‘Excellence in waste’
Tuesday 23rd March 2010, 11:29AM GMT.
ALL the options that have been advanced as alternatives to the Suez waste proposals have been put together in a single report for the first time.
Excellence in Waste has been sent to all deputies and has been written by Advocate Roger Dadd (pictured), who chaired a panel to look into waste options for the States in 2004.
He said he wanted to make it easier for deputies to weigh up the merits of all the other solutions that have been put forward.
The three files are available as PDFs by clicking on the links below:
- 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
Excellent idea, just a few years late. Although I’d have thought that the deputies would have already seen all the alternatives and weighed up the merits before making a decision in the first place.
Just a thought
Report abuse
These are the guys with the correct current information, just hope our deputies have read it and understood it?
How could this panel have been ignored?
Also shows up the misinformation we have been fed by PSD, shameful!
Report abuse
Roger Dadd’s report is useful and it would be nice if The States published some justification for the size of the Suez plant. However, Mr Dadd’s report seems to contain a number of significant shortcomings.
1. No country in Europe has achieved any significant waste reduction to date. (Eurostat data.) Similarly, a signifant improvement in recycling rates here is depended upon better design of imported products (food packaging, etc) and improved markets for recovered materials. Materials sorted from trash is still trash if not wanted. We expect a lot from Guernsey which has little influence here.
2. The bio dijester described in the report will only address organic waste such as food waste. What about the rest or non-recyclables such as mixed plastic waste, packaging laminates, etc.
3. There is no reference to what is to happen to the considerable quantities of toxic dijestate from the anaerobic dijester. At least he is not suggesting we spread it on cultivated land. Similarly, toxic water from gas scrubbers – into the sea?
4. Wood and wood products have adverse effects in dijesters. Much of our treated wood is contaminated with toxic treatments including lead, mercury and arsenic. They should not be burnt in uncontrolled systems as proposed (although I know this is current practice).
5. The Vantage process anticipates turning all our waste into a saleable product. If the process will not work or the product cannot be sold we have a major problem. This is an untried process. The Friends of the Earth Briefing Note on Autoclaving (2008)concludes that it is unlikely to be workable and is a high risk strategy.
6. The Green Homes pyrolysis process looks atractive. However, it is a combustion process, has the same issues as an incinerator and is classifed as such under EU guidelines. The Friends of the Earth Briefing Note on Pyrolysis and Gassification comments on these issues and also states that this is relatively new technology with most of the data coming from the manufacturers themselves. The company that visited Guernsey recently did not appear to have experience of this plant when used with municipal waste.
I appreciate that I have fallen into this trap but it is of concern that what is essentially a technical/commercial decision process seems to be regarded as an issue for politicians with no technical background.
Report abuse