I thought I should respond to the commentator here in a separate post. The question is how can you oppose an incinerator in Harlesden, but pass a contract for a similar facility outside London as part of the West London Waste Authority?
To my mind the key difference with the Harlesden proposal is its proximity to housing, which maximises the dangers from poor air quality. There is also the separate issue of vehicle movements around Harlesden's already overcrowded town centre. By contrast, the Sita plant will be built on derelict industrial land (an old chemical works) without nearby residents.
Why not oppose all electricity generation from waste? Here we come to the waste hierarchy concept that I posted on a long time ago. The waste hierarchy is well established as a guiding concept in planning and waste industry circles at national, regional and local level. It has five stages in descending order of desirability. The best is to produce any waste. The next is to re-use items. West London Waste Authority is probably at the leading edge of promoting these objectives. The third is to recycle, where Brent has enormously improved since Labour took power in 2010. Crucially the next stage is "recovery".which means burning waste. This is accepted as less desirable than the other stages, but better than landfill.
Incidentally, waste in landfill is a not very accessible resource. It continues to produce methane, which is an unattractive greenhouse gas. It also leaks leachate, polluted water, although this can be treated. Whatever materials that are put in a landfill site are then covered with soil and never used again.
Waste that is burnt in a power plant generates electricity, which the UK is going to be short of over the next few years. It also generates surplus heat, which can cut carbon emissions if it is sold to a major user. Financially, the new plant will save enormous amounts of money. Finally, the new power plant will not have "uncontrolled emissions". All such facilities in this country and the rest of the EU have extensive emissions regulation.
2 comments:
It is entirely possible that in 50 or 100 years, autonomous mining machines will work their way through land-fill sites, recovering valuable raw materials. Obviously that cannot happen if the stuff is burnt.
James, you're wrong on the statement that all emissions are controlled. Nanoparticulate matter is neither measured nor controlled, and it's a huge risk. It travels through cell walls. Check out Prof Paul Connett and also UKWIN. Here: http://ukwin.org.uk/ and here: http://www.slideshare.net/FrankieDolan/incineration-a-poor-solution-for-the-21st-century-by-dr-paul-connett
Incinerators in Germany have exploded.
Landfill mining is already happening. Burning waste is not sustainable, it's literally a waste.
Post a Comment