|
10th January 2008 Oxfordshire's Green Councillors have universally condemned the decision of the Tory-run County Council to build a new incinerator to dispose of Oxfordshire's muncipal waste. The County's Labour and LibDem Councillors appeared split on the issue at the debate held on the subject at a Full Meeting of the County Council earlier this week. A summary of the arguments made by the Greens against incineration - and in favour of the more environmentally friendly Mechanical and Biological Treatment (MBT) - appears below: THE CASE AGAINST INCINERATION
And the case for Mechanical and Biological Treatment - a sustainable solution to waste management in Oxfordshire
We are all taught that reducing, reusing and recycling stuff is better than throwing it away. This is commonly referred to as the ‘waste hierarchy’. Why then is the County dismissing Mechanical and Biological Treatment (or MBT) – a fancy name which encompasses a range of automatic sorting and recycling processes - in favour of incineration, which reduces our rubbish to toxic ash and a range of hazardous air pollutants whilst generating a small amount of energy.
The main proponents of Energy from Waste plants (a more user-friendly term than incinerator) are typically those who stand to make money from the supply of new equipment. On the other side of the debate are the Green Party, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and other environmental groups who – it could reasonably be argued – have no in-built bias towards any particular waste management process.
There are many arguments made in favour of incineration – few of which stand up to close scrutiny. Here are some that County Councillors used, mainly Labour and Conservative, to justify pursuing the construction of a new incinerator in Oxfordshire.
“Incineration is the most economical option”
Overall Incineration and MBT cost about the same. At the moment incineration benefits from several hidden Goverment subsidies which allows companies to offer this option at a lower price. This advantage is short term. Yet the County is tying themselves into a 25 year contract which will prove more costly in the medium and long term. Because less investment is need to start up an MBT plant contracts tend to be a lot shorter – around 5 to 10 years – giving more protection to the taxpayer and more flexibility to adapt to changing environmental regulations.
“Incinerators produce ‘green’ electricity”Not true, if you take into account the whole life cycle of the materials being burned, the carbon emissions per kilowatt-hour of electricity produced is higher than a conventional power station.
“Incineration will provide us with loads of electricity”If we burned all the County’s rubbish which currently goes to landfill we will only meet around 1% of the County’s electricity needs.
“Everyone else in Europe is incinerating their rubbish so it must be OK”
Although some European countries incinerate it doesn’t mean we have to. Incineration is an old technology – it is not necessarily the best solution for present day problems. Proponents fail to mention that many Countries with high recycling rates also have MBT plants. Germany has 40, for example.
“All Councils in the UK have gone for incineration – so it is obviously the best practical environmental option”
Not true. There are 6 MBT plants operating or planned within the UK and more on the way.
“Incineration is the only way to meet LATS (Landfill Directive) reduction targets”LATS targets only apply to biodegradable waste (food, garden waste, compost, wood and paper). The Council is already working on a new food waste treatment plant, composting schemes, paper recycling and garden waste collection, which will allow to meet the Council’s 2010 LATS targets without incineration. They have to do this anyway as any incinerator is unlikely to be operational before 2012.
“MBT plants produce a residue, but incinerators don’t” Both produce residues, but the whole point of MBT is to extract as many useful materials from the waste stream as possible rather than just burning everything.
“Incinerators can produce heat as well as electricity” MBT plants can also capture heat - though they typically do this using biological processes rather than incineration. However, producing heat is pointless if there is no factory nearby to make use of the energy. Piping the heat to homes has been mentioned – but houses only need heating for about half the year and new build homes are soon to be built with thick insulation and will require virtually no heating.
“The Greens are dogmatically against all incineration” Not true, the Greens accept that under certain circumstances incineration is the only sensible option, for example, treatment of certain medical waste in hospital incinerators. However, this does not mean that it is the correct option for mixed household waste.
|
Home 
News 
