Upcoming Events

Dublin | Environment

no events match your query!

User Preferences

  • Language - en | ga
  • text size >>
  • make this your indymedia front page make this your indymedia front page

Blog Feeds

Spirit of Contradiction

offsite link What is Dogmatism and Why Does It Matter? Wed Mar 21, 2018 08:10 | Sylvia Smith

offsite link The Case of Comrade Dallas Mon Mar 19, 2018 19:44 | Sylvia Smith

offsite link Review: Do Religions Evolve? Mon Aug 14, 2017 19:54 | Dara McHugh

offsite link Fake News: The Epistemology of Media Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:52 | Gavin Mendel-Gleason

offsite link Officials and Provisionals Sat Apr 01, 2017 22:54 | James O'Brien

Spirit of Contradiction >>

Public Inquiry
Interested in maladministration. Estd. 2005

offsite link Elaine Byrne: Not speaking full truth to power

offsite link Israel/Ireland: Corruption comparison Anthony

offsite link Irish cowboy town and fake regulatory agencies Anthony

offsite link Elaine Byrne: Failing to join up the dots on state corruption Anthony

offsite link No law for the powerful, strict enforcement for decent citizens Anthony

Public Inquiry >>

The Saker
A bird's eye view of the vineyard

offsite link Syrian War Report ? March 21, 2018: Three Chemical Weapons Attacks Are Prevented Thu Mar 22, 2018 01:11 | Scott
Three attempts by militants to use chemical weapons in Syria were prevented last week, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said on March 20. ?Despite attempts by militants to disrupt peace

offsite link Official Statement of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the ?Skripal Case? Wed Mar 21, 2018 23:46 | The Saker
AIDE-MEMOIRE to clarify the state of affairs as regards the so-called ?Skripal case? 1. On 12 March 2018, Prime Minister of Great Britain Theresa May, addressing the House of Commons,

offsite link The five stages of (imperial) grief: bargaining Wed Mar 21, 2018 23:27 | The Saker

offsite link Russian MFA summons all ambassadors to a meeting on Skripal case (MUST WATCH!!!) Wed Mar 21, 2018 23:09 | The Saker

offsite link Deena Stryker?s ?Russia?s Americans? Wed Mar 21, 2018 13:17 | amarynth
We have a vibrant book here that makes current history come alive in the eyes of those that study it in depth, as well as the eyes of those that

The Saker >>

Human Rights in Ireland

offsite link Repeal and Replace? Sat Jan 20, 2018 12:58 | Fiona de Londras

offsite link Shifting Sands Under the Abortion Debate Mon Jan 15, 2018 09:30 | GuestPost

offsite link Liberty, the ICCL, and other NGO groups? landmark challenge against the UK Government?s mass surveil... Tue Nov 07, 2017 11:56 | admin

offsite link What Ireland can gain from international guidance on Article 19 UNCRPD Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:53 | Eilionoir Flynn

offsite link Repeal or Replace? Tue Oct 03, 2017 06:31 | Fiona de Londras

Human Rights in Ireland >>

Anti-Dublin Incinerator campaign appeal to attend Oral Hearing

category dublin | environment | feature author Monday April 21, 2008 14:44author by Rory Hearne - on behalf of CRAIauthor email hearner at yahoo dot co dot uk Report this post to the editors

featured image
Local opposition

The Combined Residents Against the Incinerator (CRAI) which is made up of residents from Ringsend, Irishtown, Sandymount and other parts of Dublin is currently making presentations to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Oral Hearing on the proposed mass-burn incinerator, planned to be built by Dublin City Council on the Poolbeg Peninsula in Dublin City.

CRAI submitted 3000 letters of objection to the An Bord Pleanala Hearing in October 2006 but despite this An Bord Pleanala granted planning permission to Dublin City Council (DCC) to build the 600,000 tonne mass-burn incinerator. The next stage in this process is the EPA is deciding what sort of waste pollution licence it will grant to DCC for the incinerator. CRAI is calling on the public to attend the hearing and make their voice of opposition heard.

The aim of this article is to encourage those who oppose the incinerator in Dublin to do something to help. They can do this by joining CRAI and speaking at the oral hearing. CRAI is paying for all legal costs and the costs of bringing experts to speak at the EPA itself. We need funds to keep the campaign going. Membership of CRAI can be gained by donation, a small sum. (20 Euro or whatever you can afford) (contact Frances Corr for details 0877715825).

There is a time allocated to CRAI membership to attend the hearing this Tuesday 6.30pm-8pm at the Gresham Hotel, O Connell St. Short Statements can also be given in writing by members and the will be read into the evidence or members can attend in person and make a statement.
The oral hearing will continue for at least a week.

CRAI held a protest at the first day of the Environmental Protection Agency’s oral hearing into the proposed Dublin Incinerator on Monday April 14th. Frances Corr of CRAI speaking at the protest said:
“The proposed mass-burn Dublin Incinerator is a flawed, dangerous, extravagant and a totally unsuitable solution to the waste management of the Dublin region. The site is completely unsuitable. We will show at this EPA Oral Hearing that the EPA must refuse this licence in order to achieve sustainable development. The proposed incinerator will require guaranteeing a waste stream and tip fee contract which mitigates against recycling, reuse and reduce principles.

The Draft EPA licence stated that all waste should be pre-treated to remove the waste that should be recycled and in fact DCC is objecting to this, and other, conditions. This demonstrates that DCC want a mass burn incinerator that will treat 600,000 metric tons of waste in order to make it economical for the private partners Covanta/Dong.”

Furthermore, CRAI asked Minister Gormley to expand on his recent statements that incineration is no longer government policy and clearly define what will replace incineration. If this were known the campaign believes it would be a matter of considerable influence on the outcome of this oral hearing. Recently issued figures for predicted waste disposal in the Country appear to show that, if alternative modern technologies are adopted, the total available national supply of residual waste for incineration would be of the order of 627,000 tonnes. We are asking the Minister to confirm this figure and state what proposals are before him to introduce these technologies.Clearly if this figure is correct the required capacity of the proposed Dublin incinerator has been seriously overstated and, therefore, if the policy is implemented it would lead to the incinerator becoming redundant.

Speaking at the protest, Rory Hearne of CRAI said:
“It is vital that the general public hear the evidence presented at this oral hearing. Residents and their experts will explain the dangerous health and environmental implications for the local and city-wide population if this incinerator goes ahead. We are focused in this campaign on explaining that this is a Dublin incinerator not just Poolbeg. It will affect people across the city in terms of the dioxins released, the increased waste charges required to keep the private operators in profitability, and the increase in traffic. In particular from a sustainability perspective it is very clear that if this incinerator goes ahead it will be a major set back for recycling and reduction waste strategies because all the waste coming from Dublin (and perhaps beyond) will have to be directed into the incinerator to facilitate the incinerator to run at full capacity to ensure the private operators gain their financial return.”

Maurice O Brien of CRAI has been documenting the important details of the hearing to date. Much of this Fridays session of the EPA Oral Hearing into the proposed Dublin Incinerator was devoted to technical matters, with the examination completed of Mr. Twomey (DCC), a new witness in Mr. Behor, vice-President for sustainability of Covanta, the dominant partners in the Public Private partnership set up to design, build and operate the facility if it is ever built. He set out the operation of the proposed filters to remove toxic material from the flue gas, and was still being queried about details by Community Representatives, particularly well by Joe McCarthy, when the lunch break was called.

At the first session Sinn Fein's Mary Lou Macdonald and Daithi Doolan gave concise and cogent presentations, while the afternoon one contained a vivid and worrying presentation from Doctor Stefano Montanari that much improved the hearing's understanding of the formation and distribution of very small particles that can wreak havoc on the human and other receptor bodies, leading to long term serious illnesses like cancers, diabetes, vascular disease and many others.

But perhaps his most sensational evidence was that it is now possible to identify the source of these very small particles so that, in future, the cause of fatal illness can be identified after death.

The day finished with several brief presentations by Ruari Quinn, T.D., and Councillors Lacey and Humphries before the hearing adjourned to Monday at the same location.

The evidence given to date will require analysis by the Chair and the EPA Board, but the general trend is that it adds strength to the argument that the proposed facility is the wrong project in the wrong place.

Evidence on Thursday at the EPA Oral Hearing at the Gresham Hotel into a licence for the proposed Dublin Mass-burn Incinerator largely concerned the possible effects on the natural environment and air quality. In examination by community representatives it became clear that, in several aspects, best protection had been compromised in the interest of cost savings. (Perhaps not surprising when an official "cap" was placed on the cost before any negotiations even took place!)

It was also admitted that the best protection from environmental damage would be to locate the facility, if it were absolutely necessary to build it, in a less sensitive location.

It then emerged that no study has yet been made of the damaging effect of very small particles that would be emitted, the so called "nano-particles". These are now being recognised as the most deadly material to emerge for the incineration of municipal waste.

Even if the licence is granted to Dublin City Council CRAI will continue to oppose the incinerator and has a number of options open. CRAI has sent a legal summons to the Minister for the Environment John Gormley, the Irish State and Dublin City Council to answer the charge in court regarding their failure to enforce EU Directives in relation to the planning and development process of the Dublin Incinerator. Community mobilisation and protest will and is continuing.

For information contact:
Frances Corr: 0877715825
May Kane: 0876994279
Rory Hearne: 0861523542

author by Johnpublication date Mon Apr 21, 2008 15:03Report this post to the editors

This is an important topic which exposes the Greens and John Gormley especially in government with Fianna Fail. its vital that this issue wins. This is a Dublin wide issue and should concern all.

Related Link: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87271
author by Brianpublication date Mon Apr 21, 2008 17:47Report this post to the editors

Yet another waste project built on unconstitutional law? - see at http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87134#comment226586

author by Rational Ecologistpublication date Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:05Report this post to the editors

The EPA are arbiters of their own decisions, hardly a satisfactory situation. Gormley has been a real disaster since his appointment. In fact the Greens have largely betrayed their electorate.

author by pbpa - PBPApublication date Wed Apr 23, 2008 15:48Report this post to the editors

Press Release:
Minister Gormley must issue Ministerial Order to Dublin City Council to stop the Dublin incinerator now
Up to 50 local people from Ringsend, Irishtown and Sandymount made their opposition heard to the proposed Dublin incinerator at the EPA Oral Hearing on Tuesday evening April 22nd. Many expressed their disappointment that they had elected John Gormley to stop the incinerator yet now as Minister for Environment it appeared he is not using his powers to halt the planned mass-burn Incinerator.

Speaking at the Oral Hearing Rory Hearne, member of Combined Residents Against the Incinerator and the People Before Profit Alliance Dublin South East said:
"John Gormley must act now to stop the incinerator. The EPA Hearing has revealed the mass-burn incinerator will release dangerous dioxins across the city, affect traffic and will compromise the ability to reach recycling and waste reduction targets. The Minister could issue a Ministerial Order to order Dublin City Council to abandon its plans for the incinerator. This would result in DCC being sued by the private company who is planned to run the incinerator, Covanta, however the local community believes that would be a small price to pay to protect the health and environment of the community and for John Gormley to honour his pre-election promises."

Contact Rory Hearne 0861523542 for info

Related Link: http://peoplebeforeprofitdse.wordpress.com
author by The Galway Tent - The Galway Tentpublication date Wed Apr 23, 2008 16:25author email galwaytent at gmail dot comReport this post to the editors

ESEM image of a cancerous tissue of liver
with a living cell containing
nanoparticles in the nucleus


[Published as Creative Commons]

ESEM image of a cancerous tissue of liver with a living cell containing nanoparticles in the nucleus.
ESEM image of a cancerous tissue of liver with a living cell containing nanoparticles in the nucleus.

Related Link: http://galwaytent.blogspot.com/2008/04/tony-rat-nanopat....html
author by maire - CHASEpublication date Fri Apr 25, 2008 18:33Report this post to the editors

There is an overcapacity of incineration in Europe, why not supply the European Market with the supply we have here and it would give us the space to plan to have no commercial municipal incinerator of such a gigantic capacity which will compete with reuse recycle and reduce - we could look at alternatives and plan for the future, and allow the industry that produces waste take the responsibility of dealing with it. We have still not got proper figures of what waste we do have, at present to really plan an incinerator of this size. The tax payer should not have to shoulder industrial waste.
See past indymedia story "Over 3000 objections to proposted Poolbeg Incinerator in Dublin."
Have you all got your brown bins in Dublin yet?

author by Galway Tent - Galway Tentpublication date Fri May 02, 2008 00:21author email galwaytent at gmail dot comauthor address Dublin Bay AreaReport this post to the editors


The original message from Utah as to how a government spread depleted uranium particles over the state is here:

The Galway Tent's interpretation is here:

And repeated below (above url is better)

May 1, 2008
How To Do A Dirty Bomb Over Dublin

May 1, 2008: The US Government "mistakenly" dumped depleted Uranium into an incinerator. Osama Bin Liner has similar advanced plans lodged in a special purpose offshore entity starting in Luxembourg. The ConadVantage.

Currently, Bundesrepublik Deutschland, its alleged by others, sends illegal radioactive medical waste to The Balkans (result of a political quid pro quo on statehood). At the Bord Pleanala Hearing the Chief DONG Engineer said they could stop illegal radioactive medical waste activity by asking the drivers for their ID cards! (See hearing transcripts). Homer was impressed.

How To Do A Dirty Bomb Over Dublin?

When you want to send metallic nano-particles over Dublin just dump depleted Uranium into the 20th century Dublin Bay Incinerator (depleted Uranium is low in actual radioactivity; the issue is metallic nano-particles causing Gulf War Syndrome).

To see this through Gary Gilmore's eyes, or DCCs, just use the best available technology as per the following article, dated May 1, 2008, from Utah.

Incinerator doesn't want a repeat incident
But skeptics say the plant's changes likely won't boost safety
By Matthew D. LaPlante
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 05/01/2008 01:57:46 PM MDT

Do you turn it away? Do you pull off to the side and dump it on the ground, potentially increasing individual exposure by digging through it trying to find the waste that set the alarm off?
- Wasatch Integrated Waste Management District director Nathan Rich, wondering what would happen if instruments did detect depleted uranium in shipments of waste at the Layton incinerator.

The director of the Layton incinerator where Air Force personnel mistakenly burned several pounds of depleted uranium over an eight-month period said his agency is “taking reasonable and appropriate steps to ensure this doesn't happen again.”

But Wasatch Integrated Waste Management District director Nathan Rich lamented it is unlikely that any of those steps could have prevented what occurred over the last year.

Rich said his plant was exploring two modes of additional control on the waste that comes into the incinerator for disposal. He said it was likely the plant would institute a policy requiring all users to sign a document making them responsible for the content of the waste they wanted destroyed. He also said he is exploring the possibility of placing a radiation detector at the plant.

Plant managers say that Hill Air Force Base officers promised ahead of time that there was nothing dangerous in the waste they delivered in eight shipments to the incinerator. As such, Rich said, it is unlikely that requiring further documentation would have prevented the recent burn incidents.
“My understanding is that the base would have filled out the paperwork and said, 'There's nothing hazardous here,' ” he said. “But it might help us with some liability issues.”
And that, Rich said, might prompt incinerator users to think harder about what they are burning.
Rich also wasn't sure that a radiation-detection system would actually identify a small amount of depleted uranium, like that fed into the Layton incinerator. “And even if the radiation detector does go off, then what do you do?” he asked. “Do you turn it away? Do you pull off to the side and dump it on the ground, potentially increasing individual exposure by digging through it trying to find the waste that set the alarm off?”

Brian Moench, co-founder and president of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, said he isn't comforted by the steps being taken to prevent further problems of this sort - not only on the part of the incinerator, but also on the part of the military, regulators and government officials.

He said that in addition to an investigation into what went wrong, Utahns need to demand a fundamental shift in the way they think about radioactive waste. “I think the basic misconception that seems to permeate everybody involved in this process is that low levels of nuclear radiation are acceptable,” Moench said. “And they are not acceptable.”

Posted by The Galway Tent on Thursday, May 01, 2008

Related Link: http://galwaytent.blogspot.com/2008/05/how-to-do-dirty-....html
author by bholgpublication date Wed May 07, 2008 11:17Report this post to the editors

All very well to whinge about incineration.

The fact is we recycle less than 2% of our waste in this country. The rest of our 'recycling' is exported for other people to worry about. Our landfilling rates are still increasing despite all the efforts to get people recycling. Having a 'no waste' society is a great idea, but it is ludricous to sugest that this may be achieved anytime soon.

I agree that all organic waste should be digested (and the resultant gases burned!), all possible recyclables should be recycled - but you are still left with an awful lot of material.. eg. around 14% of Irish waste in 2006 consisted of nappies.. what do you do with these?

It should be noted that countries with the highest incineration rates in the EU (Switzerland Denmark) also have the highest recycling rates. the competition with recycling theory doesnt really hold. There is more than enough non recyclable waste being produced in Dublin and the surrounding area to warrant an incinerator.

Incineration not an ideal solution, I dont think anyone is arguing that it is, however EU waste incineration emmissions limits mean it is a sound option. In terms of dioxin, furans and all pollutants the emission limits are very low- minimising public health risk.. (how many cars in Dublin? they all produce dioxins). Electricity and excess heat is generated from waste incineration, reducing oil/coal imports (combustion of which also produces significant pollution problems)

Landfilling at our current rates is a scandal and an absolute environmental disaster. People can whinge all they like about incinerators, meanwhile we continue to fill up the country with shit. Much as i dislike the term, this is NIMBYism in its most blatant form. Very typical and rather unfortunate.

author by SeamusO'Rourkepublication date Sat Nov 01, 2008 17:38Report this post to the editors

The lack of any new responses to this issue by those who had so vehemently raised objection to the proposed Incineration Plant for SE Dublin and its neighbouring areas suggests a Capitulation and laying down of acceptance by those persons accepting that it is to go ahead. This complacent ness by all including those residents of Ringsend, and Irishtown and Sandymount is very worrying, and if it continues the Incineration Project for Dublin will become a reality by stealth!

Fellow readers and activists We must stand up and fight for our rights here.

The Incineration project for Dublin must not be allowed to happen. It is our duty to protect our children. Look at the issue from your Children's perspective in the following quote from Al Gore:

"The latest scheme masquerading as a rational and responsible alternative to landfills is a nationwide – and worldwide – move to drastically increase the use of incineration… The principal consequence of incineration is thus the transporting of the community’s garbage – in gaseous form, through the air – to neighbouring communities, across state lines, and indeed, to the atmosphere of the entire globe, where it will linger for many years to come. In effect, we have discovered yet another group of powerless people upon whom we can dump the consequences of our own waste; those who live in the future and cannot hold us accountable."

...from "Earth In The Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit" - Author Al Gore (Author of "An Inconvenient Truth")

Remember that this idea of ensuring that we do not harm our successive generations had been around since the 17th Century, in the Great Law of the Iroquois Confederacy:

"In our every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations."

There are many eminent persons in Ireland, and elsewhere, who have presented an over-whelming case against the Burning of Waste (for that is what incineration is!) and it is a brave person who can enter this debate and categorically refute the issues raised regarding both the Environmental or Public Health issues for Us and our Children and Subsequent Generations and then convince anyone that such a proposition is Affordable!

Remind yourselves again about this issue [from just a year ago] in the speech by the President of the French Republic (Mr Sarkozy) at the concluding session of the Grenelle de L'Environment on Thursday October 25th 2007

''We will also apply this principle to our waste management policy. Priority will now be given to avoiding waste, rather than merely treating it. We will adopt every proposal that enables us to prohibit or tax unnecessary waste such as "overpacks". Priority will no longer be given to incineration but to recycling. Proof will be required of every new incinerator project that it is a last resort. There will be no more incinerators without permanent and transparent monitoring of pollution emitted.''

The issues raised in this Indymedia publication (and elsewhere) although well aired pale into insignificance when compared to these and are little more than a side-issue and whimper in the face of the current debate in Ireland. No longer can these issues be consigned to the backwoods of a ''pressure group'' mentality for as such they might as well be condemned to the dustbin as a ‘’spent force’’ because no one is now taking any notice! This issue only becomes of interest when the papers like ''The Irish Times'' and ''The Irish Independent'' or the broadcast media like the RTE (and other Radio and Television Networks) and their Eminent Journalists carries the case forward. Indymedia and the Environmental Action Groups have become mere bystanders to this whole affair who can do nothing but allow the People to venting off their frustration to the whole affair! ? But it can be done! Look at the success of the people in Malaysia who fought off the Broga Incineration Project for Kuala Lumpur: People Power!

We ''the People'' are the most affected by this issue of the Incineration Programme for Ireland and We should not let it happen in Dublin or Cork or anywhere else in Our Country.

Last year We voted in a new Government for Ireland which included a New-Breed of Green Party TDs in the names of John Gormley and Eamonn Ryan who with their intimate knowledge of Environmental Issues - the Green Agenda - would be able to drive forward changes of policy in this area. This has not happened.

Instead Messrs Gormley and Ryan are no where to be seen and are hiding behind the previous statements of Dublin Corporation in its '’Engineer’’, Mr M Twomey and its Consultant from M C O'Sullivan (now merged into RPS) P J Rudden. (Isn't this the same Consultant that was given an open-ended cheque-book to write their own fee statements and who has now been reported to have made a financial killing on this programme - so far receiving fees of over €18 million for the project and yet nothing has ever been built! And aren’t they also providing people for the EPA as advisors to the Public Enquiry on the project?) These people are oblivious to the concerns of us the people and have ignored us throughout. They have also ignored our Councillors and our Elected TDs in the Government.

These people are but ''Yes Men'' to the status quo that have failed in their duty to keep up with the times and who by their very conservative attitudes and reticence to new ideas copy others rather than think for themselves. Because incineration is already in use across Europe and has been for many years it doesn’t mean that is the right! This ''heads in the sands'' attitude is the reason why Consulting Engineers today have failed in the Public's Minds to come across as the leaders of innovative Engineering and have languished in the public’s esteem. These are the same Consulting Engineers who were reluctant to accept new materials for use in pipes in the water industry for so long committing us the People to a continuing unending maintenance problem with leaking pipes. We should also not forget there is also big business - the incineration companies - preventing us the Public benefiting here. Remember the analogous position it was Samuel Morey who invented the Internal Combustion Engine in the USA in 1826 but because of the over-whelming financial muscle of Steam Engine Magnates at the time his needs for finance his invention and lack of interest from the banks (who were in the pay of the Railway Companies resulted in his invention lapsing! It took 50 years before Otto, Benz and Ford corrected this.

Is this surprising? No! The same is happening today: but there is a twist in the tale. The Consulting Engineers and Advisors - who in theory are neutral players in the business - seem to be in collusion with the Incineration Companies. Why? How do we know this? The answer is that All Consulting Engineers are paid as a percentage of the Projected Final Out-Turn Costs of a Programme or Project. With the Poolbeg Incineration Programme costing over €260 million the Consulting Engineers will thus receive a further handsome payout of around 8 to 10% for their on-going fees: yes a staggering €20+ million extra! This is immoral, and it is a fraud! The Consulting Engineers have no reason therefore to look for low cost to the Poolbeg Incineration project as they would lose out in fees! [And it is also the same for Cork and elsewhere]

And to make things look even better some time ago M C O’Sullivan/RPS forged an alliance with the Danish Consulting Engineering firm Cowie-Consult – allegedly the best experts on incineration. Strange therefore that Dong Energy Generation A/S, Denmark [formerly known as Elsam Kraft A/S of Denmark] suddenly appeared on the scene when Indaver left! Two Danish companies appear on the scene.

This Now with this attitude we will be using this out-dated yesterday's technology - incineration of waste developed in the 1950s - again in this 21st Century in Ireland.

Yes we do hear that the so-called ''new breed'' of incineration plants that allegedly have improved emission control and attenuation devices for inhibiting the release of dioxins and particulates to the atmosphere. But it should be remembered that these standard are only introduced as an after-thought when it had been noticed that an effect had been caused like the various existing operational plants across the world are only as good as the current-day legislation permits and that even then they are allowed to exceed their permits on emissions and discharges to the atmosphere on very regular basis. Let there be no mistake, there are no safe parameters for emitting Dioxins to the atmosphere. Let there be no mistake, there are no safe parameters for emitting the Transitional Elements to the atmosphere. Let there be no mistake there are no safe parameters for emitting Particulates with a particle size defined as a PM10 to the atmosphere.

This programme must now be re-aired in the light of the new Environmental Developments and the Affordabilty of the programme in Ireland. We the people in Ireland must be made aware of the consequences for us. The EU has recently passed new Regulations on the emission criterion for incineration in its member states - to reflect the growing International concerns over its use and the health and environmental risks and legal issues surrounding their use. Ireland must adhere to these Mandatory Regulations.

1] Firstly the size of the Particulates for emission has been reduced to a size defined as PM2.5 with effect from 2010. This legislation at a stroke will increase the capital cost of the Dublin SE incineration plant by over €95million - you may remember that the budget is already €265 million. And it will increase the Operations and management costs equally proportionate. This legislation takes place from 2010!
2] Secondly where an Incineration Plant is also used to produce Electricity, unless it is over 50% efficient it doesn’t qualify for Renewable (Electricity) Obligations Certificates (ROCs). What is the implication of this change? Essentially this means that making Electricity from burning Municipal Waste in an Incineration Plant will not qualify for ROCs tariff subsidies. There are no incineration plants in the world that have ever reached a 50% efficiency in translating burnt heat to electricity. As a result the subsidy floor (the value which the Incineration Company could expect to receive for making electricity) is not applicable, and the sale price of electricity will be as for a traditional power station. (This confirms what Daniel H Hayes at Limerick University stated last year.) Thus should Dublin consider subsidising this plant via that route it would be classified as Illegal under EU rules and be an unfair competition, which would result in charges being levied against Dublin Corporation and its Officers for failing to adhere to the Law.
3] Thirdly, from 2016 any Incineration Plant that produces Electricity or Energy will be required to capture all its Carbon Dioxide emissions. This is to comply with the EU edicts on Green House Gas (GHG) emissions. As Ireland already exceeds its existing GHG emissions – and it appears that it will continue to do so well beyond 2020 – this will be a serious issue for it. This means that the current statements by Ministers and Green TDs Eamonn Ryan and J Gormley will be regarded as absolutely worthless because of the EU fines levied against Ireland. The consequences of this piece of legislation will be significant for an incineration plant as it will be classed as a major GHG polluter and to attenuate these gases will incur significant additional cost. The current estimate for trapping the equivalent of the CO2 produced from a Poolbeg Incinerator is estimated at over €130million!
4) Ireland is also a signatory to the Stockholm Convention on POPs (Persistent Organic Pollutants.) It therefore has an obligation to eliminate their emissions both to the atmosphere and to the ground. Trapping such POPs in the gas emissions has already been addressed in 1) above. Trapping these POPs in the residues means that all the dusts and bottom ash from Incinerators will need to be permanently stored in a sealed land depository until such time as it can be declared fully passivated and safe – this may take 300 or more years! A typical incineration plant produces around 20 to 30% of the original weight of material being treated as a solid residue. With such quantities of waste being produced and a potential storage cost (already quoted at) €200-00 per tonne this charge will have to be accounted for in this programme.

Why should we be concerned at these issues? Well to put it simply the fall guys and the Pay Masters for all of these issues is we the Public as Tax Payers - that is you and me!

There is no doubt from the previous correspondence from Dan Hayes from Limerick University that there are far better ways to deal with the waste from Dublin than incineration and that from a total Sustainable perspective (that is Environmentally an Financially) the best option is to produce Biofuels through a Biorefinery. Likewise didn't we hear from Dominic Hogg that an MBT Process was far more sensible than incineration as he highlighted the fact that the residues afterwards could be refined into Biofuels like Ethanol? These people are not stupid, they are eminent in their own rights! They have also stated that from their observations this change to a more sensible treatment and a biorefinery approach would reduce our tax bill by around two thirds. Thus instead of current budget of €265million we could have this built for around €100million. For this we would have no dioxins emitted, no particulates emitted, no chimney and no smoke and the elimination of any waste going to land fill. But better still we would not need to subsidise this project through increased Gate Fees and after less than 5 years could expect a Zero Gate Fee. And what of the product obtained the Biofuel Ethanol? Well this can be used for transport and help us in Ireland by reducing our reliance on Oil. Surely this is what Our Ministers Messrs Gormley/Ryan and the Taoiseech should be pressing for. This seems like the best Environmental Option and it is Affordable.

author by JimO.Donaughpublication date Fri Nov 07, 2008 15:46Report this post to the editors

Frances Corr: May Kane: and Rory Hearne, have given a resaounding report here.

What is it that ''bholg'' Céad Beal 07, 2008 11:17 reported does not understand? There are real alternatives to incineration.

Look at what Dr Dominic Hogg of Eunomia stated last year about MBT and the Biofuel Ethanol proposed option.

This has been reinforced by Professor Michael J Hayes at the University of Limerick in his Team about the issue of Ethanol and Biorefineries to solve this issue.

How can you live in complete isolation to real events by saying what alternatives?

We must not allow this to happen as we cannot afford it.

It appears that some of the minority persons in Dublin P J Rudden at RPS and M Twomey at Dublin Corporation believe this to be the way forward! Al the ruses about it being the options across Europe are a nonsense. Zagreb has vetoed it from its programme. Poland is having serious reservations. And there are others. I wonder whether there is an ulterior motive being RPS and Rudden's blatant insistence to this? Oh of course there is....Additional Fees....€20 million extra on top of what they already have!

Seems to have been fully understood. Incineration makes Consultants Wealthy, who cares about the Public, they will always pay!

Number of comments per page
© 2001-2018 Independent Media Centre Ireland. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Independent Media Centre Ireland. Disclaimer | Privacy