Is £93.5m waste plant too small?

Go down

Is £93.5m waste plant too small?

Post by GD on Wed 27 Jan 2010, 6:27 pm



Scale model of the proposed incinerator at Longue Hougue.

PUBLIC SERVICES is today under pressure to explain how it will meet a crucial 50% recycling target.
It refused yesterday to take Guernsey Press questions about how it would meet the objective although only this week its deputy chief officer, Colette Brown, warned that the planned waste plant would be too small if the target was missed.
The department’s minister, Bernard Flouquet, will however today face questions in the States from former Environment minister David De Lisle.
He was behind setting the 50% target that is meant to be reached by the end of this year.
It is unclear at this stage how Public Services intends to boost recycling from its current published rate of 33.8%, excluding green waste, or whether it will delay the date by which the target needs to be hit.
Deputy De Lisle fears that the goal has been missed. (from thisisguersey)

I think that Mr Flouquets days could be numbered, the hole they are digging for themselves at Public Services is getting deeper and this new waste plant is going to be a "White Elephant"....


Last edited by GD on Wed 27 Jan 2010, 7:44 pm; edited 1 time in total


......THE BOSS......

"Always be yourself because the people who mind don't matter, and the people who matter don't mind"

avatar
GD

Male
Number of posts : 10122
Location : Channel Islands
Job/hobbies : Website Forums...lol
Humor : Anything that makes me laugh
Registration date : 2008-03-06

http://www.vuedesisles.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Is £93.5m waste plant too small?

Post by plimmerton811 on Wed 27 Jan 2010, 6:57 pm

GD wrote:

I think that Mr Flouquets days could be numbered, the hole they are digging for themselves at Public Services is getting deeper and this new waste plant is going to be a "White Elephant"....

Flouquets days numbered, the Guernsey Public could not be that lucky

plimmerton811

Male
Number of posts : 717
Location : Gods own country
Registration date : 2008-11-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Is £93.5m waste plant too small?

Post by Total Waste on Wed 27 Jan 2010, 11:41 pm

I just sent this to give Deputies something to ponder


27/1/10



Dear Deputy,

It’s getting close to that time again, to Suez or not to Suez.



I’m sure you will all now be familiar with the sort of company that the SOG is considering getting snugly into bed with.

Any company with the history of corruption and bribery that Suez have been associated with, will surely be delighted with once being accused of being responsible for 80% of all the corruption in France.

Quite some claim to fame.

I’m sure you will also have read all the published accounts of disappointed customers of this company.



You will also, I have no doubt, have researched the Brouard proposal and be fully aware of its limitations.



If you are anything other than 100% satisfied that PSD have fully researched all possible alternatives and Suez really is the only possible option and the best value for Guernsey, please read on.



First point to consider, are the much used phrases, “Proven technology” and “Unproven technology”

Let us examine those points.

Incineration was first used for the mass burning of waste in 1874. So could be considered proven technology.

However much has been said about the latest emission standards being met.

This begs the question, if mass burn incineration is so safe and clean, why the need to continuously change the emission standards?

How many times has someone said, Jersey has an incinerator and has a lower cancer rate than Guernsey therefore that proves that incineration is safe.

This raises another question.

Check the weather records, when was the last time that there was absolutely no wind of any strength for any length of time?

Now check the prevailing winds.

There are no incinerator emissions falling on Jersey.

Do we really want to send ours to Alderney?



I don’t want to dwell on the emissions, cost, and respectability of the company, sustainability, period of guarantee or many other questionable aspects of the Suez proposal. This has been highlighted over and over again by many people.



Let us get back to the proven technology question.



PSD claim Gasification is “unproven technology” despite being used for at least 2 000 years longer than mass burn. They also say “unsuitable for Guernsey”, why?



PSD claim Anaerobic digestion is “unproven technology”, despite being used for at least 4 000 years longer than mass burn, and “unsuitable for Guernsey”, why?



I won’t bore you with repeating the full Total Waste proposal here, I have sent you all details many times but I will remind you of the key points.



The Total Waste system pre sorts all waste streams, removing all materials that can be reused or recycled.



It uses 2 separate gasification systems.

Green Gaz system for bio mass, PRM energy system for RDF manufactured from the residual waste. Both systems generate electricity. Both systems have gasified many thousands of tonnes of bio mass and RDF respectively over many years.



A two stage anaerobic digestion system, for food waste, manure and wet green waste, a two stage system can also process sanitary waste, this system generates electricity.



Envikraft 300kg incinerator, with full flue treatment system, for bones, post digestion sanitary waste and non recyclable combustibles.



Autoclave system for de labelling and sterilising glass and food containers



Heat recovery (Organic Rankin Cycle) electricity generating system.

Waste heat drying system, for incoming materials.



Plastics reprocessing systems.

Newspaper processing system, producing cellulose insulation.



WEEE recycling system. Tyre recycling system.



Wood processing system, including solid fuel and wood plastic composite production systems.



Less than 2 000 tonnes pa of residual waste requiring land filing.

All residual waste is inert.



Can be offered as a purchase (less than ½ Suez cost), lease or FOC project.

Flexible contract terms available. ½ Suez gate price.



Produces up to 2.5MW electricity. 8 000 tonnes of solid fuel.

Smaller footprint and building height than Suez.

Self sustaining low emission plant.

100% locally owned and operated.

12 month build time



Please remember these points when voting on the Suez proposal.



There are alternatives, the Brouard proposal is only one of them.

Please allow local companies to tender for this important project.

Total Waste

Male
Number of posts : 21
Location : Guernsey
Registration date : 2008-07-29

Back to top Go down

Re: Is £93.5m waste plant too small?

Post by killer on Fri 29 Jan 2010, 9:22 am

Agree with total waste. Its been inthe paper buy local surely the states should be doing this aswell with our new waste plant rather than buying from France

killer

Male
Number of posts : 228
Location : guernsey
Registration date : 2009-06-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Is £93.5m waste plant too small?

Post by bug1 on Fri 29 Jan 2010, 2:40 pm

Regretably, Governments around the world are always "Do as I say" not "do as I do"
avatar
bug1

Male
Number of posts : 4062
Location : guernsey
Registration date : 2008-12-24

Back to top Go down

Re: Is £93.5m waste plant too small?

Post by steve177 on Mon 08 Feb 2010, 12:22 am

I listened to the BBC radio Guernsey phone in today and I have to say it did little to allay my fears that our government is totally unfit for purpose
This applied to many of the subjects they discussed but I will concentrate on the waste subject.
Both guests were sticking firmly to the PSD line, incineration is the only technology that works.

However they must have missed the article in Saturday’s Press, as Bernie has changed tactics somewhat, he now seems to be claiming that other technologies do work, but only if you buy them from Suez

It amazed me that only 2 years on from being a paper boy, one deputy can now dismiss other technologies as unproven, despite their widespread use around the world and having successfully processed millions of tonnes of waste materials.
Forget university if you want to be an expert in any field, simply get elected to the States.
The other guest can state that no other companies offered any other technologies.
She is either a very good liar or a bit too dim to be an effective deputy.
Anybody who has read the press, listened to the radio, watched TV or attended any number of presentations over the past few years knows that to be a falsehood.
Why would deputies close ranks to protect this project?
They know it is unpopular, they have to know it is vastly overpriced compared to similar systems.
They must be aware of Suez’s reputation, they must be aware of the dozens of disappointed customers and of the cancellation of orders for Suez systems.

If they are unaware, it means they have not bothered to check out any aspect of the whole proposal.
If so they cannot claim to be giving good representation to the public.
There has to be an aspect of corruption somewhere in this whole debacle.
Come on States, pull out now, restart the tendering process alongside a public enquiry into this shameful exercise.
If this does not happen, I call on the honest deputies in the States to lodge a requette, that all deputies who vote for Suez accept that they are personally 100% confident in the honesty of the process and except responsibility legally and financially if it goes belly up. They can accept Bernies word for it if they like, or they can check it out for themselves.

steve177

Male
Number of posts : 53
Location : Guernsey
Registration date : 2009-12-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Is £93.5m waste plant too small?

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum