Incinerator "Latest" ....not modern enough

An independent review of Jersey's waste strategy has raised serious questions about the size of the planned energy from waste incinerator.

It could be far too big and that, say the report's authors, could cause serious problems for running the plant.

Jersey has opted for what's called a moving grate incinerator with a capacity for handling around 160,000 tonnes of waste every year - more than double the capacity of the Bellozanne incinerator.

Juniper - a firm of specialist consultants hired by the Environment Scrutiny Panel - says the type of incinerator planned needs to be fed a constant stream of material. They warn that if the rubbish stream becomes too small, serious operational problems arise.

Jersey is committed to reducing volumes of rubbish and parishes could arbitrarily stop sending some of their waste for incineration. Kitchen and green waste can quickly be turned into compost in one of a new breed of in-vessel plants.

Other materials can be collected, sorted and exported - as Cardiff City Council have been doing in recent years to meet a Welsh Assembly target of 65% recycling.

There's agreement that an incinerator of some sort will be needed, but Juniper believe the island should look at a much smaller more versatile plant which can be scaled up or down according to the volumes of rubbish being created

Typical States buying something which is going to end up costing a fortune to run...

We also need to make this a priority very soon
The time has come and our space is running out
do we share one with jersey or do we go buy a biggun and import rubbish..making us money
We need to address this very soon
we have new members in our government who have the knowledge to find out what is best for us
I only hope it happens as soon as possible for us to have the best environment friendly crap eating machine we can afford

when the incinerator eats up all the rubbish you are left with contaminated waste that would need shipping off island thereby costing money.so yes we will need to look at an incinerator but we need to look closely at the mistakes made in other jurisdictions before a decision is made .

I agree we do need to sort something out but to import rubbish a definite no no imo , as i have said many times we need to recycle more as much as possible in fact then possibly build a cheaper smaller incinerator to deal with the rest .

When i say recycle i mean all things that people have no use for anymore ,like the one set up at Longue Houge but much bigger and including absolutely everything . Along with kerbside we could be n to a winner.

New guidelines released by the EU may mean the new waste plant proposed for Jersey could be obsolete before it is even built.
In order to meet the latest EU proposals, the efficiency rate of a plant must be higher than 65%.
However Deputy Rob du Hamel said: "The proposed plant at La Collette would only have an efficiency rating of around 24%".
The new information will be circulated to States members later.
It is proposed by States members that the ageing Bellozanne incinerator will eventually be replaced by a new plant at La Collette (from bbconline)

Why does this not surprise me....

TTS' position is plain stupid. They have stonewalled
alternatives for years which would be smaller, cheaper, more flexible and ultimately far more environmentally sustainable than a new incinerator. A new incinerator only makes the slightest sense whatsoever if one is only looking at the next five years or so. Any longer and TTS' reasoning is just idiotic - it takes no account at all of the necessity to develop sustainable ways of development and how that will impact on the generation and treatment of "waste" over the next thirty years (which is the planned lifespan of any replacement plant...). The independent Juniper report makes this very clear...

see my two articles on the Radio Jersey website
http://www.bbc.co.uk/jersey/content/articles/2008/05/28/sc_waste_nickpalmer_p1_feature.shtml

and
http://www.bbc.co.uk/jersey/content/articles/2008/05/28/sc_waste_nickpalmer_p2_feature.shtml

Nick Palmer wrote:TTS' position is plain stupid. They have stonewalled
alternatives for years which would be smaller, cheaper, more flexible and ultimately far more environmentally sustainable than a new incinerator. A new incinerator only makes the slightest sense whatsoever if one is only looking at the next five years or so. Any longer and TTS' reasoning is just idiotic - it takes no account at all of the necessity to develop sustainable ways of development and how that will impact on the generation and treatment of "waste" over the next thirty years (which is the planned lifespan of any replacement plant...). The independent Juniper report makes this very clear...

Hey come on since when has any states department saved money?

[/quote]Hey come on since when has any states department saved money?[/quote]

I was just dreaming! I sort of hoped they might want to save some money - I wasn't expecting all the environmental arguments to make much impression, even though they are blindingly obvious...

Have a look at the long version (4,500 words) of my argument which Isthisjersey have just published on their front page.
http://www.isthisjersey.com/news.php

It's long and wordy and somehat repetitious but it does cover a lot of territory, some of it virtually unknown outside of environmental circles. It sort of proves the environmental, sustainable argument mathematically and knocks a fatal hole in the indefinite, exponential growth apologists' position.

BTW, I am not a fan of "sound bite" spin... so, sometimes, my explanation of points can get rather lengthy and I try to write so that just about anyone can understand them, not just experts - "you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows" - Bob Dylan

GD wrote:New guidelines released by the EU may mean the new waste plant proposed for Jersey could be obsolete before it is even built.
In order to meet the latest EU proposals, the efficiency rate of a plant must be higher than 65%.
However Deputy Rob du Hamel said: "The proposed plant at La Collette would only have an efficiency rating of around 24%".

This is because the EU say that incinerators should not be run unless the waste heat from the generators is used in district heating schemes to warm nearby buildings and provide hot water. The laws of thermodynamics say that an ordinary incinerator can only convert a maximum of around a third of the energy from burning waste into electricity - the rest is waste heat.

Having any new incinerator at La Collette probaby rules out a district heating scheme because it is too far away from large buildings and the town. As I have pointed out all over the place, with those other modular technologies that produce syngas (synthesis gas - largely hydrogen and carbon monoxide) it is possible to use the gas elsewhere from where it is generated - large buildngs, such as hotels, or the Waterfront finance district skyscrapers, could have their own CHP (combined heat and power) generators. Syngas can also be easily catalysed into synthetic diesel, displacing fossil fuel imports. Electricity from an incinerator, however, would only displace electricity from France, which is low carbon nuclear energy, so wouldn't impact on Jersey's first order carbon footprint much, or at all...

Nick

Yeah but the States will still buy it, they only think of today, never tommorow

Pegasus wrote:Yeah but the States will still buy it, they only think of today, never tommorow

Are you proud to have a cynical attitude like that? It's only people who seem to rejoice in their cynicism, while doing nothing, who allow a lot of things to carry on happening.

Nick Palmer wrote:

When this happens, fossil fuelled burners fire up to raise the temperature again - yes, that's right! - a new incinerator will actually INCREASE Jersey's carbon footprint (pyrolysis plants do not have this problem by design).

I should clarify this point. Pyrolysis plant can need auxiliary heating when the calorific value of the material falls below a certain point but they usually use the gas from the gasification phase both to dry the material and pyrolyse it. Where the pyrolysis system scores is in its modularity - low calorific value (wetter waste) can be treated in one module while the higher value waste continues being processed at high efficiency in other modules without being "dragged down". The fact that "wetter" waste is probably better treated by anaerobic digestion or composting in the first place really starts to show the reason why incineration of unsorted Municipal solid waste (MSW) is a thoroughly bad idea.

Government funds will be used to pay for Jersey's new incinerator at La Collette.

The Energy from Waste plant will cost a hundred and six million pounds.

The States voted to go-ahead with it yesterday. They had planned to borrow the money.

But the Treasury Minister Terry Le Sueur told members he'd found the funds to pay for it.

He said it would be cheaper than borrowing. (from Channel103)

Well it makes more sense...

more sense than what?