We’ll quit the island if Suez wins, parishioners tell Spruce
Monday 22nd March 2010, 1:00PM GMT.
Parish deputy Tony Spruce’s pro-Suez requete made the Vale surgery a lively one. (Picture by Adrian Miller, 0935912)
TEMPERS flared as politicians met constituents to talk about a requete designed to bring back the waste incinerator project.
At a lively Western deputies’ drop-in session more than 55 people said they were against the requete and, in the Vale meeting, requete leader Deputy Tony Spruce was confronted by emotionally charged parishioners and became so irritated that he threatened to leave.
Deputy Spruce told the meeting that the incinerator proposals had more support than many realised.
This was labelled ridiculous by 22-year-old Holly Lindsay, who has returned to the island after finishing a physics degree in Bath. ‘I have not met one person who is for Suez,’ she said.
Retired administrator Terry Moore said he would not put up with the incinerator. ‘If Suez comes in I will leave the island,’ he said.
However, some were not so dismissive of the Suez plans. Among them was Dennis Paul, who said the claims of health risks were probably overblown.
- 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
in my office of around 80 people, the ratio around the watercooler is about 50:50 to pros and cons for Suez- makes for some lively coffee breaks- but its true- there are plenty of people who support the idea. ( just to prempt the predictable rabid backlash- yes im local, and i live within a few 100m of the proposed site, and i’ve done the research,gone to the various talks [BOTH sides of the argument])
Report abuse
Laughable
“I will leave” ranks up there with “I will no longer recycle” (GP letter last week).
Where will they go? Every country in Europe has incinerators and some even have Nuclear Power (Shock, horror). Something down with how effective and green current incinerators are but then if you believe the spin at your Saturday meatdraw our children will be bankrupt and their children will be deformed.
At least the rat population will expand with the alternatives…mine are currently happy in their current home at my compost heap. Fine workers they are too.
Report abuse
“Deputy Spruce told the meeting that the incinerator proposals had more support than many realised.”
You, your wife, and who else?
Report abuse
As a young person of the island (25 and under bracket) I would like to say that Holly Lindsay has absolutely no right to speak for me, and her opinions do not reflect my own, thank you very much. Id like to know how a physics degree suddernly makes her an authority on the matter as well as a psychic who can read the minds of all “young people” to be our spokesmen. I will be glad to see the back of whingers who “threaten to leave” if this that and the other happen or dont happen, that is for sure.
Report abuse
“… Dennis Paul…said the claims of health risks were probably overblown.”
According to my copy of the Press, Health and Social Services Minister said that the Suez incinerator could be as bad as bonfires. Who could vote for something that bad?
Dennis Paul seems to live in denial as I see that on page 3 he is quoted as saying, in relation to Flamanville “But when it was built people were told all sorts of terrible things would happen.”
Perhaps he has forgotten the major incident of 2002 when control system A of one reactor failed when its power supply failed, then the cooling pump power supply failed, the backup battery power supply and emergency generator could not be used because of the failure of control system A, and system B failed, then the ominously named ‘turbogenerator of last resort’ started up….and shut down!
So how much are assurances worth?
Report abuse
I suggest the following extract from Rupert Dorey’s letter concentrates the mind far better than the claim by the Environmental civil servant, Valerie Cameron, that the health risk is minimal.
The Dorey extract
“2. There remain a number of significant risks which have not been quantified in the Suez proposal
* Upwards-only inflation cost risk to the operating contract.
* Open-ended and possibly adverse FX risk against the euro.
* Uncertain disposal routes for toxic bottom ash. The costs of bottom ash disposal have not been quantified.
* Construction cost escalation risks (IOM plant was contracted at £40m. but ended up costing £80m.).
* No decommissioning costs have been allowed for.
* No depreciation has been factored in to the operating costs.
* Two-year ‘guarantee’ offers minimal protection in the event of operational failures.
* High gate fee of £175 per ton will encourage waste diversion away from the plant via other routes, threatening the already marginal economics. These costs could add significantly to the approx £260m. lifetime costs of the Suez waste proposal. (Suez value of contract of £194m. + £66m. of financing charges borne by the Guernsey taxpayer/chargepayer.) This is equivalent to a minimum £28,000 per day, every day, for 25 years”
A well made case to reject Spruce.
Report abuse
Gwen
I don’t doubt what you are saying, but so far you are the only person I have heard mention a ratio greater than 50:5 against the Spruce requete and Suez. Where are these people, why arn’t they putting their views forward, certainly in my area of life I’m lucky to find 2 out of 50 and the meetings at the Douzaines on Saturday showed similar numbers. The general view is that there is little support for this requete or Suez.
You didn’t say if you were for or against?
Report abuse
Stephen John,
Is this the same Rupert Dorey who was heading an alterative proposal?
Really is a well made case and so believe everything in this letter. NOT
Did not Deputy Spruce and others who have seen the real figures not convey them and the enviromental impact or are you so in favour of destroying Guernsey and leaving the island with no waste strategy?
Lets gamble as it benefits other islands who will charge us say 300 pound a ton given we will have no option but to pay for 100% of the recycling and other waste to leave the island.
Lets double the amount of container traffic leaving the island, lets gamble we can put in place 100% recycling. In IOM they have all the recycling bins but still need an incinerator but hey, we will lead the world and our 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the pollution we put in the Environment in Britain, the world will be saved.
Note to all islanders we must all sell our 40000 cars, give up our bonfires, not import any consumables into the island.
VOTE SPUCE – DO NOT TURN UP ON WEDNESDAY IF YOU WANT AN INCINERATOR – It will make counting easier
Report abuse
i know of many who just want this thing built…it should have been done years ago…but then scott ogier had his way….that bloke has cost the island millions and we are still going nowhere, fast!
Report abuse
Gary Blanchford
I to struggle to find the numbers that Gwen speak of in fact i`ve come nowhere close to them,
To be honest i do doubt what he/she claims. Sorry ;).
Report abuse
I have had a total of 12 people who have said that they support the Suez proposals and have asked me to vote for the Spruce requete. 12 against the hundreds that are totaly apposed to this solution, I think the public on this occasion have made it abundantly clear that they want to reduce their waste stream first before we decide how to treat what is left.
Report abuse
no really! hand on heart! I also think a major factor in all this is the the Press are not publishing letters from the public who are pro’s. I haven’t written myself- but i know of two others (who knowing them, have probably submitted very cogent written argument, and have supplied theirs names accordingly) but the Press has chosen to print them.
Seems to those of us who support it, that as the Press is so anti-states, anti-civil service etc( and quite rightly so at times!)that its just putting across one side, and really neglecting those of us who have an alternative opinion- presumably as we are not so vocal.
My two cents worth anyway. This whole thing (the entire process- not the requete frenzy) has been a complete mess since Ogier stuffed the plans last time, and i’m feeling hugely apathetic about it all now- it actually makes me quite embarrassed that this is ‘my government’
Report abuse
Dave J – I’m amazed you got 12. Why would anyone phone you with a view they already know you disagree with? You are hardly a listening deputy when it comes to big issues.
Gwen – among my circle, the numbers are similar. Most don’t “want” Suez/Incineration, but around half recognise that it’s a darn sight safer strategically than any of the alternatives. We also recognise that recycling is a part of the Suez proposals. At worst, recycling into electricity. Many of us don’t like the costs, but aren’t against the principle.
If this is rejected, then a new scheme has to be specified, tendered for and worked on, probably to be eventually rejected in favour of an incinerator by the next house!
Report abuse
Just to try and redress the balance. At euchre recently, on my table, 2 supported the incinerator and 2 opposed it. Of the 2 opposed 1 didn’t currently recycle anything because,
” I pay my rates why should I bother?”.
When it was pointed out that in the future re-cycling would become compulsory and that they could be fined for not complying they weren’t best pleased.
I don’t want a huge incinerator any more than the next person but we need a credible solution to our waste and incineration unfortunately is the only one I have seen.
Report abuse
Gwen
Now you are really being desperate if you believe the Press has not been publishing pro Suez letters.
PC
You comment that an anti Suez vote will destroy Guernsey shows the sterility of the Pro camp followers.
Whether one agrees with Rupert Dorey’s alternative strategy has nothing to do with the validity of his figures re the anti Guernsey taxpayer, pro Suez profit margin proposals.
Report abuse
Stephen John,
We can all make figures creative and look worse and guess he is not an Accountant or manager of large projects. If he is then highlighting a few unknowns is good for his cause and will get people like yourself clinging on to it, using it to your advantage
His words…”Open-ended and possibly adverse FX risk against the euro” – risks normally on projects are mitigated but then joe public will not know that.
All the scare mongering has left 100 enviromental sheppards with 12,000 sheep believing there is an alternative.
Incinerator will heat 2000 homes – I see no mention in the above that the price of coal/electricity may rocket and this will be a significant benefit to the island
Petrol may increase significantly, price we get for our recycled goods may reduce leaving us with massive loss
The cost of sending our non-recyclables off island may be £300 a ton
Pro’s & Cons to both sides
As a note that 12,000 includes my 3 children under 10 and a senile great gran signed up by another family member without my consent and without their knowledge. Lets hope this is not typical but then Dave Jones has had 100′s anti phone him up. This is the pyramid effect. I e-mail 5 friends to sign who all e-mail 5 friends and guess what….1000′s. Tactic works well with online voting and guess what..you do not have to be in living in the island
There are a lot of enviromental positives with the incinerator and if the states believe it is affordable after spending significant money on unbiased (not brought in by activists)consultants then why should we not trust those we voted for and those who have more facts then me or you?
I recycle everything allowable but still have 2 black bin bags full of cooked food waste, and non recyclables. ALL EQUALS GERMS/DISEASE. I will not be prepared to sort my cooked food from other stuff that goes into that sack and nor will most of the island. It should be burnt and if it heats 2000 homes then brilliant.
Report abuse
Bob
Have another pop if you like.
I didn’t say they were all phone call’s, they are a mixture of encounters with people, letters, e-mails and phone calls. As for listening, I do listen to the arguments then I make up my mind, that’s my job as a Deputy, what else do you expect me to do?
Stephen not all the anti Suez have been by phone, again it is people in the street E-mails phone calls etc.
Report abuse
PC you really do make me laugh.
The incinerator will heat 0 homes.
If you bothered to check, the heating element is not being utilised.
Food waste requires energy to be expended to incinerate it, you may be confusing AD with incineration, oh no wait AD does not work acording to you.
What non recyclables will you be getting burned with your food waste?
How will your food waste be getting to the incinerator that will prevent germs and disease?
Report abuse
PC:
Coal and electricity prices will go up and the price of petrol wiill also increase. Maybe you will be able to save some money by reducing the amount of food you are chucking away. Incidentally, have you noticed that your dinner does not catch fire on your plate? That is because food doesn’t burn….. it uses up energy to burn…it doesn’t make it. So not terribly clever to be trying to make energy from it!
The incinerator will generate energy (NOT heat) for 2,000 homes when it is operating at the optimum level. Because of the high gate fees, it is extremely likely that the necessary waste streams will not arrive at the plant because everyone will be looking for different and cheaper routes for their waste. For instance, wood could be taken off island for £108 per tonne instead of the £175 Suez gatefee. Without the wood, the plant would struggle to operate effectively…. or to produce the amount of energy they predict.
Furthermore, making energy by burning MSW is a very inefficient way of generating energy (approx 20% efficiency) and its dirty too, creating more CO2 than burning oil. When we have to start to reduce our CO2 emissions or pay the penalty of not doing so…. that high emission energy might suddenly start costing us a lot more!
Certainly, well within the lifetime of the Suez plant I would hope that we would be making our energy using zero-carbon marine energy. Why would we then want energy that is coming out of a mass-burn incinerator and creating a lot of CO2?
Why do you think that the Deputies have more facts than us? What facts would these be? The billets and reports are all available to us too. And why would you think that consultants are not biased? If you hire someone from a company that specialises in technological fixes…. then that is what you will probaly end up with. Similarly, if you hire someone from a company that specialises in ‘green’ solutions…. chances are you will get one of those. They will both be biased towards their various ideals. A lot depends on the questions you ask and to whom you ask them.
Report abuse
Rosie make a good an balanced point about consultancy. As a general comment, consultants are generally brought in to nod through the preferred policy. I challenge anyone to show me a consultant that has advised any government department a vastly differing solution than the desired policy.
A really interesting one will be what happens, if anything, to the ‘tank wall’ at L’Ancressese. That was built by the Germans during the Occupation. Before it’s build L’Ancresse bay was largely sand dunes.
An engineer deals in concrete, aggragate and piling. If you ask him what the best course of action would be he’d probably advise rebuild.
The alternative is actually something called soft enginnering, where you revert back to the pre war duning. Asking an engineer to consider not putting something back would be out of his and probably the Department’s comfort zone.
So who would be right?
Report abuse
I agree with Neil
I’m sure many States Departments call in expensive consultants merely to boost their own pre-conceived ideas
They can then take a weak proposition to the States debate and claim that XYZ experts Ltd recommend that course of action
Rather lazy and certainly costly
Perhaps we should have a consultancy Tzar who has to approve the cost of bringing in consultants
Report abuse
Neil
You are right about the old consultancy trick, the nodding technique.
I would suggest that whilst consultants do not offer “vastly differing solution than the desired policy”, they do provide vastly more expensive variations of the desired solution.
Ray you are right it is lazy management by lazy decision makers.
Report abuse
I find myself largely in agreement with Stephen, Neil and Ray.
On another thread Dave Jones makes reference to Frontier Economics. It is well worth “Googling” FE in order to cast further light upon their field of operations and upon their general political standpoint. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, consultancy agencies often come with a track record which reflects their political perspective.
Report abuse
So…. we must keep an eye out for who the next consultants are (if any) if we are keen to make sure that Guernsey is not to be sent on another goose chase looking for alternative techno fix to replace Suez.
Report abuse
Can Holly Lindsay, and others concerned about the health effects of incineratin look at the incineration section at http://www.ukhr.org
Kind regards,
Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
Report abuse