being applied to designers and manufactures to produce goods that can be recycled and not disposed of at the end of their useful life. We are already seeing that happen and as consumers we need to push that agenda by always demanding recyclable products. True ‘residual’ rubbish (rubbish that cannot be re-used, recycled or recovered) will continue to diminish. There are many who see a time, in the not too distant future, when true ‘residual’ rubbish will be virtually designed out of the system.
Report abuse
Roy, I hope you’re now starting to appreciate just how passionate
your fellow islanders are in wanting this monster stopped dead in
its tracks before reaching our beautiful shores.
Before you respond any more on this forum just take a moment
to think about what you’re saying before you post another ranting
about how great your mate bernie is, and how he has all our best interests at heart – that is utter utter cr*p. If Mass bernie flouquet
cares so much about you and me why is he insisting that this is the best possible choice when the rest of the world (see todays press for example) are wholesale shutting these things down or changing their minds and not having incinerators built at all. We all know it about losing face.
If you want to respond, answer these questions.
1 As such an advocate of mass burn can you explain to us how we are supposed to have any confidence in this technology when right next door in Jersey it has been exposed that their incinerator caused massive environmental damage to the surrounding marine life AND that it is considered to be one of the most polluting plants in europe.
2 What about the 10,000 Islanders so far who have signed Rodneys petition – I thought Bernie was a man of the people?
3 whats your view on the guy in todays letters pages who ‘has it on good authority’ that this bonfire has to run at a certain temperature in order to kill off all the nasties. If it doesn’t then the items kept aside from recycling will be thrown on to get it up to speed, failing that he reckons they’ll use oil to really get it going. Where does that leave our recycling – up in smoke?
Report abuse
rosie
Top post!
Report abuse
scarlett
Good questions. Whilst your answering them Roy how about addressing TIG readers why Suez are offering a paltry two year guarantee on such an expensive investment. The largest to date.
Also the fact that the most energy efficient part of this monster is not included. The heat that could warm our homes and provide hot water for all the islanders would be released back into the atmosphere and wasted.
Maybe your mate could take a few minutes out of his day and allay the peoples worst fears. Or will he need tax payers money to employ Max Clifford to hide behind?
Report abuse
Scarlett .. if I can just play Devil’s advocate for a moment …
Point 1 – i thought the environmental damage was caused by the construction of the plant, not the running? As such it would be possible whatever type of waste facility were being constructed ( although I must point out that I am in no doubt that the Suez plant will not exactly be spewing out harmless pixie dust when up and running )
Point 2 – what about the 50,000 who haven’t ? Based on a figure of 10,000 in favour, public opinion is actually 5 to 1 AGAINST Mr Brouard ( again I don’t beleive that is anywhere near the actual balance of opinion, but merely a demonstration of the lack of actual information a petition of this nature provides )
Point 3 – I have no problems with you there , but my client has asked me to make it clear that he is all in favour of burning whatever you like to keep the temperature up !!!!
Rosie – you are right in almost every respect – the only problems I see are
Goods sold in packaging that can’t be easily recycled
Packaging that could be recycled but for whatever reason ( financial? practical? ) isn’t
Public ( and governmental ) apathy , laziness and stupidity …
The first 2 may be out of our control anyway, and good luck with the third ….
Report abuse
Rosie
The one main thing I’d take issue with you on is the suggestion that voluntary recycling is 19thC and the implication I presume that recycling should be mandatory.
Oh, Lord, if I see another law trying to force me to do something in this supposed “free” western world, I think I’ll go nuts.
Education (without the guilt – don’t get me started on that one….) is the way forward and encouragement. The last thing we need is another darn LAW!
Report abuse
I am informed that the idea of mandatory recycling is considered by Deputy Flouquet “too draconian” to implement. Of course it works elsewhere and it would certainly bring our recycling rate up to 50% in no time at all. Perhaps PSDs reluctance to adopt this has something to do with the fact that we need to feed the monster when it is built and if we really get hold of this recycling thing, (75%)?? then this will cause a problem with not enough material to burn.
Difficult to police mandatory recycling? So is using a mobile phone on the move but remember how many people went out and bought bluetooth headsets when we changed the law on that. There are thousands of ordinary decent people in the island who haven’t yet quite ‘got round’ to recycling. All they need is to be told that it is now ‘the law’ and that will be enough to persuade them.
I have supported the Brouard scheme, not because I am 100% convinced that it is the perfect answer, but more because PSD seems to be able to ignore the rising tide of public opinion and spend vast sums of our money.
Report abuse
Scarlett – whoever you are – A response to your questions:
1. I am certainly not an advocate of Mass Burn – I prefer Pyrolysis & Gasification (aca Compact Power) however Ethos refused to tender. However, I understand that the whole point of building a new incinerator in Jersey is to prevent further environmental damage. I don’t think what they have now can be quoted as in any way a good example.
2. Why have the signatories signed? Some tell me that they did so because Rodney hovered over them, some have fears about plant safety, some want Rodney’s process and many just want to register their objection to the cost. Because it is so broad the States will be let off the hook.
3. The facts are true that temperature control is essential. I have always been informed that its maintenance rests with the skill of the loader. Suez will lose money if it has to supplement the calorific value with wood. Also it is under contract to maximise recycling so using that as a feedstock is not an option. Other EfWs stockpile waste wood chip (from laminates and preserved wood) so that it can be added as required.
Paul – You have misinterpreted the guarantee arrangements. I suggest you get the full chapter and verse from PSD, because I felt satisfied by an answer at one of the public meetings, the exact wording of which I cannot recall.
In a previous post Paul you said that “we cannot afford this monster”. Well we are affording it and have been for some years. The gate price will mean hardly any difference for domestic householders.
It may be that other options could be cheaper, but they just did not turn up to tender.
Report abuse
Roy
There is a huge difference between not turning up to tender.
AND THE TENDER CONDITIONS BEING SO NARROW AS TO PRECLUDE THESE COMPANIES TENDERING. (you continue to avoid these questions conveniently)
Your support for your friend is admirable, but also so blinkered its laughable.
Report abuse
Billythefish:
RE : mandatory recycling. There are a couple of reasons why I think that we should have mandatory recycling.
Firstly, with mandatory recycling, our residual waste pile would reduce significantly and their would be no need for our community to be shelling out a huge amount of money for a waste plant to ‘disappear’ our rubbish. Without mandatory recycling, you and I are going to have a ‘mandatory’ bill of £93million to pay. Paying for this plant is not going to be voluntary…. you won’t have a choice. So one of them has to be mandatory and between the 2 things, which would you consider the lesser evil…. mandatory recycling or a mandatory bill for £93m which with interest, and running costs, will be a £230m bill over the next 25 years?
I know which I would prefer.
Secondly, I think that as a relatively wealthy community that consumes more resources than the vast majority of similarly sized communities, we have a moral obligation to put those resources back into circulation so that they can be enjoyed by the next generation. The world is suffering from all sorts of resource depletion and we are all waking up to the unsustainable nature of the way we have been living life on the high hog without considering the consequences. As a community that depends on our International reputation, I don’t think it sits well at all to be seen as happy to consume goods and then to merrily destroy them. I think that it would reflect extremely well on Guernsey if we showed the world that we were committed to putting back as much as possible. So mandatory recycling would simply be demonstrating that desire. It would give us some great kudos which we could certainly do with!
Even if we didn’t make it a ‘law’, we could create incentives that would make it virtually as good as mandatory. A relatively small investment concentrating on this part of the waste stream would negate the need for a big spend on a large end solution. Being made to pay for this mass-burn incinerator when we don’t want it…. now that is what I call ‘draconian’ (dep Flouquet’s word).
Toby: “Government apathy”?……. er..yes!
Report abuse
Roy, I think it’s safe to say you haven’t a clue what an incinerator is.
Report abuse
The Island could buy a brand new Boeing 747 for less money and fly the rubbish out. How can a glorified bonfire justify such massive cost compared to the technology and controls incorporated in a wide bodied aircraft. If recycling becomes more successful then the spare time could be used to fly our Globe Trotting execs to their next knees up.
Report abuse
Roy:
I refer to your post of 27th Jan. 2.32pm
Your first paragraph says that describing incineration as “old technology” is “fatuous”, because modern incinerators are technologically more advanced than they were. I think you miss the point… and I suspect on purpose!.
Mass-burn incineration is described as old technology because it is not a technique used in modern waste treatment. Having a waste solution that is based around incineration is thoroughly old hat…. we now know, or should know, that waste is a resource and there is more calorific value in the waste than can be accessed by burning for energy.
You then go on to say that we should strive to reduce the amount of waste that we send to the incinerator so that it can be turned off. But what about the electricity that the plant is meant to be making? Isn’t that the whole point of this wondrous machine? Isn’t it meant to be making enough energy for 2,000 homes? The main selling point goes straight out the window once you start having to turn it off.
I admire you for planning to send as little as possible to the plant, but do you realise that if we send less waste to the plant, the gatefee will become more expensive? And conversly, the more we send to the plant, the cheaper it will become? With incentives like that, I can’t imagine many people will be following your example!
Also, could you explain the economic model you are working to when you suggest buying a £93million pound plant, the most expensive project ever undertaken in Guernsey, that is then turned off and left sitting idle? Is that meant to be a good investment of £93m? It doesn’t sound like it to me!
And while it is turned off…. what happens to all the rotting putresible waste that will be sitting fermenting in the storage bunkers?
Report abuse
I wouldn`t bother to try and explain anything to Roy because everyone knows he`s just supporting his mate bernie.
Roy
What do we do if RB gets his plant over here and it all works perfectly well and just right for Guernsey, will you still be supporting Bernie then?
Report abuse
Roy, you say: “I and others who have taken time to look and read understand that Suez (as well as any other business or individual) will not be allowed to operate any plant that will endanger our health”
Er, perhaps you could then explain why Suez/Sita’s plant in the IOM reported 69 emission exceedences in 3 years? Once the stuff is out of the chimney ‘allowed’ does nt come into it.
Furthermore, continuous monitoring is only going to be on certain substances, the really nasty ones will only be checked periodically so no-one will ever know what happens inbetween the periodic checks.
Finally, there are no limites at all for what is emitted during start-up and shut down, despite it being known that these times produce the highest emissions, often many times the steady-state limit.
All of the above being said, emission concerns are about 6th on my list of why this idea is BARKING.
And as much as I really don’t like being drawn into personal attacks, if Mr. Flouquet had any conscience, he would have resigned over his racial slur.
Report abuse
Rosie tells the truth. The problem with PSD they only tell half the truth or perhaps even less than that. They manipulate information, fail to answer questions when asked, and spin the information they can tell us as much as they can to favour their glorified incinerator. Sometimes I wonder who they represent – the people of Guernsey or powerful vested interests – people hidden from view working the halls of power?
The glossy Suez brochure claimed a 95% recycling figure for materials entering the facility but when questioned about this error a PSD civil servant said it was a mistake and was written by French people with a poor grasp of English. They then published the mistake again in a different form on the display panels at the public presentation at La Trelade Hotel. They stated that 95% of the material entering the facility would be recycled or recovered. Stick 100 kgs of waste into an incinerator and about 30 Kgs of ash comes out – where does the rest go? Up the chimney. Is the carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, sulphur dioxide, chloride gases, ammonia, water vapour recovered? An email to Colette Brown about this error receives no response at all because PSD cannot respond. The 95% recycled and recovered statement is false and yet PSD perpetuates it for their singular, irrational purpose. I don’t know what makes them so desperate for this incinerator because the more I study this issue the more I come to the realisation that this Suez facility is inappropriate for Guernsey. Why would you wish to put over 7000 tonnes of food waste into an incinerator when it will take more energy to burn the food waste than the calories contained in the food waste. For years certain civil servants in PSD have relentlessly pursued incineration. First they got close with the 70,000 MT Lurgi facility – thank goodness for Deputy Scott Ogier who saved us from an absolute disaster. Who is going to save us this time from this £93.5 million waste of money? The people within PSD who are responsible for this proposed Suez facility must be held to account even if they leave office before the disaster manifests itself.
Report abuse
Rosie
Another excellent post, but I wouldnt expect a reply.
When the going gets tough “The Biss” gets on his bike.
Report abuse
I attended the PTE presentation at Les Cotils this evening.
Bernies right hand man Alan was convinced that the incinerator is a done deal and the contract is signed.
He also stated the the SOG has no control over the waste.
If that is the case we should be able to choose where we send it.
Would Suez be so keen if they thought a competitor could set up and undercut them, contract or not?
There were a few deputies there, Barry Brehaut showed a distinct lack of understanding of the waste situation. If other deputies are as ignorant of the facts as him, I dispair of them making decisions for us.
Report abuse
If Alan is right and the agreement with Suez is one that cannot now be reversed, then someone must have signed something that they shouldn’t have, and heads should roll. My understanding of it is that a letter of intent has been signed and that is all. This means that it is perfectly possible to extricate ourselves, and if Alan knows something that none of us know, then he ought to come clean about it immediately.
Report abuse
Steve, Did Alan actually say that to you, that the contract is signed?
I would also be interested to know where you think Barry Brehaut does not understand the waste situation.
Don’t get me wrong, there are few people more against this proposal than me, but I am against it on reasoned argument and fact and if the things you write are correct, they need to be seriously challenged.
Report abuse
Rosie and Steve
Deputy Floquet was asked on the Radio talk in a week last Sunday if a contract had been signed. His response was clear that no contract had been signed.
Report abuse
Islander
I am not sure wether those actual words were said, but that was certainly the implication. Not so much that the actual contract is signed but that there is something that we do not know about that makes stopping the process now not possible. This should NOT be the case. They need to explain what it is they are referring to.
Report abuse
The article by Andy Hall, chief executive of Garenne Group, in today’s GP makes interesting reading, particularly his comments that those involved with Jersey’s incinerator reckon that Guernsey’s proposals are ‘mad’.
I fear that the States of Guernsey have once again been hoodwinked and are too proud to admit that they have made a mistake.
Report abuse
Alan interupted the presentation and quite loud and clearly stated that the whole evening was pointless as the Suez proposal had been accepted and nothing could stop it.
Barry asked the panel several time about commercial waste, despite clear answers on each occasion he seemed unable or unwilling to understand the answer.
Everone else in the room seemed to understand the answers quite clearly.
He also failed to see any saving in not paying £93M for a plant.
I don’t think any deputies will take any notice of the actual presentation as it was almost identical to the presentation I gave them 3 years ago.
However they may start to take notice of my claims that no local companies could meet the tender criteria, as now one of them has actually read the document, thank you Dep Kuttlewascher, they are aware that no company could, in fact Suez did not but was proposed by Bernie anyway.
As he pointed out, something went very wrong with the tendering process.
How can some companies be disqualified from tendering but Suez allowed, despite failing to meet he criteria themselves?
I feel Bernies resignation comming closer.
Report abuse
rosie | February 2, 2010 at 11:46 am
I cannot agree Rosie. Incineration systems that extract as much energy as possible via electricity and district heating, combined with state-of-the-art flue treatment plant is still the preferred choice for authorities with very large amounts of MSW to dispose of. It is that because it is the cheapest.
There can be no doubt that the Island spend on waste disposal will reduce if we send less waste to the plant. It will cost less to run when switched off. We can ensure – Politically – that inappropriate waste is not fed into the EfW just to keep it going.
Of course we will never get to a point where it will be left idle for long periods until there is a significant change in human behaviour and product packaging. When that comes it will make more sense to replace the EfW with a system more appropriate to the current waste stream.
Islander – I believe that your information about the IOM plant outages is incorrect. Please provide an authoritative reference.
Richard – You have a poor understanding of the process of burning. Most of the mass of waste is water. In any case the proposed plant takes 50% of its input into the sorting section where a substantial amount (about 75% of input) of recyclates are recovered and sent elsewhere. Of the waste going into the incinerator, two residues are recovered – Fly Ash, now saleable as an acid treatment chemical – and bottom ash, also saleable as an aggregate for road or building construction.
I also attended part of the PTE presentation, but was dismayed to see the Compact Power principle being used in a lashed together amalgam of kit, the combination of which has yet to be proved. I brought Compact Power (now owned by Ethos Recycling – http://www.ethosenergy.co.uk) to Guernsey in 2002 and persuaded Roger Berry and others to visit the demonstration plant in Avonmouth (it is still going). I still believe it to be the ideal answer for our Island, small, modular, clean, efficient and inexpensive. But Ethos refused to tender because it has not been used to process MSW continuously for 2 years – it has been used for clinical waste, far more profitable. They were not prepared to spend half a million tendering.
Report abuse
Roy,
“There can be no doubt that the Island spend on waste disposal will reduce if we send less waste to the plant. It will cost less to run when switched off. We can ensure – Politically – that inappropriate waste is not fed into the EfW just to keep it going.”
How can this be true when all the costs are efectively fixed ?
Fixed capital cost, your not going to lay off staff everytime you want to turn the burner off and Suez fees. Add to this that you will not be earning income from the EFW section of the plant when its turned off.
LESS WASTE = MORE COST (to the taxpayer / homeowner / Business) with the Suez proposal.
I wouldn’t neseccarily disagree with more being paid to dispose of waste, if the mechanisms for the normal Guern to pay were changed and resulted in a polluter pays principal.
Report abuse
For me this is about trust, do I trust PSD and its minister to have done a thorough job and negotiated the very best for Guernsey.NO! With the whole world investing in new technologies Guernsey is ideally placed to use the next 10 to 15 years to aggresively persue Recycling through kerbside collection, use Jersey’s offer to take our rubbish and trial on island entrepeneurs projects, while monitering what new technology becomes available. Also without an independant audit of the tender process and particularly the costs involved how can deputies even consider continuing with SUEZ.
Report abuse
Roy: I am a little confused, by your statement ‘But Ethos refused to tender because it has not been used to process MSW continuously for 2 years……’.
Was the two year restriction self imposed and therefore Ethos did not want to spend $500k tendering?.
Or, was the two year restriction within the PSD remit, which would mean, they were UNABLE to tender?.
Report abuse
Jamie – Yes the cost will be more per tonne, but less overall. Of course we shall not ever get to zero, but if the shut down periods become extensive as a result of recycling and changes in food and product packaging – then Suez and the States will have to make changes.
Paul- What Jersey offer? – Try asking a Jerseyman or two. The world is not investing in new technologies – that is the problem. If the world was there would be some new technologies with MSW experience. The reality is that the world is buying incinerators.
Zak – The experience period was in fact 5 years, but I understand some consideration was given to anything with 2 years. Nothing new came out of it.
Report abuse
Roy,
Suez are in a win win situation. If the plant is never lit and not 1 gramme of waste is recieved they still get paid £1.8M pa. If it is used they still get the £1.8M plus £11.44 tonne.
They did not meet the tendering criteria.
If you had stayed for the entire PTE presentation, you would know that.
Why you and Bernie can’t wait to sign us up with this company is anybodys guess.
Pro Suez deputies always use the same excuse when asked why localc ompanies did not tender, “They did not meet the tender criteria”.
Well if Suez did not meet the criteria, how were they allowed to tender?
The tendering process should be repeated and open to all.
Flouquet and Richards should be sacked. Rambol should be asked to repay all fees.
PSD should have the resposibility for waste removed.
Report abuse
Roy,
whilst you are right, the cost overall would be lower, it would only be fractionally lower. Suez will charge £11.80 odd to process a ton of waste on top of all the fixed costs. Based on 45K tons, that is a saving of about £500k per annum if the Island produced ZERO waste. In this scenario, someone still has to pay the circa £9.5m pa fixed costs of the suez plant.
The saving by reduced tonnage would be a maximum of 5% of the total annual cost (a pittance).
Suez / the states wont make changes and making changes is not the answer, getting it right in the first place is.
I think people should also be very concerned about the prospect of burning recyclables. Once they are fully removed from the waste stream (Our obvious aim) your not left with much that will actually burn unless assisted …. have you ever tried setting fire to a sandwich or left over roast chicken ? ….. I think you’ll find this is where all the wood waste will end up … to keep the fire stocked rather than finding a better use for the majority of it. That said, my wife has some success at burning food on a regular basis :) perhaps the states should consult her, she even manages it unintentionally!!
The suez proposal is an over expensive turnkey end solution that just doesn’t deliver. Ordered by a states department that is more interested in not rolling it’s sleeves up to find an answer that benefits the island, instead preferring to spend ‘other peoples money’ to get rid of a problem.
Report abuse
Roy, please read carefully, I did not say outages, I said emissions exceedences. It is on the SITA IOM site.
You say “In any case the proposed plant takes 50% of its input into the sorting section where a substantial amount (about 75% of input) of recyclates are recovered and sent elsewhere.”
If this were true, (which it is not) then on a first year input of 45,000 tonnes only 28,000 tonnes would be going into the incinerator. So please remind me why we are paying £millions for a 37,500 to 41,500 tonne incinerator in that case and explain how it will produce electricity at this throughput?
The Highways Agency has banned the use of Incinerator Bottom Ash in road building due to explosions caused by hydrogen gas.
Finally, by PSDs own figures the plant is going to cost £8.0m a year to run if we send 45000 tonnes and £7.5m a year if we send nothing. Not much incentive there for waste reduction!
Report abuse
Roy – “Suez and the States would have to make changes” ???
It is a CONTRACT. We will be financing a £93.5m loan and paying Suez £1.8m a year (reviewed upwards every 3 to 5 years and index linked) FOR 25 YEARS. Regardless. Even if we only have one crisp packet to burn.
In the Waste Management News today, Defra report further falls in both waste arisings and household waste. Meanwhile PSD see fit to buy a plant set to grow at 1.8% each and every year.
Report abuse
Actually – re my earlier post…it will cost £8m a year to send 45000 tonnes and £8.5m a year to send nothing – because of course while we won’t have to pay £0.5m processing fees, neither will we make £1m on the electricity. (Thanks Jamie!)
Suez have neatly transferred all the risk on to the people and businesses of Guernsey.
Report abuse
Islander says “Suez have neatly transferred all the risk on to the people and businesses of Guernsey”
Shame that deputies don’t realise how the people of Guernsey have been dumped on by this outrageous PFI scheme. The question is why they aren’t clamouring to reject this proposal?
Report abuse
Stephen – I think you will find that it was the lawyers at St. James’ Chambers that transferred the risk – I could not at the time, and still cannot understand why!
Report abuse
Roy, you make the point that the Suez proposal is inappropriate for Guernsey very well. You write “incineration systems …. is still the preferred choice for authorities with very large amounts of MSW to dispose of. It is that (sic) because it is the cheapest.” That’s the point – Guernsey doesn’t have “very large amounts of MSW to dispose of.” The UK government funded agency WRAP clearly states that incinerators have the highest gate fees. They are the most expensive form of waste disposal. They only approach economies of scale when they burn more than 160,000 MT per year and Guernsey will never have that much residual waste to burn. For the amount of residual waste we produce a bespoke incinerator of the size proposed is uneconomical. Every time you start up and close down an incinerator the toxic emissions go up. The Isle of Man SITA incinerator has exceeded emissions standards on numerous occasions and it has had to close down often because it cannot source enough waste to burn. Why would you wish to switch it off anyway. The Suez proposal will cost us about £1000 per hour for the next twenty-five years. I don’t think there is a better way of burning money faster.
Roy, you write about district heating but I don’t believe the Suez proposal offers district heating. District heating is about three times more energy efficient than producing electricity from burning waste. It would be much more efficient to use a wood burner to heat Beau Sejour or St. Sampson secondary school.
I have spoken to solid waste engineers in the UK and in the Netherlands. They all tell me that burning food waste (85 to 90% water) in an incinerator is a total waste of resource. All Guernsey’s household black bin bag waste (approx 14,000 MT per year) is destined to go straight into the incinerator and its biggest component is food waste (IS kerbside recycling study). I agree that MSW contains high levels of water but nowhere near the percentages found in food waste. I am familiar with the calorific value of the various components of MSW.
I know that incineration of MSW will chuck about 1 tonne of C02 into the atmosphere for every tonne of MSW burned. Next to landfill, incineration is the worst, most polluting form of solid waste disposal particularly regarding C02 emissions.
Although I am not advocating pyrolysis until I learn much more about the process it was interesting to hear the Prestige presentation recently. A facility suitable to handle all our solid waste would be smaller and cheaper than the Suez facility. Their chimney would be 17 metres high compared to the proposed 55 metre incinerator chimney. Pyrolysis produces a benign residue unlikely the highly toxic, carcinogenic fly ash produced by incineration.
Some waste engineers tell me that incinerators just take the problem of landfill and put it into the sky – they have a term “landfill in the sky.” With our knowledge of climate change it is irresponsible to opt for the incinerator proposed. It is financially foolish and environmentally unwise.
Report abuse
Roy
Thanks for the input. I had no idea that St James’s Chambers had required the risk be passed from the contractor to the people of Guernsey.
All the more reason for the politicians to reject the proposals, and if Roy Bisson is right, they have a ready made justification to boot the plan into touch, without losing face.
Report abuse
If as Roy Bisson states, the risk has been passed to the people of Guernsey rather than Suez/SITA the contractor, then for our sake let’s reject the proposal. Deputies wakey wakey !!
Report abuse
Guern
The deputies could come out of this with the public acclaiming them for their protection of the public purse.
Shrewd move to change their mind and get pats on the back for it – heroes.
Or are they too daft or involved to realise the alternative is a stab in the back in the next elections?
Report abuse
Stephen,
I hear what you say, but electoral history suggests the exact opposite.
I could provide a long list of unsuccessful candidates who stood at the 2008 election on an anti-incinerator platform. Equally, many staunch supporters of mass-burn were elected or re-elected.
It seems odd that the electorate voted that way given that the future of solid waste disposal was bound to be resolved in this term of the States and in view of the current perception that public opinion is almost universally against mass-burn incineration.
Those members favouring a radical overhaul in the direction of waste policy have been in a minority in this States as they were in the previous States. While terrifically frustrating for those of us in the minority, we cannot deny that we are there because of the outcome of the democratic process.
Report abuse
Roy:
Your quote “(mass-burn incineration) is still the preferred choice for authorities with very large amounts of MSW to dispose of. It is that because it is the cheapest”.
Exactly…. for authorities with VERY LARGE amounts of MSW to dispose of, mass-burn incineration becomes cheaper because they benefit from economies of scale. Mass-burn incinerators of over 100,000 tonnes become more economically viable. Below that they are not because the price differential between a 100,000 tonnes and a 41,500 tonnes is not a whole lot different. So why on earth is Guernsey with its diddy little waste pile planning on getting a waste technology that is appropriate for somewhere with a very large waste pile? This is why the DADD report advised against mass-burn….. they are an inappropriate technology for small amounts of MSW because they work out far too expensive.
Furthermore, if PSD stopped frittering our money away on these grandious schemes, and instead focused their attention on the front end of the waste stream, they could have halved our residual waste pile by now so that we would have even less. If they did that we would not need any of these large plants that are being bandied about. PSD has consistently blocked attempts to introduce measures that could significantly reduce our waste pile….. one has to ask why?
Report abuse
Roy…. and another thing….
If the incinerator is turned off , it will not reduce my waste bills, nor will it be making any energy. They are selling this plant to us with the claim that it will make enough energy for 2,000 homes…. but it won’t if it’s turned off. So they can’t make that statement and then tell us that they will turn it off.
Also if its not making energy, how does the MRF work? How do they store the waste safely and without smells? Where will they get all the energy to do that? Suddenly, you are suggesting the plant becomes a user of energy instead of a supplier. Turning the incinerator off & on is when they create the most pollution, so that’s another reason for not wanting to turn it off. Sorry Roy….. I think you are living in a dream world if you think that it is still sensible for us to make this HUGE capital investment, and then aim to leave it idle.
And then you suggest that when (despite the lack of incentive) we all change our behaviour, we can change the EfW for another technology! Are you joking? We will still be paying this thing off in 30 years time from now, but you are suggesting that we splash out on something else as well?
Report abuse
Matt
Circumstances now are very different to pre 2008.
Before 2008 there was an acceptance that something had to be done. There no idea of the solution proposed or its defects.
Now, in 2010, the much of the public have more information about the choice by PSD, and are aware that the Suez proposal and choice of PSD is not acceptable for environmental and financial reasons.
What is an effective PFI scheme with all the risk transferred to the taxpayer from the contractor, would be a step to far, even for Gordon Brown to inflict on the UK.
Any deputy who rejects a scheme where, as Roy Bisson says, the risk was transferred to the taxpayer by the law Officers, would walk back in in 2012.
Report abuse
Matt F
Do you remember when you changed your mind about the school closeure? you gained more info and decided that you were wrong in your initial thoughts.
Well maybe thats what has happened here? the public have become more involved and have learnt more, so those you say didn`t seem to mind the suez plant have also had a change of heart but is just falling on deaf ears.
Oh and i haven`t met anybody that trusts bernie, that includes a couple of ex deputies that i know.
Report abuse
Guernsey has never been know for being ahead of the game in environmental matters…. But even if you aren’t interested in the environmental reasons for abandoning the Suez proposal, the financial argument should do it for you.
At the time of the election, Guernsey was not really feeling the chilly winds of the recession, but for a lot of people, their financial security does not look quite so rosy now. Consequently, I think that a lot of people are starting to wake up to just what this plant will mean to them and how it is going to hit them in the pocket.
The cost of living in Guernsey is only going to go one way…. up. Food and energy prices are forecast to rise and for many, there are real concerns as to how they are going to afford the bills.
Why would we want to add the extra burden of this waste plant onto everyones rising costs particularly when there are alternatives that have not been properly explored.
Report abuse