Have Indaver burnt their Budget?

by Biker Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:14

I've heard that in the good old Windscale - Sellafield tradition Indaver Ireland have decided on a name-change. From now on they'll be known as Cadaver Ireland plc.

by Max Fri Apr 06, 2007 23:26

Funny you mention Sellafield and Windscale, Indaver seems to have gone nuclear too. Their majority shareholder is a strong advocate of nuclear power, and their second largest industrial shareholder, Suez, with 14% are market leaders in nuclear energy.

Delta say (press release 29 Sept 2006) "For some time now, the company has been advocating the construction of a second nuclear power station in the Province of Zeeland, which could be operational from 2016. The company applauds the Junior Ministers stance on nuclear energy in the coming period of transition."

Suez say (Press Release Feb 15, 2007)
SUEZ is a market leader in nuclear power and has extensive expertise in the field.

The Group, which operates seven reactors in Belgium and has holdings in the power plants in Chooz and Tricastin in France, confirms that nuclear power is a key element in its development strategy. Its expertise covers the entire value chain, including design and construction of new power plants, operation and maintenance of existing sites and
decommissioning of closed facilities.

So if Ireland needs a nuclear power plant, won't Indaver be well positioned to bring it here.

by PJ Fri Apr 06, 2007 23:29

That worrying - lie down with dogs and you get up with fleas........

by Thomas Fri Apr 06, 2007 23:55

Don't dismiss nuclear power out of hand. The way the climate issues are heading it's looking like we might need it. It doesn't add to our carbon footprint, and that is priority no 1 at the moment.

So if Indaver can give it to us, why not let them if the opportunity arises.

by Maire Sat Apr 07, 2007 10:40

The environment groups of NGOs in the country have found that Indaver have been empowered by the government at every stage of their endeavors to get their hands on the tolling waste industry in this country.
A site in Cork harbour which was believed to belong to Ispat, passed without murmur to Indaver, a very short time before Ispat went bankrupt, leaving a bill for cleanup of 35 million.for the taxpayer. It seems to be impossible to find out how this happened.
The site in question was ring fenced for stand alone port related industry.with a built in protection in the County Development Plan that it should not be used for commercial incineration. Our County Council voted by a large majority that commercial incineration should not come into Cork Harbour., 30, 000 Cork people, concerned about toxic emissions and the effects on their health, signed petitions that it should not come into Cork Harbour,. The Senior Planner of BP after an oral hearing signaled that he could not condone it , as he had safety concerns, one of 14 reasons he gave. They got their planning, which they may be now able to sell on, because it was government policy..
The licence was given by the EPA after an oral hearing which pointed out that this site was in a flooding area and its boundary line was an eroding coastline. Who cares about the environment? After the BP oral hearing and before the EPA oral hearing, .Martin Cullen plucked L. Burke the Project Manager of Indaver and appointed her to the EPA as a Director!!! They got their licence, just five weeks after the OPW announced they were going to assess the flooding of the Harbour Area. They confirmed it was a flooding area.
The recent appointment of a key player in the incinerator industry to An Bord Pleanala means everything is in place with the co-operation of the government for any undemocratic action this industry may make - tolling waste, or a platform to lobby for nuclear.
They hilarious thing is, the Taoiseach wants to promote non-government organisations and active citizenship.

by Miriam Cotton Sun Apr 08, 2007 11:25

A letter in the UK Independent yesterday makes it clear that we have been grossly underestimating and under-utilising the possibilites of solar power. There is more than a little irony in the idea that the solution to our energy needs may lie in the most arid and inhospitable parts of the planet and among the people most negatively affected by the wealth imbalance between the 'west' and the 'third world'. The Independent had reported that Sicily was to build the first solar power plant on the 28th of March. However Dr Gerry Wolff, of Anglesey points out that this not at all the case. He says that power plants of this type - using mirrors to concentrate sunlight to create heat then use the heat to raise steam and drive turbines and generators like a conventional power station - have been operating in California since 1985, and 500,000 Californians get their electricity from this source. He says that a new plant of this sort became operational in Spain last week.

'CSP works best in hot deserts and, of course, there are not many of these in Europe. But it is feasible andeconomic to transmit solar electricity over very long distances using highly efficient 'HDVC' transmission lines. With transmission losses at about 3 per cent per 1,000km, solar electricity may, for example, be transmitted from North Africal to London with only about 10 per cent loss of power. A large-scale HVDC transmission grid has also been proposed by the winde energy company Airtricity as a means of optimising the use of wind power throughout Europe.'

Dr Wolff claims the potential is massive: calculations show that an area of hot desert measuring about 110km x 110km , if covered with CSP plants, would produce as much electricity as the EU consumes. A recent report from the American Solar Energy Society says that CSP plants in the south-western states of the US 'could provide nearly, 7,000GW of capacity, or about seven times the current total US electric capacity.

He ocntinues "In the recent 'TRANS-CSP' report commissioned by the German government, it is estimated that CSP electricity, imported from North Africa and the Middle East, could become one of the cheapest sources of electricity in Europe, including the cost of transmission. That repoort shows in great detail how Europe can meet all its needs for electricity, make deep cuts in CO2 emissions, and phase out nuclear power at the same time."

Meanwhile the USA and Britain are set to continue with the slaughter in Iraq, begin yet another genocidal war in Iran - and all to protect the wealth interests of the Texan and other oil barons who are driving these wars to maintain their monopoly over, and our dependance on, planetary fossil fuel resources. It's obscene.

by maire Mon Apr 09, 2007 17:09

What is clear is, it is time for a moratorium on incineration for at least 10 years , real support to be put into clean energy, and an awareness that we are only 4+ million living in Ireland, surely we can manage our waste and our energy without nuclear, and without incineration.

by John Ahern - Indaver Ireland Fri May 11, 2007 15:42 jahern at indaver dot ie

Did you not know that the incineration of biodegradable waste with energy recovery is a renewable form of energy production as it is considered carbon neutral - see EU directive on renewable energy.

In addition incinerating our own hazardous waste in Ireland reduces our carbon emissions as the transport emissions of shipping it as far away as Finland for incineration are saved.

John

by maire Fri May 11, 2007 18:06

Incineration with energy recovery is bad for the environment , having an estimated environmental cost of l7 euros per tonne. This compares to an environmental cost of 5 euro per tonne for landfill. Recycling, on the other hand, provides an overall environmental benefit of 250 euros per tonne.
A large number of chemicals released through incinerator chimneys are greenhouse gases so there is a net loss to the environment .
Incineration is a very inefficient and polluting way of generating energy.
For the sake of the planet, most of our energy needs should be met by truly renewable sources: solar, wind and wave power.
Incineration minimise the incentive to recycle and compost, while the capital investment provides a financial imperative to make sure that recycling and composting never reach levels where there is not enough rubbish to incinerate.
The very argument you are now making to the government to put up the price for landfill makes it clear that your projections for a tolling monopoly incinerator industry may not be viable.

Did you know that nature has a way of dealing with biodegradable waste that is carbon neutral also, and that a certain amount of energy from waste could be captured using naturally occurring methane from community composting facilities based on anaerobic digestion.

You intend getting clients to transport hazardous waste from all over Ireland down to Cork, and think that this will reduce our carbon emissions!!!!

by John B Sun May 13, 2007 13:22

See the latest report on waste management in Ireland published by Eunomia Research UK who have an alternative viewpoint as the following extract illustrates. Their view seems to be that Indaver type incinerators are net contributers to greenhouse gas emmissions

"the supposed superiority of incineration as a
treatment for residual waste is increasingly called
into question. analysis undertaken for this report
indicates that environmental costs for incinerators
are not necessarily lower than those for landfills.
This is consistent with work undertaken in the
UK by HM customs & excise, following on from
earlier work for DEFRA on the Health effects of
Waste Management options and recent work in the
Netherlands. Our estimate is based upon damage
costs associated with air emissions as estimated
in work undertaken for the clean air for Europe
Programme. it does not include an estimate of the
external costs of disamenity effects. These, however,
have the potential to be significant for incinerators
by virtue of the typically high housing densities
around such facilities.
Furthermore, it is not clear that where incinerators
are configured to generate electricity only, their
impact on climate change is positive. If it is correct
to assume that over the lifetime of the facility, the
carbon intensity of displaced energy generation
is similar to that of combined cycle gas turbines,
then incinerators generating only electricity are
net contributors to greenhouse gas emissions and
not, as commonly stated, helping to reduce such
emissions. Other waste treatments would appear to
perform better in respect of climate change and not
all of these generate energy.
There is a pressing need to consider whether the
capacity for treating biodegradable municipal
waste – anticipated as necessary in the national
biodegradable Waste strategy for meeting landfill
directive targets – is likely to be delivered in the
remaining time available (before 2010).
It would appear that ireland needs a Plan B
(something other than incineration). "

by John Ahern - Indaver Mon May 14, 2007 20:56

If you need further proof of the benefit of incineration on climate change check out the IPCC -Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change- www.IPCC.ch – which will tell you that the incineration of the biodegradable fraction (about 70%) of municipal waste is good for stabilising our CO2 emission.

by maire - chase Tue May 15, 2007 10:52

Incineration is going to cost us the tax payer money.

It will release millions of extra tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere - over 61 million over the life of the proposed incinerator in carbon taxes.

Indaver want the government to put a tax on landfill to make incinerations more viable. We the tax payer will end up paying more for waste charges while indaver make huge profits, just like the toll roads.

The present overwhelming scientific agreement on global warming means there is no justification for burning limited resources and increasing our CO2 emissions.

It is time to plan for the future where we have a moral obligation to do so now.

Mass incineration has no part to play in how Ireland does this.

by John Ahern - Indaver Wed May 16, 2007 07:19

Indaver has called on the Government to increase the landfill levy from €15.00 per tonne to closer to the European average of €45.00 per tonne. We have also requested that the money raised is used to susbsidise recycling thus achieving an environmental objective of diverting waste from landfill. The landfill levy is about changing the behavior of people not raising money.

We have a target from the EU to divert waste from landfill. This means we will be paying fines from 2010 onwards as without incineration we have no hope of meeting these targets. This means the tax payer will have to pay higher taxes if we don't have incineration. Therefore the situation is not as you describe but the reverse.

Low landfill charges, as is the case in Ireland, destroys the recycling market. Ask the recyclers - if you don't want to believe us.

Incineration with energy recovery helps to stabilise CO2 emissions. Ask the EU, the UN and the IPCC.

Check the references above and you will see the benefits of incineration.

John

by maire - CHASE Wed May 16, 2007 10:56

The economic benefits of incineration to Indaver are in no doubt, but have to be offset by the lack of health benefits to the public, and these future costs have to be planned for.
Indaver directing our waste policy means we are not exposed to Best Available Technology.

An accurate assessment of the public health implications of a waste disposal facility can only be meaningful if it is specific to that facility, the environment, and community surrounding the facility. Although modeling and other risk assessment methodologies provide useful predictive data, this information should be supplemented with actual data from the facility in question surrounding the environment and above all the health data from potentially affected communities.

Indaver specifically put in their appeal under the old act which meant that An Bord Pleanala did not consider the health effects, and gave no opportunity to communities to have their concerns heard at the An Bord Pleanala hearing. The new act six weeks later would have ensured that health concerns would have been taken into account. Was it for "convenience".

The selection of a specific location of an incineration or other waste disposal facility should be influenced by the demographics of the proposed location.
The flooding of this site has huge implications for the contamination of the River Lee, that is why site selection is so important and why hazardous facilities should not be included in fast tracking. under S.I.B.

A review from a public health perspective of design, operating, maintenance and monitoring data of a proposed incinerator is critical to ensure that the operation of such an incinerator is not likely to be harmful to the public.
The Senior Inspector of An Bord Pleanala, when he expressed his view and warned of harm to the public was ignored, and over ruled.

Health monitoring is as important as facility monitoring: i.e. the conduct of well designed health monitoring studies before, during and after operation of the facility should be an integral component of the overall project.

The public did not get this, indeed Mary Kelly of the EPA said there were no resources to routinely monitor the health of people living near incineration. The development of a comprehensive health-oriented demographic profile to include population density and socioeconomic indicators of a proposed siting location is therefore needed.

Community participation in each aspect of the overall project is critical. Involving communities creates an overall awareness and an opportunity for productive information exchange among all parties involved.
Critical environment information was actually kept from the communities, - flooding of Ringaskiddy site - this was a fact and should have been acknowledged. Also the government "Race against Waste " leaflet on incineration has misinformation which is dangerous -Do emission from modern incineration harm health? NO!!

With having to pay for CO2 emissions in the future, there are no benefits of incineration to anybody except to Indaver, see www.chaseireland.org

by Sally O Brien. Wed May 16, 2007 13:30

Of course John Ahern would say what he says. Does he think we are fools? The reason he wants landfill charges increased is solely because he wants to make incineration more financially attractive. His sole mission is to make as much money as possible for his shareholders and to maximize his own bonus. It’s as simple as that and lets drop the “we are really interested in helping Ireland reduce its’ waste “ waffle.

The following are points from the most recent report on waste management in Ireland called ‘Waste Policy, Planning and Regulation in Ireland,’ (Dr.D Hogg,2007 )

The report looks at the entire waste management system in place in Ireland at present. The author met with various Departments, Senior Civil Servants, key players in the waste industry, NGOS’ the EPA and many others in late 2006..

The report examines the structures that exist at present, where the problems lie and the possible solutions to those problems.

It relation to Mr. Ahern’s assertions it makes the following points;

1 According to the report the Republic will have to meet stringent EU targets on reducing the amount of biodegradable waste going to landfill. It recommends smaller facilities which provide mechanical and biological treatments. These should be examined as alternatives to incineration and landfill.

2.There are alternatives to thermal processes for dealing with residual waste in such a way as to comply with Landfill Directive targets. Enabling regulation is required, this being the responsibility of DOEHLG. ( not directed by a private company )

3.“The supposed superiority of incineration as a treatment for residual waste is increasingly called into question. Analysis undertaken for this report indicates that environmental costs for incinerators are not necessarily lower than those for landfills. This is consistent with work undertaken in the UK by HM Customs & Excise, following on from earlier work for Defra on the Health Effects of Waste Management Options and recent work in the Netherlands. The estimate is based upon damage costs associated with air emissions as estimated by the Clean Air for Europe Programme

4, Furthermore, it is not clear that where incinerators are designed to generate electricity only, their impact on climate change is positive. Incinerators generating only electricity are net contributors to greenhouse gas emissions and not, as commonly stated, helping to reduce such emissions. Other waste treatments would appear to perform better in respect of climate change and not all of these generate energy.

Not alone do we have DR Hogg’s report but we also have the Stern report and the most recent United Nations stance on Global warming which gives a very severe warning to Governments of the danger of ignoring global warming and doing nothing. Dr. John Sweeney of NUI Maynooth, has also warned the Government of the same danger and the threat of severe flooding in Ireland. The EPA has also agreed.

We cannot keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Worse still, we shouldn’t think of pumping hundreds of thousands of extra tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, which would be the consequence of incineration as a way of dealing with our waste.

With the overwhelming scientific agreement on global warming, there can be no justification for burning limited resources and increasing our CO2 emissions.

The latest report from the British Society of Ecological Medicine (BSEM 2006 ) also agrees that there are better alternatives;

“ Far safer alternative methods are now available including recycling, mechanical

biological treatment and plasma gasification: a combination of these would be both

safer and cheaper than incineration in the long run, much cheaper when the health

costs were taken into account. These more up-to-date methods should be employed.”

(The Health Effects of Waste Incinerators, 4th Report of the British Society for Ecological Medicine

Moderators: Dr Jeremy Thompson and Dr Honor Anthony)

I am sure Mr Ahern is trying very hard to educate us but I know who I will be relying on for my information. It certainly won’t be an incinerator sales man who has made a class act over the last number of years of misquoting information.

Sally O’Brien

by John Mc L Wed May 16, 2007 23:45

The Climate Change Debate has taken over the Waste Management Debate.

The Oil Crisis Debate has taken over the Waste Management Debate.

The world has moved away from incinerating waste.

Waste needs to be reduced. When produced, it ineeds to be treated as a resource.

Oil can be made from this resource.

The future is in making oil from waste. As previous bloggers have pointed out - the technology is already there.

Ireland is going up a cul-de-sac with incineration.

by John Ahern - Indaver Fri May 18, 2007 08:37

John Mc L raises an important point and is correct. Waste, climate change and energy policies are merging and the debates are becoming one debate. Enter waste to energy. We have waste and we are over dependent on fossil fuel. Burning waste in an incinerator is renewable energy when we burn biodegradable waste (70% of municipal waste). The majority of the non-biodegradable waste we burn is plastic that either cannot be recycled (composites) or that is contaminated with food residues. What is plastic made of - oil.

Burning plastic in an incinerator is better than converting plastic to oil and then burning it anyway. Burning plastic is reusing plastic waste rather than putting it into a landfill where the energy is lost. By burning plastic we are getting a second turn from it before discarding the final residue.

John

by Recycletta Mon May 21, 2007 15:53

"Burning plastic in an incinerator is better than converting plastic to oil and then burning it anyway - John Aherne"

Thats an interesting twist.

You could say that about all recycling. Is Indaver now publically committing itself to a mass-burn anti-recycling policy? Surely not?

So lets say for arguments sake we don't burn the plastic or the biodegradable waste in the incinerator.

Let's say we run all of it it through a MBT process followed by fuel production.

So the food gets composted and adds value to the earth. Surely you are not going to say that incineration beats that?

The metal gets removed and recycled, saving resources for future generations and the carbon cost of extracting new metal- does passing it through an incinerator make any gain here?

The cardboard and paper of a certain quality is removed for recycling into new paper - eg the kind of recycled paper we see in newsprint every day - you say burning it is better??

Plastics of appropriate grades are removed to make into new plastics and so save on the amount of precious oil needed to make plastic - you say burning this is better too?

Contaminated paper, cardboard, food, plastic - used to make ethanol vehicle fuel which is burned in place of scarce oil resources saving them for future generations. But this you don't value....

You're right that there is no sense in sending it to a landfill but there seems to be even less of an argument for burning it in an incinerator.

At least future generations have the option of digging up old landfills and mining resources from them to make fuel. Once gone up the chimney the waste as a resource is lost to your children. And they won't have much oil either.

If Eunomia UK is to be believed, there is no carbon benefit to incineration over other waste treatment methods.

So why not recycle? Just because things go round in a circle doesnt mean they are wrong John. It actually means that its right, and natural.

by John Ahern - Indaver Mon May 21, 2007 17:56

You will note I talked about plastic that cannot be recycled i.e. composites and contaminated plastic. Not clean segregated plastic that of course should be recycled.

All metal going into an incinerator is recycled as we use magnets to remove the clean metal from the ash. We can recover metal bottle tops!!

Have you ever seen an MBT plant. The metal recovery is much less than from an incinerator as much of it is composite i.e. plastic/wood/metal nailed/glued together and therefore difficult/impossible to recycle.

You will not be able to use the paper/cardboard, as it will be contaminated by food residues and therefore not suitable for recycling in paper mills. The plastic and other light residues are usually sent for incineration and the compost produced is usually only good for landfill cover.

Your comment about composting is interesting. Do you propose taking mixed municipal waste putting it into a magic MBT plant, producing compost from mixed waste and then spreading it on the land? Do you not know that Irish land is saturated with animal manure and human waste already? You propose adding compost from residual household waste as well. Watch the water quality. The Galway problem will have been a walk in the park compared to what you propose.

Have a closer look at MBM and you will see that most do not work correctly and have been deemed a failure in many countries. They are principally used to “get around” the landfill directive as they do reduce the organic fraction and therefore allow the residues (about 60% ) of what goes in the be land-filled later or incinerated.

Companies that wish to extend the life of their landfill projects usually support MBT. MBT is a political solution…not a practical solution. It is seen by some as good because it is not incineration. Try doing a life cycle analysis of a plant sometime.

Incineration is not the only solution proposed for managing our waste in Ireland. An integrated solution with reduction, recycling, recovery, composting, incineration (about 25%) and finally land-filling the residues is proposed.

Do the research on MBT before adopting it blindly.

John

by Cork Harbour Resident Mon May 21, 2007 21:53

John Ahern, you say that low landfill rates are BAD for recycling too - to ask the recycling industry.

Well how about this - the one consistent communication we have had from the recycling industry is to KEEP INDAVER OUT - that the incinerators will KILL the recycling industry.

And that's from several of the national recycling companies.

This isn't meant to be opportunity to tell us about Belgiums recycling rates... how Indaver particpates in recycling etc etc. Most of us know that pitch by heart at this stage, and we aren't in Belgium

I'm just repeating what the other waste management companies, who are currently competing with each other and you for recycling have said about your incinerators.

by Jamie Tue May 22, 2007 13:01

Recycletta, John Ahern, Cork Harbour Resident

I find John Ahern's rant against recycling to be amazing.

To say that compost from waste can never be spread on land is gross misinformation. True, standards would have to be very high for it to be used in Agriculture but I dont think that Recycletta said that. Compost from municipal waste is used world wide ( and in Ireland) on road verges, remediation of tailings ponds, parkland remediation etc. Have Indaver learned nothing from its membership of CRE the national composting agency? Or is their membership just another PR stunt?

To claim that passing metal through an incinerator in order to recover it is superior to source segregating or removal in a recycling plant is just daft. What of the energy wasted doing that? Is Indavar's recycling enterprise in Ireland a PR scam too? One would have to think this when John Ahern's true feelings on recycling are aired in this manner.

I dont know any MBT operator in Ireland that also operates landfills. Anybody investing in this equipment at present is doing it to keep waste out of costly landfill, not put it in.

The legitimate recycling industry is justifibly suspicious of Indaver's motives in wanting to burn everything. Recycling in Ireland has risen from 8% in 1995 to 35% in 2005 - without any help from incineration. Ireland is already at its 2020 recycling target and has the potential to go much much higher - but ONLY if incineration is stopped.

And as for energy from waste - other bloggers are commenting on making an oil type product from it and cite croatia and canada as examples - this sounds like an infinitely better solution that just letting it go up in smoke.

by maire Thu May 31, 2007 16:08

Jamie,
You mention John Ahern ranting about recycling. Did you hear the programme on "The business" on RTE 1 last Sunday, when Mr. John Ahern admitted that commercial incineration will tie us up for the next 30 years, but he fails to mention that the adverse effects on health and climate change have to be assessed in the economic argument over that period.
Commercial incineration will become more problematic in the future, not just landfill charges making it non viable, for Indaver.
Mr. Ahern in the past has been gifted by the media many times a platform for his argument, usually unchallenged,(Prime Time being the exception) and has in the past tried to direct our waste policy, and was still trying to direct our new government's waste policy on that programme.
I realise that Indaver getting its hands on a monopoly tolling waste incinerator is big business for Indaver, but what of the other opportunities and jobs which will be lost, if we allow him to manipulate the creation of the material supply for this industry.
Could the media give a platform to the other side of the argument, and at least explore MBT. 30 years is a long time to be tied into an uneconomical, unhealthy, non eco friendly industry.
Industries already using in house incineration will move to cleaner methods when they become available and get supported by our government, they at least know what is going into their incinerator, and do not foresee using Indaver's incinerator.
What with the overwhelming scientific agreement on global warming, there can be no economic justification for gifting to this company the monopoly of burning limited resources and increasing our CO2 emissions.

by Recycletta Thu Jun 07, 2007 15:35

Marie,

Don't you think there is something odd in the reported reluctance of FF to bring in policy offering alternatives to the development of Indaver Incinerators?

See below extract from Irish Times yesterday about FF/Greens negotiations.

"(Fianna Fail ) has also expressed a willingness to consider a review and potential moratorium on municipal incineration, but on the basis that it could not apply to plants with current planning approval, or those in the middle of the planning process.

The incineration company Indaver has put plans to build incinerators in Meath and Cork Harbour on hold because of unhappiness over Government policy, while a third planned incinerator for Poolbeg in Dublin Bay has also run into difficulties."

Surely it doesnt matter if a new policy is in place removing exclusivity of incinerators and Indaver can make their own commercial decision? But FF position seems to be that Indaver incinerators must be built and that policy must protect them...

Are Chase in there giving Greens the viewpoint of Meath and Cork voters?

by ML Wed Jul 11, 2007 17:18

Recycletta,

Your extract of FF incineration policy is interesting in hindsight. Its now starting to look like green policy or at least the Greens being hoodwinked into believing they have no choice but to stand back and say nothing while a live planning process is happening.

Of course they have a choice. Stay away from the planning process if you must - God knows a default permission caused by the innocent meddlings of a Minister is not what the country needs - but Irish citizens have a right to have their minister investigate flaws in the procurement process at Poolbeg. How on earth can Dublin City Council get away with appointing a new tenderer mid procurement process? And why shouldnt the Minister produce new national waste policy promoting preferential planning status to techno0logies higher up the waste hierarchy than incineration?

The new Minister has lots of scope to prevent Incineration becoming the only solution.

by Cammum Thu Jul 12, 2007 16:19

From www.healthandsafetybusiness.com

Qatar: Sustainable Waste Management Project Under Way

Keppel Seghers of Singapore, a waste-to-energy and wastewater technology equipment specialist, is to build the first integrated solid waste treatment facility in the Middle East for the Qatar Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Agriculture. Keppel Seghers will design and build four waste transfer stations and one plant to handle and treat domestic solid waste for the whole of Qatar. The new integrated plant will treat an initial capacity of more than 1,550 tonnes of waste a day and will have waste sorting and recycling facilities, landfill, composting plant and a 1,000 tonnes per day waste-to-energy incineration plant.

The proprietary technology to be used includes the Keppel Seghers water-cooled grate, the Danodrum system for recycling and pre-treatment of waste, the rotary atomiser semi-dry system for flue gas treatment and the Unibrane membrane bioreactor system for wastewater treatment. Integrated waste management significantly reduces the amount of waste sent to landfill by reducing the volume to be incinerated through composting and recycling, thus extending the expected life of landfills and reducing the amount of land that has to be set aside for future landfill. Resources such as fertilisers and electricity are created from the waste.

As a company, Seghers has a chequered history. A Seghers incinerator run by Indaver in Antwerp, Belgium, was closed down in August 2002 because it breached its dioxin emissions limit by 1,300 times, contaminating a 12-km zone. Further testing in January 2003 demonstrated that it could not meet emissions targets and the plant was closed. In December 2002, another Seghers incinerator in the city of St Niklaas was ordered to close by court order. The company was declared bankrupt and its assets were purchased by the Singaporean Keppel Corporation.

by maire Fri Jul 13, 2007 15:31

Recycletta, Sorry for delaying in giving my opinion on the reported reluctance of FF to bring in policy offering alternatives to the development of Indaver Incinerators?

From day one, in Cork, in acquiring land from Irish Steel (Ispat), shortly before it went bankrupt, the government has kept protecting Indaver from responsibility to the taxpayer. Be it in health, where they pulled the cloak in timing of an old Act , which meant the public never got their say on the risks to health. The appointment of their project manager to the EPA. before they got their licence was another incident. The ludicrous site selection of a site in a flooding area, with an eroding coastline, in a thermal invertion valley, 50 meters from a third level international marine school . The ignoring of l4 reasons why one of An Bord Pleannala's senior inspectors could not advise planning permission, because of safety risks, means I do think it odd. Government Policy being encouraged over public safety!!
I have looked for reasons, and I have imagined I have heard Dermot Ahern speaking like John Ahern and that maybe its all in a name.

by Ali G Sun Jul 15, 2007 21:31

Theres trouble afoot on Indaver's home territory it seems. WWW.DUTCHNEWS.COM reports that Delta, the Dutch company that bought Indaver last January, is now in trouble with their owners the Dutch government who are not so happy that the success of Delta's international expansion depends on the national energy supply networks. They have just passed a new law that Delta is v unhappy about. The new law will reduce the worth of Delta by removing from its ownership the state constructed distribution network ( think ESB).
So will Delta be rich enough or bothered enough to be investing in marginal incinerators in Ireland after this? It remains to be seen...

by ML Thu Aug 16, 2007 16:33

MUMBAI (Thomson Financial) - Standard & Poor's Ratings Services said it lowered Netherlands-based Delta NV's long-term corporate credit rating to 'A-' from 'A+' with a negative outlook.

The downgrade reflects Delta's acquisition of Indaver, Belgian waste management company, and Solland, Dutch solar energy company, and its plans to expand its power generation capacity, S&P said.

S&P said Delta's business risk profile has become weaker as a result of the acquisitions and investments.

S&P added and that Delta's acquired operations are exposed to competitive markets and that a smaller proportion of operating profit and cash flows will be generated from regulated activities.

The rating agency said the acquisitions also put pressure on Delta's strong financial risk profile, which may weaken further due to the company's current and planned investments in power generation assets.

S&P said its negative outlook on Delta reflects the potentially significant credit implications of the Dutch government's plans to split the country's energy companies into separate distribution and generation entities by January 2011. tfn.newsdesk@thomson.com

by Info Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:58

From the internet : the facts behind the indaver change in ownership.

Delta in Acquisition of Indaver Group
February 15, 2007

Cleary Gottlieb is representing Dutch multi-utility company Delta N.V. in its successful bid for the Indaver Group. Following the announcement in mid-December that Delta N.V. was the preferred candidate among more than 20 bidders, Delta N.V. and the 17 selling shareholders of Indaver entered into exclusive negotiations regarding the purchase of 60% of Indaver’s shareholding. Delta has valued Indaver at an enterprise value of €545 million.

On February 15, Delta N.V. signed a share purchase agreement with the majority shareholder of Indaver, Vlaamse Milieuholding, a holding company of the Flemish Region. The other selling shareholders are multinational companies, mainly operating in the chemical industry, including Afga Gevaert, Ajinomoto, Dexia Bank, DuPont de Nemours, ExxonMobil, Total, 3M and Dow. The agreement was signed in the presence of the Flemish Minister of Environment, Mr. Kris Peeters.

The closing is expected to take place on March 16 and will be followed by a mandatory take-over bid, as required under Belgian take-over legislation.

Delta is one of the largest public utility companies in the Netherlands. The company’s main activities are in energy production, waste management and water services.

Indaver is a Belgian integrated waste management company offering a wide range of domestic and industrial waste services. The Indaver Group operates in eight European countries.

Practice Groups: Belgian Law, Mergers, Acquisitions and Joint Ventures

by Asda Tue Sep 04, 2007 08:18

Tuesday September 04 2007

THE GOVERNMENT'S long-standing pro-incineration policy went up in smoke yesterday.

Green Environment Minister John Gormley effectively binned the policy when he announced plans to introduce a levy on incinerators, similar to the one that applies for landfills.

The Government's national waste strategy and the hazardous waste policy drawn up by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) both include the use of waste-to-energy incinerators.

Previous Fianna Fail environment ministers including Noel Dempsey, in whose Meath constituency an incinerator is planned, have backed the need for the facilities, pointing to the European experience for dealing with unwanted waste.

They have pointed to Germany and other countries where the Green Party accept incineration as an environmentally-friendly solution and an alternative to the 'generational toxic timebomb' of landfills.

However, the new minister has accepted his new proposals on waste may financially undermine plans for incineration in Ireland.

Speaking at a major EPA conference in Dublin yesterday, the Green Party leader announced a review on waste policy and said he wants to introduce a levy on incineration, like at landfills, so they are used as a last resort.

He accepted that such proposals could financially undermine incinerators, but claimed current policy gives incentives to waste collectors to use them and this was wrong.

Mr Gormley said he believed that the construction of large-scale incineration facilities could undermine efforts at reducing waste levels and improving recycling in Ireland.

The only major incinerator to get the green light is being located in Mr Gormley's backyard of Ringsend, in the heart of his constituency. He has been a vocal critic of the plan.

His opposition to contracts in which local authorities guarantee a set amount of waste to incinerator operators, and agree to pay-up if the specified target is not reached, could pose difficulties for Dublin City Council over the proposed Ringsend facility.

Mr Gormley stressed yesterday that the changes to incinerator deals were part of a major review of waste policy due to be completed next year.

However, John Ahern of Indaver Ireland, which has secured planning for incinerators in Meath and Cork, said science did not back up the Minister's contention that incineration and landfill are the same.

Mr Ahern said incinerators were much better at limiting the production of greenhouse gases, which cause global warming, and this was backed up by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change involving the world's leading scientists.

He said they would engage in the public consultation review of waste management.

The Indaver boss said a waste to energy plant could be up and running by 2010.And he also supported efforts to bring about higher rates of recycling and waste reduction.

by ML Wed Oct 17, 2007 16:22

Any comments from CHASE on the apparent acceptance by Minister Gormley last Thurs of a future municipal waste incineration expansion by Indaver in Cork in lieu of Poolbeg. Or did I read it wrong? Theres nothing in the Cork Waste plan about incineration.

by linda fitzpatrick Wed Oct 17, 2007 22:33

ML, You probably know that there's two incinerators proposed for Cork, 100,000 tonne hazardous and 100,000 municipal so that could be the 200,000 tonnes nicely wrapped up without any extension, which makes three not two for the country already (hail Poolbeg is safe!).

Only the hazardous one has planning, and that is with the high court.

It goes without saying that we are unhappy down here with (and highly suspicious of) any expansion, given that we aren't happy with the proposed incinerators in the first place.

Below is CHASE statement issued yesterday. In short -John Gormley needs to step up to the place if he is serious about moving away from incineration.

===================================

CHASE PRESS RELEASE, 16 October, 2007

Urgent Action Required If Minister Gormley Serious About Move Away From Incineration
____________________________________________________________________

Todays decision by An Bord Pleanala to grant permission to Indaver Ireland for a 50,000 tonne increase to their proposed Meath incinerator flies in the face of government declarations that incineration is no longer the cornerstone of Irish Waste Management Policy.

Environment Minister John Gormley needs to take urgent action if he is serious about moving away from incineration.

“We are very disappointed in this decision by An Bord Pleanala. Building incinerators before alternatives will ensure that Irelands waste industry is incinerator dominated.

Moving away from incineration is recommended by both the September 2006 Oireachtas Report on Waste, and Dr Dominic Hoggs report - Waste Policy Planning and Regulation in Ireland. The Hogg Report states that a mix of Mechanical Biological Treatments (MBT) is more suitable for Irelands needs, more economically viable and with a shorter lead in time, which would allow Ireland to meet 2010 deadlines for landfill diversion” said a CHASE spokesperson.

The Green Party claim that they remain committed to a NO INCINERATION Policy. If the Green Party in Government wants to maintain credibility Minister Gormley needs to:

· Immediately introduce the promised incinerator levy (while keeping the landfill levy).

· Incentivise, as a matter of urgency, the alternative technologies he has proposed in order to meet the 2010 deadlines

CHASE is opposing the construction of a 100,000 tonne toxic waste incinerator and a 100,000 tonne municipal waste incinerator at Ringaskiddy, Co Cork. Planning, which applies only to the toxic waste incinerator, is being appealed. The Case is listed for hearing at the High Court on 30 October, 2007.

ENDS

by Herbalist Thu Oct 18, 2007 23:14

Hello CHASE
Nice to C u protecting Ireland. & our future. Green Gormely is for the dump , probable a big shareholder ( this privatisation thing) A suggestion could be to Pull a load of St. John's Wort ( little yellow flowers which are anti cancerc ) infuse them in boiling water and drink. Should keep blood free from the dump poisons. My little contribution to anti Pl;astics and Sprays
Buy only vegetables loose NOT in plastics Local country market or farmer Best Buy, (farmer the cheapest)

by ML Sat Oct 20, 2007 16:57

Perhaps the herbalist is suffering from dioxin poisining - all that backyard burning affecting the little yellow flowers.

Waste has to go somewhere but it seems that MBT is preferable to Incineration. Even the EPA is thinking that way now.

Interesting twist in the appeals lodged yesterday to the new Fingal Dump. RPS is objecting to the EPA decision which would give preference to residues from MBT to be accepted at the new dump over the acceptance of incineration ash. RPS want that condition scrapped. Will the EPA budge? Worth watching - all info available on the EPA web site under the waste licence application for Fingal landfill...