Incineration plan critic ‘failed with more-expensive bid’
Friday 12th February 2010, 11:30AM GMT.
PUBLIC SERVICES has attacked the credibility of waste disposal plan critic and Garenne Group chief executive Andy Hall by revealing the company was a partner with a failed tenderer.
Mr Hall had a letter published in the Guernsey Press last week in which he said Guernsey would be ‘mad’ to spend £93.5m. on the Suez Environnement incinerator.
The Garenne Group is currently building Jersey’s incinerator and Mr Hall said all experts working with his company on that project had said the plant proposed for Guernsey was far too big.
But Public Services minister Bernard Flouquet (pictured) has moved to undermine the comments, saying Mr Hall had been involved in a failed tender that could have cost the island £100m. more to build, finance and run than the Suez facility.
‘Garenne partnered one of the unsuccessful companies, WRG, whose bid included an energy-from-waste gasification plant designed by Energos,’ he said.
‘Andy quotes both these companies as having waste experts who, to a man, believe that what Guernsey is currently proposing is “mad” and that we must have “money to burn”.
‘However, these same three companies put forward a solution that was £15m. more expensive to build than the Suez plant, more than twice as expensive to operate and had a larger energy-from-waste component.’
Deputy Flouquet said the department had opened up the tendering process to all types of technology and added that Public Services would have had a ‘much easier’ job had a company tendered a viable alternative to incineration.
- 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
Hi, my name is Greg Falla, and I really think this incinerator would be a total waste of the tax payers money, I and my team can setup a work force to digest this rubbish for less than £10million euros, we use forks, not spoons.
fanks – greg xxx kisses 4 all!
Report abuse
congratulations Mr Hall. You have achieved the near impossible.
you’ve managed to make Bernard look good. Turns out Suez was one of the smaller cheaper options after all …..
Seriously, is Andy Hall really so stupid he thought PSD wouldn’t point out what a hypocrite he is ? And it brings into question the press’s stance on the incinerator ……
Report abuse
I wonder.
No I wish that these people could for once in their lives be honest with the people.
This is worse than the kids at school.,
“No you did ”
“No it was you so there”
Just a load of childlike attitudes to an ever growing mistrust in all things governmental ‘mental’ being the appropriator word.
It shows how dishonest they are with words, they can’t even begin to understand how hated they are, how distrustful people are of them.
I suggest they do the decent thing and resign:
You know people will never re-elect you; so save a little face and get out now.,
Report abuse
Seems more bothered to defend his project, than he is to listen to the public.
Report abuse
oh dear- i never thought i would say this- but flipping good on Bernie, its about time they defended this project.
Report abuse
In his Your Shout 12/2/10 letter honest Bernie retorts that Andy Hall’s company “is building an incinerator around two and a half times the size ( of Guernsey’s ) in Jersey – for a population that is only one and a half times that of Guernsey ”
If he is so sure that Guernsey’s will be the right size that surely means that Jersey will be begging us to send our rubbish to them to keep theirs going. They might even have to pay US for our rubbish
Report abuse
And about time too. We’ve had months of unproven claims and accusations levelled at PSD about their tender process and choice of contractor without any challenge. Crackpot theories have been given credence and, in the absence of any counter claim from PSD, been perceived as fact. PSD’s silence, under this constant verbal assault, has been interpreted as an admission of guilt.
Maybe now PSD will “fight back” with facts and let the people make informed decisions based on the realities, not the rhetoric of a well organised and very vocal minority.
Report abuse
So Andy Hall’s company tendered for a larger and more expensive incinerator.
The usual practice is that tenders are submitted to meet the requirement of the client. The article and Floquet letter suggests the tenders proposed plants out of the air and not to the needs of the client.
What is so awful about Garenne Group tendering? They are a business and if PSD wants to hand out financial sweeties then most companies would have done exactly the same, and quoted for what the client wanted, whether or not the CEO of Garenne thought the proposal sensible.If the client wants something that is too big and too expensive that is their look out.
The article states “‘Andy quotes both these companies as having waste experts who, to a man, believe that what Guernsey is currently proposing is “mad” and that we must have “money to burn”.
What Andy Hall actually says “Throughout these last eight or nine years we have worked very closely with the process contractors, CNIM, Energos, WRG and Imtech.
All their waste experts, to a man, believe that what Guernsey is currently proposing is ‘mad’ and that we must have money ‘to burn’.”
There were critical comments from 4 and not 2 companies.
The Floquet letter is excellent PR spin and should be seen as such. in essence it fails to detract from the excellent and compelling case put by Andy Hall.
Report abuse
Somewhat hypocritical is’nt it Bernie?
Seeing that PSD could have had a plant up and running by now for no capital outlay, but decided to move the goal posts to preclude offers they had recieved from more than one company, to open the door for a project, that many more companies than those mentioned by Andy Hall, find so incredible that they fall on the floor laughing, that Suez could find a customer so gullible.
Ask any incinerator manufacturer how much an incinerator should cost.
They will tell you that as a rule the industry considers the average capital cost to be £1M per 1 000 tonnes pa requiring disposal.
Just because several companies “Tried it on” is no excuse. PSD did not have to accept any of them.
They should have relaxed the tender criteria to include some of the other tenderers.
PSD don’t release details of the 60 odd companies that did not meet their criteria.
How about publishing the tendering criteria and the basics of the proposals of the companies that did not meet them and show the public how right you were to go for Suez.
That would shut up all your distractors.
How about it Bernie?
Report abuse
This whole incinerator debacle is getting totally out of hand. The public are either pro the incinerator , against it, or just totally confused!
I for one am not at all confused but that is because I care about my island and also about my grandchildren who are likely to be affected by this absurd proposal to burn our waste for at least the next twenty five years.
I am not confused because I have made it my business to attend every possible presentation on this proposal since it all began. However I know that many people find the subject just too complicated and so they blindly trust our politicians to get the decision right, even though the downside of getting it wrong is unthinkable both in terms of health and massive unecessary expenditure – your money and mine!
I consider myself to be a rational objective individual and approached this whole subject with an open mind.
My overwhelming conclusion is that the Suez solution is not a solution at all but a steep slippery slope to massive debt and long-term ill health for the whole population for decades ahead.
What will it matter then if Bernard Flouquet and his department resign when they have left such a legacy behind them?!
We have to get this right first time!
That definitely means only one thing – not going with the Suez proposal! Their imparciality is severely compromised and they are are only concerned with saving face and protecting our ‘international reputation.’
Whatever happened to their ability to think objectively and to consider the wishes of the voters who trusted them to safeguard their health and financial stability?
Surely a delay in this decision is far more important than our reputation? PSD’s stubborn stance beggars belief when one considers what is at stake.
Rodney Brouard is prepared to put his own personal money where his mouth is and intends to go out on a limb by actually bringing a Vantage processor to the island to demonstrate how we can lead the way in pollution-free waste processing with an end product to export.
The icing on the cake for us of course is it won’t cost us a penny! – and the gate fee will only be about £80 per tonne!(less than half PSD’s lowest estimated gate fee)
Compared with PSD’s proposal this is a ‘no-brainer’ isn’t it?
Andy Hall is to be commended for being so open in voicing his valuable qualified opinion about the Suez plant being inapropriate for Guernsey and Bernard Flouquet’s criticism of him is not relevant in the context of what is actually best for the people of Guernsey.
All the meetings I have attended were unfortunately lacking in younger people, which is very surprising considering they and their future offspring are the very ones who stand to lose out in so many ways.
Maybe they are totally disillusioned by the way this whole affair has been handled by PSD and the way they stubbornly refuse to change their minds even in the light of overwhelming evidence supporting an alternative solution!
I urge all young people to examine the facts and talk to their deputies about signing the requete put forward by Jan K.
Time is running short!
Report abuse
If you go to a car salesman and say I want a 4.5 litre leather seated 4×4 to get me and my gran to the shops, i don’t want a guarantee and if it breaks down it is all my fault.
I don’t think he will suggest looking at the smart cars or the daihatsus as they might be more suitable.
He’ll be rubbing his hands together thinking what a mug, my bonus will be good this month.
Report abuse
Stephen John
You are absolutely right and Deputy Flouquet has given a further clear demonstration of his ignorance and naivety.
Andy Hall is a director of the Garenne Group, which means that he has a fiduciary duty to that company and its shareholders. His job is to make money for the company and that clearly includes tendering for major construction projects. Andy Hall would be acting in breach of his fiduciary duty to the Garenne Group of he only tendered for projects which he personally supported or approved, so its nothing more than a cheap and indeed desperate shot by Deputy Flouquet to suggest that Andy Hall’s credibility is questionable. Deputy Flouquet – do you honestly think that Andy Hall would not have considered that his company’s tendering record on alternative projects would not be brought up ? Don’t judge others by your own level of intelligence !
Report abuse
Dear Deputies
Please DO NOT VOTE for the Suez incinerator. It is totally wrong to incinerate waste in this way, you have no idea what chemical combinations are produced when you mass burn. The filters in the chimneys trap some particals (which as fly ash is totally toxic and no one wants) but no one knows what nano particals are produced and escape via the chimney into our precious atmosphere. These are the invisible dangers which are easily absorbed into the blood stream. If there is nothing dangerous coming out of the chimney why does it need to be so tall?
If you dont want the incinerator please tie a orange ribbon onto your car aerial and contact your deputies. Suez are overpriced, oversized and we dont want them over here.
Report abuse
Total Waste
well put.
Is there any way that they can be forced to reveal the process so we can all get to see it?.
Flouqets attack on Andy Hall is disgusting given the circumstances and i`m sure they will be answered. Bernie your way out of your depth AGAIN.
Report abuse
Hmmmm
“Bernie in “comes out swinging” shocker”
Funny how a lot of other people have critiscised the Incinerator people like Steve Le Cheminant & Rodney Brouard, both of whom have cost effective alternatives.
However Bernie obviously cant rubbish their proposals because they clearly make more sense for the island.
The fact that he only defend his corner and the Suez proposal when he has some dirt to dish, makes me respect the man even less.
Report abuse
BCB
I don’t know the leagal imlications of releasing details of the tenders that PSD recieved.
However, Bernie does not have to release any details.
All he has to do is say, X company proposed X system and were more expensive than Suez, or whatever reason he wants to give.
The information would then be in the public domain, without divulging any sensitive information.
As the Suez tender is now public knowledge, X company can see what it is and what Bernie has said.
If X company thinks, “Hang on, thata a load of bull”, the brown stuff can be introduced to the fan.
Will Bernie be prepared to take that chance?
One of the reasons PSD gave for rejecting our proposal, was that we were a new company and could not meet their criteria.
It was of no consequence that we were only proposing to operate the plant,and the companies that manufacture, supply and install the plant and train the operators are multinationals with many years experience worldwide of treating millions of tonnes of waste.
Or that they offered a 10 Year guarantee.
However now we have SITA Gsy ltd doing exactly that.
It would seem that the goal posts have been moved yet again, now that the States have committed to Suez.
Report abuse
Hallo!
Greatings from Germany! I have made an informationpage about an german recycling- and waste- management- idea in german and english language (kryo- recycling). Pleace spread this information to all persons, you know, that many people get knowkedge about this idea and good alternatives to incineration.
If you and others have some more or new information, pleace send the information to my adress under the text.
Here is the link to my informationpage:
http://sites.google.com/site/kryorecycling
With best Greatings, Felix Staratschek, Freiligrathstr. 2, D- 42477 Radevormwald
Report abuse
Thanks Steve Le C
and some good reading from Felix Staratschek.
Report abuse
What a pity all those experts with all their alternative proposals have been hiding their light under a bushel for so many years. They have certainly cost the Guernsey taxpayer a great deal of money and heartache. Perhaps if they had been as vocal during the 10 years that the States took to make up their minds about waste disposal, we would have a more acceptable solution now.
Can they explain why they have kept us waiting until the eleventh hour to tell us where the States have gone wrong?
Report abuse
Ted
I think the question should be, what was wrong with the tendering process? Why was a company such as Steve`s rejected?
There were issues with this and the tendering process long before suez was given the green light so it`s not an eleventh hour as you put it,
Report abuse
Yesterday we went to the amazing ‘Wildlife Photographer of the year’ exhibition at the Museum. Many of the captions indicate that the wildlife photographed are in real danger, due to mans activity. Our planet is so fragile and we are messing it up. How a few individuals in Guernsey dare to vote through the Suez nightmare is just plain scary when other options are out there.
Report abuse
Ted
I find it amazing that in another thread you accuse the incineration opposition of not having any knowledge on the subject, yet you yourself display a surprising amount of ignorance on the subject.
Both alternatives were known to the states prior to the Suez vote.
Total wastes option was even presented before the original tender a long time ago and the Brouard alternative was also presented on 2 seperate occasions prior to the vote.
It also may have escpaed you attention that many people have been attempting to tell the states that mass burn is wrong for the island for quite a long time now.
Getting them to listen is another thing.
Report abuse
Come on Ted, try and keep up.
We were proposing to the last PSD under Bill Bell.
We had no luck there.
We continued under Bernie.
No luck there either. Are you in PSD per chance?
If I had a £ for every time a deputy or civil servant I have presented the proposal to, asks “Why did’nt you tender” I could retire.
Whoever gives you your information is a half wit, stop listening to them.
Report abuse
And another thing Ted.
How can WE have cost the taxpayer anything?
If we had been allowed to partisipate in the tendering process, we could have saved them millions.
Not to mention the income stream the States would hav gained, or the employment, etc, etc, blah blah.
I dispair, I really do.
Report abuse
Ted,
The Zero Waste approach was brought up in the States a few years ago – nobody wanted to know. You can say things but you can’t make people listen.
Report abuse
I would love to know why Frsoty (sp?) is so enamoured with the Suez proposal?… and Carts & Ted too.
I hope that they will come to the public presentation on
Tues. 23rd Feb. 7:30pm
at Beau Sejour
to hear about the type of waste strategy that we should and could develop here in Guernsey. A waste strategy that could create an income and economy for the island rather than a financial drain.
Please everyone…. put it into your diary.
Report abuse
Rosie
It just goes to heighten my concerns about the alternative stance when you claim Frsoty, Carts and Ted are “enamoured with the Suez proposal” None of their posts suggest that (not on this thread anyway). They come accross more as people wanting to have a more balanced debate. Or are posing questions that, actually, you haven’t answered.
Billy
Report abuse
Billy
Most of the anti-incinerator people are desperate to have a reasoned debate, becauise they know is this actually happened suez would be blown out of the water.
Why do you think Rodney Brouard was ridiculously censored by the BBC phone in “host” when he tried to ask Bernie the difficult questions.
Because there are no answers.
It’s the politicians avoiding the opposition, dont try and slant it the other way.
Report abuse
Too true The Man,
I spent about 3/4 hr on hold, I gave up and emailed my questions. The presenter did not read them out but said they prefer phone calls.
Well some phone calls, depends who from, eh BBC.
Report abuse
again mary lowe and all her croonies are trying to stop something perhaps if you did something sensible n the states and tried and remember we are all small island compared to jersey if the want our rubbush let them have it and while they are at it take mary and the chain there too
Report abuse
I know of more than one person who has asked questions of PSD and they have been stonewalled.
I will throw down a Gauntlet! I will get a panel of individuals, all without any vested interest in any solution and have a public debate with a panel from PSD.
Bring it on!
Report abuse
Billythefish….
What??? Have you read there posts? Unless they are practising a lot of double bluffing, one has to presume that they are pro the Suez proposal. I merely say in my post I would like to know why! So far I haven’t met anyone who has been able to give a well thought out, reasoned argument as to why it would be sensible to spend £93m on this plant when there are better and cheaper alternatives……. I wish I had and then we could all get on with our lives and stop discussing rubbish.
It is very hard to have a balanced discussion about this topic when questions posed to PSD go unanswered. My experience so far with this subject, is that the people for the Suez proposal are either in PSD, best mates with them or they are pretty ignorant about a lot of the facts. I wish Carts, Forsty or Ted could put me right!
Report abuse
Rosie
it is possible to be anti-Suez ( or at least not pro Suez ) and still, albeit with regret, come to the conclusion that right now it is the best solution we have or are likely to get.
The effective removal of the ship to Jersey safety net has set the clock firmly ticking. Even the Press editorial team seems to have realised this. Suez is better than nothing ( and nothing is all it probably is better than ..)
Scott Ogier has it right IMHO when he says that consensus on anything other than Suez is years away. Years we don’t have. And the cynical sceptical me wonders if the States would be capable of a decision even then …
In an ideal Guernsey we would have kerbside collection of separated waste, and therefore would have no need of a huge waste sorting facility , and a reduced ( if any ) need for residual waste treatment of whatever kind. But the States in their “wisdom” don’t want that.
Report abuse
Come on “the Man”, digging at the beeb is a bit low.
They said before the phone in that they had to be impartial and when RB came on, told him that he had had airings every week which had effectively become adverts for his solution. The beeb don’t allow adverts.
So QED, when he started again, and was warned, and continued to try to get his web address out AGAIN, they cut him off.
Seemed perfectly fair.
Report abuse
Rosie, All I ask is that someone, anyone, provides a reasoned and proven alternative, then we can make some comparisons. My biggest gripe is that , rightly or wrongly, there has been a legal, approved and transparent tender process, conditions have been made and met and due process has been followed, resulting in a decision. PSD has fulfilled their mandate on behalf of the island.
The critics have done nothing to prove that their “theories” work (at all or to the scale required) and done nothing to prove their credentials as serious service providers to the States and people of Guernsey. And yet they get acres of press coverage and hours of radio time, unquestioning and vocal loyalty from some, without ever having to validate anything they say. Where are their demonstrations, their working plants, their energy consumption and environmental impact assessments?
In the meantime, so called experts are wheeled out (with dubious agendas) to claim that anything, even landfill, is better than the “Suez” solution.
Now that all the nutters are coming out of the woodwork we have missed any real opportunity to finally get a waste management solution. Any momentum we might have had from pitching one serious alternative against PSD’s preferred efw plan, has been torpedoed by good intention and green fanatics. There are now almost as many alternatives as there are days in the month, a recipe for paralysing the government decision makers!
My real concern isn’t that we end up with an incinerator…it’s that we end up with nothing, again, and just like the Lurghi fiasco, our States and civil servants won’t use this reprieve to pursue an answer, they will merely shrug off the problem and pass it on to the next house, a few years down the line and, meantime, the Mont Cuet landfill becomes the Mont Cuet Landhill.
Report abuse
We just keep getting the same statements from the same few seemingly pro suez posters, ie there`s nothing else? or nothing thats been proven?. What about what RB is trying to do? he is actually trying to bring over his plant and prove to us that it is proven and does work, but some just want to rubbish it before it gets here, why not give it a chance?.
The tendering process was flawed which is another some seem to ignore. There are other ways to deal with this but Flouquet has convinced some that there isn`t.
I actually think some of the posters on here are either people with an interest in suez or friends sticking up for their pals.
Toby
you may have reached your own conclusion and with your much repeated stance that there is nothing else i can understand why. But i think most on here including myself would listen far more to what Rosie has to say and is probably in a better position to educate then you are?.
Come on Toby what is your interest in this really:)?.
Please tell us why RB and the guys that build this stuff know less about it than you? or are you willing to give it a try and maybe just maybe be proved wrong?. It has been used,is being used and there are orders for plants of this kind but according to you and some others it doesn`t work? Those suckers really got taken for a ride when they ordered their`s eh Toby.
And Jersey hasn`t said it will not take our rubbish either.
Report abuse
Ok Billy
if you think they were impartial, bearing in mind who the guests were then well…..
Report abuse
The Man
The Talk In was so pro the PSD Suez proposal that the Pro Suez side were given time at the start of the programme to put their case.
The bad mannered way in which the BBC presenter treated Mr Brouard, and presented him putting his case, showed just how biased the programme was.
Report abuse
Toby:
Thanks for your reply….
Your last paragraph has it. Working towards the ‘ideal’ as you put it is what we should be doing and there is no reason that we shouldn’t or couldn’t……… other than the fact that PSD who have been mandated with the job of finding our solution have been actively blocking any attempts to do just that. We should all feel a sense of outrage about that.
Deputy Ogier says that they can’t agree on a way forward……. I don’t think that is the problem. I think that what has happened is that the same people, from the begining, have prevented any moves towards serious waste reduction and those people have been in the controlling position because, having been mandated to do the job, they are the ones holding all the reports. They control how reports are done and which are given credence, and how and when reports are disclosed. With this power they can manipulate what many of the Deputies think. Those that are unwilling, or do not have the time to do the research fully themselves, are only too happy to believe what they hear and vote with the department…. that’s the easiest way. That, combined with the fact that many simply do not have the vision or the creative thinking that waste management requires, means that we have ended up with a solution that I think was decided on years ago. And it is a solution totally out of step with modern thinking and I believe will reflect dreadfully on Guernsey.
Report abuse
Carts.
Thank you for replying…
I think that you are still stuck in this idea that a big magical ‘solution’, as you call it, is what Guernsey needs and should be looking for. You want someone to provide you with details of a plant that we could (hypothetically) sit alongside the Suez plant and we could draw up comparisons between the two. But I am not suggesting another plant. I am suggesting that the whole concept of dealing with waste has fundamentally shifted over the last 10 to 15 years. Dealing with waste is no longer about ‘disposal’… its about managing a resource. Treated properly, our rubbish is not rubbish. Wasting our waste is a waste…… if you get my meaning! The inherent value in our waste is far better realised if we build an economy around re-using and recycling it. The benefit of that is that we would generate employment for local people, including low-skilled people. This would also mean that we could reduce our true residual waste tonnage’s to a fraction of what they are, therefore requiring no large end-of-line waste plant. This would save Guernsey millions and an economy based on recycling etc. would generate income for us. Also with no big plant at Longue Hougue, a large area of land would be released that could generate rents from some of the many light industries that are desperate for space in Guernsey.
Comparing this way of dealing with waste to the Suez ‘solution’, is like comparing apples and oranges…… in fact no. More like comparing apples with toast. Pointless.
Instead of looking at our rubbish and just seeing a problem, looking at it and finding the opportunities. By doing that you reduce the size of the problem, and hence the size of the bill to deal with it.
PSD have consistently blocked every move to significantly reduce our residual waste pile and have refused to listen to the ideas as described above. For those who have spent the last x many years trying to get them to see the many possibilities, it has been endlessly frustrating. We have watched while Guernsey has inextricably moved towards mass-burn incineration………it has been blatantly obvious all the way through that we would be getting the solution that we have got.
It is PSD that have refused to implement an integrated waste management strategy… they have sabotaged every attempt. And by refusing to implement any meaningful waste reduction program based on a multi faceted waste stream, they have committed us to a large end-of-line plant that is too expensive, and is a clumsy thoughtless way of dealing with waste.
Please Please Carts. Come along on Tuesday evening to Beau Sejour 7:30pm to hear Paul Connet. You will see that what I describe is a strategy that is increasingly becoming the norm else where.
Report abuse
I wonder why Rodney Brouard considers it necessary to bring over a plant to Guernsey to prove that it works – does it not work anywhere else – already?
Would it be more environmentally sustainable to take people to see it where it is already fully functioning?
If it does not work elsewhere – why should Guernsey be its testbed – even if Rodney is prepared to take the financial risk?
We could be left in the lurch a few years down the line.
If Rodney is given a chance, surely Total Waste should also be given a chance? In fact should anyone working with a gate price of £80 or less be given a chance?
Report abuse
Carts
Dont you think it would have been the perfect time for PSD and RB to go at it with some good QaA`s?. I bet there were thousands listening in to hear them speak?
But what happened, He just got cut off AGAIN why? did the BBC think they were doing us all a favour by not having to listen to them speak to eachother? or was it more likely there could have been some real tough questions for the panel?.
And yes he did slip in his advert again because he knew he was about to be cut off but i notice Bernie wasn`t told to stop makeing speeches and just answer the questions. And what was Roy Bissons question ? oh yeah he didn`t have one, just support for his pal.
Report abuse
Rosie – good on you for the detailed replies; you are obviously willing to engage in debate and inform which is great.
Man, and Stephen. Sorry folks, I’ve posted this elsewhere – it’s a case of damned if they don’t and in this case, damned if they do.
There were so many calls in the weeks leading up to that phone in saying “come on, defend yourselfs, support your claims etc etc”
So they finally do, through a dedicated phone in, where naturally you will have the guests there who are involved, and then people like yourselves call it a publicity stunt.
Come on – what do YOU think they should do in terms of playing their part in the debate?
Report abuse
Roy Bisson
Would all the deputies go over to see it in operation? and how many of the public would get to see it working?.
I think it shows a lot more conviction to bring it here where anyone can see it then hope a few might fly over to where it is now.
Who said it does not work elsewhere apart from you?.
I thought he was bringing it here to show us how well it works, but you seem to think it`s just to test it haha nice one Roy but no one will swallow that one me old chap :)
Go on Roy admit it you and your mate are getting a bit worried it might be perfect for us eh?.
Report abuse
Rosie,
I’m not looking for a single solution, I’m trying to stimulate a wider debate. If the late arrivals want to be taken seriously then they have do to some serious work to convince us that they have considered all of the consequences of what they suggest…not just promoting their part in the chain, but how they fit into the overall waste management picture.
How about just some facts to support the various solutions that are being touted as “alternatives” before we rush to condemn PSD’s choice? Can we please have some serious dialogue about what we do, if we don’t do Suez rather than just the same old anti PSD, anti Suez rhetoric.
These alternative providers all suggest that current waste estimates are over the top and improved recycling will minimise our requirements to handle waste. So what exactly do they suggest is a reasonable recycling target and how do we achieve it? Kerbside recycling sounds great, unless you don’t happen to have a kerbside! People will still have to drag themselves off the armchair to dump it on the street and let’s be honest, if they cared that much wouldn’t most of them already be using the established recycling points? What do we do if we miss the target?
How will they separate what still goes to the terminal, if people won’t do it at source, and where is this large waste separation facility going to be, with its army of low skilled workers picking through the trash (essential licence holders I suppose, living in subsidised rental accommodation?) and how is it any less environmentally unacceptable than an efw plant?
What do you do with the recycled material if no one will buy it from you and what do you do with material that cannot be recycled, store it at the waste separation facility or throw it down a hole in the ground? That doesn’t seem to be too environmentally sensitive does it?
I’m not saying it is easy but we are only going to get half a solution until these alternative providers do some real leg work on what we need, rather than merely justifying what they are trying to sell us by scaring us with incinerator horror stories.
Report abuse
Roy Bisson
It would be all too easy for PSD to ignore something which is working elsewhere. Far better to prove it in the flesh, here in Guernsey, AND AT NO RISK TO THE TAXPAYER !! Sorry – I thought I had better put that in capitals because its a phrase which PSD and you through your unwavering support for your mate just don’t seem to be able to grasp.
Report abuse
Mr Fish
No one denies Bernard and his friends their say.
The point being made is that the BBC should be seen to be impartial.
Report abuse
So, seeing as there is every likelihood that Dep. Trott’s sursis will suspend the requete and amendments, maybe someone else should place a requete saying throw out Suez and simultaneously vote in madatory kerbside and food waste collections? And take the waste management mandate from PSD (politicians and civil service) and give it to a new panel (maybe headed by Deputy Ogier if he wants a change of scene)
Report abuse
Roy
They have to want to see it.
I know Rodney extended an invitation to all deputies to visit a plant in the UK of a simmilar size to that required here.
If none chose to accept that invitation, you can’t really blame Rodney.
If a plant was running in Guernsey for a few months, I’m sure even Bernie or you could not come up with a sane excuse for not being able to visit it.
What could you say if it actually works?
Just in case; I think I have a couple of blindfolds and some earplugs knocking around somewhere, if you would like to borrow them.
Mind you, thinking aout it, I’m pretty sure you already have some well used ones of your own.
As the saying goes Roy, “There is non so blind as those who WILL NOT see”.
PS.
I’m still waiting for your detailed debunking of our proposed systems.
Report abuse
Isn’t about time they bought back the independent waste to energy panel so we get experts to decide what is best for this island instead of Politicians who have lost the credibility and the confidence of most of the electorate. Flouquet should never have been elected to his post and would not have been if we had island wide voting. He should now resign to save us from more embarasment.
Report abuse
Carts.
As we, amoung others, put our proposals to PSD in 2005, is’nt the Suez proposal actually the “alternative”.
Our proposals were put to PSD, Environment and all individual deputies several times over the last 2 houses.
Some wre very supportive until they disscused it with PSD.
We cannot be blamed for States appathy.
We also cannot be blamed for simply not giving up and walking away if we believe 100% in the validity of our proposals.
We were not aware that we had to get approval from the general public before being able to present our proposal to the States.
We are seeking to do that now on the back of all the publicity being generated by Rodney and Rupert.
As you are unaware of our proposal, you might be interested to know that we proposed different operating princibles depending on public aceptance of the collection methods available.
One was a full island wide collection of food waste, this would have ensured the quality of the recyclable materais in general refuse.
One of the others was for a fully automated water based sorting system, that can process fully co-mingled waste, with no army of workers picking through refuse, as you put it.
You would also have been aware that our facility includes full reprocessing of materials on island, resulting in industry standard forms of recyclables for direct sale to manufacturers.
There would be no shipping of waste, only products.
We have never claimed that the waste figures were too high or to low.
Our modular systems have a large range of operational throughputs with very low to zero emissions.
Whilst this may not be acceptable to some, we believe in it and believe that given the choice a large percentage of the population would accept this as a positive move.
Raising the recycling rate to above 70% with no requirement to seperate any refuse or to have to use bring banks.
As for consequences, I assume you mean, if the systems don’t work?
Thats why we only considered process that have been in use globally for a very long time.
Many, longer than mass burn.
Also with a much lower residue than incineration.
Our maximum landfill requirement, in the worst case scenario, depending on which process was implimented, would be 1 400 tonnes pa of inert waste.
You have to remember that incineration has a reside of arould 40% of input.
What if bottom and fly ash becomes classified as waste, and can’t be trans border shipped.
Where will that go?
These are the consequences that PSD have to consider.
Have they convinced you?
Our system is not a single solution method.
Each material has its own process or disposal method. Many are overlapped to ensure continued throughput in the event of any breakdowns or batch problems. There is also high electrical generating capacity.
I think we have carefully considered all the consequences, if we have not our system is very adaptable and scalable, systems can be resized or replaced without affecting waste throughput.
You can’t say that about mass burn.
Report abuse
There are pro’s & con’s for all strategies. What will happen is that all this is going to cause extra delays and that the cost will continue to increase. Rodney Brouards proposal sounds good in plan but isn’t actual proven working technology, is it, so if it fails and we have to explore a more viable waste strategy in a few years which no doubt will cost more than at the moment. He will also stand to make a considerable amount of money if it does go through so that is why he is pushing it so hard.
We elected the states members so we have to give them a certain amount of our trust in major expenditure. Fair play to Bernard Flouquet, if someone attacks something he believes in and they use, publicly, arguments that totally contradict what has happened previously then he has every right to repsond publicly. It’s not easy, there will never be a perfect solution as there is no such thing as clean waste.
Get on with it and do something prior to the next elections or we are going to end up having an election based on one policy and that will be disastrous for our island going forward!!
Report abuse
Carts:
In brief…. I am spending far too long on here doing this and most of the time just repeating my self.
I am not speaking for anyone that is coming forward with whatever treament they are advocating. What I am saying is far more basic than that.
No-one is quibbling about the amount of waste that Guensey is generating…… we are questioning the amount of ‘residual’ waste we are generating. We know that our residual waste is not where it should be….. even you must know that. PSD on the other hand are working to figures that are where we are now without the measures in place that they should have got up and running by now…. kerbside collections, anaerobic digestion, either mandatory recycling or incentivised recycling that would come to the same thing etc etc. Not only have they based there figures on today’s ‘residual’ waste (which is NOT ‘true’ residual waste) but they have factored in an allowance for it to grow despite historical evidence from Mont Cuet that shows it is dropping. Not only is this sloppy, but it is an expensive way of doing things because if you do not reduce the size of the problem that you have to deal with, then it stands to reason you will need a larger ‘solution’ to deal with the problem. Ontop of all that, the solution that they have chosen is not economically viable at the size that they are getting…… that is pretty common knowledge amongst the waste industry. It would be so much more intelligent to tackle the problem by reducing the size of the problem first… before you look for magic solutions. If they did that they would discover that in the process of reducing the size of our residual waste pile, they would be creating all sorts of knock on benefits…. because as I have said before, the value of the material in our waste, is more than will be realised by burning it.
PSD are being paid to find the solution and to work out how to implement a proper integrated waste management strategy. We are not. But since they are foisting on us a hugely expensive, environmentally damaging, reputation denting plant, (as far as I am concerned because they have not done their job properly), it is up to us as concerned citizens to do something about it.
We have been asking them to address these issues for years. It has been pointed out time and time again that if we did not sort these things out, we would end up with a plant like the Suez one. It is not up to me to work out how to do kerbside collections…. its up to them. They might decide that a system of kerbside for some and bring banks for others is the way to achieve the necessary collections etc. Or kerbside collections just for the food waste and bring-banks for everything else. That’s there job to figure it out. What has been happening, is that the first problem they come across is given as the excuse for crossing it off the ‘to do’ list.
As I have already said Cart. Come along Tuesday evening (7.30 Beau Sejour) when Paul Connet will explain what is happening in the waste industry and why it would be much better for Guernsey to go along with that model rather than tie ourselves into a 25 year contract with an inflexible and outdated waste solution that I think will reflect very poorly on us.
Did I start this with ‘in brief’? Oh dear….. I have GOT to get on..
Report abuse
GetOnWithIt
“Rodney Brouard’s proposal sounds good in plan but isn’t actual proven working technology, is it”
Actually it is proven working technology
Stop listening to Roy Bisson (if you are not Roy in disguise)
Report abuse
So Deputy Flouquet in today’s Press is saying…”See – we don’t even know whether Jersey is willing to take our waste”. Surely the point is, Deputy Flouquet, that we don’t know whether they WON’T take our waste, because you weren’t prepared to investigate that option. If you had, then we would already know where we stand on that point.
Has anybody considered the further alternative -that as part of a deal with Jersey we become part-owners of their incinerator ? Pay them a contribution of say £30m (rather than £93m) and do a deal on the resulting energy-from-waste in return for a long-term contract ? I’m sure that when Jersey comes to ponder the question of whether or not it wants our waste, their view could be swayed somewhat by a sizeable capital contribution to their existing project. Why not a formal joint venture ?
Report abuse
David,
It is quite wrong to say that Deputy Flouquet has been unprepared to investigate the possibility of exporting waste.
While Minister of the Environment Department in the last term, Deputy Flouquet took reports to the Assembly asking the States whether it had an appetite to investigate: a) procuring one waste disposal facility jointly with Jersey, and b) exporting waste. The States said “no thanks” on both occasions.
Incidentally, it was also Deputy Flouquet who proposed excluding mass burn incineration from the list of tender options when the previous States debated those. That proposal was defeated, too.
I am no more enthusiastic or supportive of the existing underlying waste policies than many of the posters on this site, but these policies are the product of democratic decisions made by successive States. Many of the accusations against the Public Services Department, its minister and members simply do not bear scrutiny.
Report abuse
Matt Fallaize says “Deputy Flouquet took reports to the Assembly asking the States whether it had an appetite to investigate: a) procuring one waste disposal facility jointly with Jersey”
No sign of legal problems in transporting waste there then!!!
Report abuse
The Man
OK, if Rodney’s system is workingand proven – as he has in mind for Guernsey – please tell us all where.
Total Waste. I have never been appraised of your proposals. Let us know where we can see them.
Rosie, how can you support processes that abandon recycling?
Report abuse
Roy.
Bornmouth
Ask Bernie, he has it.
What, like incineration?
Give it up Roy, your embarrasing yourself.
Report abuse
Stephen
You took the words right out of my mouth. Unfortunately Bernard Flouquet keeps forgetting what he has said previously.
Report abuse
So anyway Roy, at least you are now admitting that you were in fact rubbishing our proposal without having any idea what it was.
After further embarassing yourself on the radio this morning, will you now also admit that you have only been rubbishing all alternatives to Suez out of blind alligence to your mate?
It does really concen me that like yourself Deputy Le Lievre will blindly vote for this whatever the public want.
I would imagine that even if all the people that voted for him supported the Suez plan, they would be alarmed that he could not care less, whether they did or not.
As he stated on the radio he will vote for it purely because it is not in the Vale.
This shows how ill informed he is, about what he is voting for, as long as he believes he will be popular in the Vale.
Report abuse
Roy:
???
Report abuse
I had to laugh at Mr Le Lievre on the phone in, what was that all about seatbelts? talk about scraping the barrel. And so he doesn`t know where the 10,000 tons of ash will be going to? neither does Bernie.
Maybe RB will be needed ASWELL as suez to get rid of the ash?.
After listening to him speak then hearing Rosie and RB i think there will be many more against suez now.
Roy Bisson
Please dont try fooling us into thinking that this up front money is not a loan. If we the general public has to pay it back with interest to compensate for the loss it would have aquired by being invested then what the hell do you call that?. If it was not a loan then why are we paying it back?. Why are the gate fee`s so high? or do you want me to explain?.
The caller on the radio did NOT make any threats which was pointed out to you in vain so why lie?.
Report abuse
Roy
I am the Phil who emailed the phone in yesterday to say that any deputy who votes for the incinerator, taking into account the overwhelming public opinion against it, would be viewed as an idiot by the electorate.
You considered this a threat!!
Please point out to me how on earth you reached that conclusion? When JKT and Deputy Matthews pointed out that you were wrong I don’t believe you responded to them, so here is your chance to argue your case.
You’ve got about as much chance of winning it as you have of convincing everyone that the incinerator is a good idea!
Report abuse