Ringsend incinerator to burn 600,000 tonnes

luckat

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2007/1119/breaking58.html?via=me

Poolbeg plant cleared to burn 600,000 tonnes


The proposed Poolbeg incinerator

An Bord Pleanála has granted planning permission for the proposed Poolbeg incinerator in Dublin's Ringsend.

The incinerator, which will have the capacity to burn 600,000 tonnes of waste annually, was approved subject to 13 conditions.

One of the conditions stipulates that all deliveries to the plant, except for those from a specified area around the site, will have to come via the M50 and the Dublin Port Tunnel.

The controversial plan is an integral part of Dublin City Council's waste management strategy which proposes a target of 59 per cent recycling, and the amount of waste going to landfill to be reduced from the current 70 per cent to just 16 per cent.

The plan envisages there would still be 25 per cent of Dublin's waste remaining that would be sent to the incinerator.

<snip>

I notice that John Gormley's blog is rather quiet about this.

My brother lives 6km from a super-modern incinerator in France. Every time I go there I get asthma from the sulphur fumes.

luckat

Bump

cavedave

I notice that John Gormley's blog is rather quiet about this.

When these issues come up the argument seems to be something like this

John Gormley: The incinerator well I wrote a strongly worded letter in green pen, that's how angry I am. No I cannot do anything about it I am just the minister for the environment. Lismullen? Yeah I am really peeved about that I might go cycle out there and protest myself. Do something about it? No I cannot do anything about it I am just the minister for the environment. I might ask the cleaning lady in the department of the environment if she can get it stopped she has a lot more power then me. The ward hunt, no I cannot do anything about it I am just the minister for the environment. What I will do is keep ignoring the issue and hope it goes away. You know I kind of wish I was back in opposition there I could at least talk about fixing all these things but unfortunately I cannot do anything about them now as I am just the minister for the environment.

Raytown Rocks

As if traffic on the Eastlink is not bad enough all ready, the Sean Moore Road is a nightmare from 3.30 onwards most days, what the hell will the place be line when this thing is built.
The traffic into and out of the poolbeg peninsula is already woeful due to the container yards, this will really compound the issue.

Tiriel

The blog is silent - has it been updated at all since July?!

2 stroke

luckat wrote: »

My brother lives 6km from a super-modern incinerator in France. Every time I go there I get asthma from the sulphur fumes.

BS Lookat. A super-modern incinerator does not emit sulpher fumes. Take a look at what dirty industry is in that area.
John Gormley has sucessfully blocked previous attempts to deal with Irelands waste. Thank God he is not in a position to keep us in the dark ages of landfill anymore. This plant will generate energy fron waste and will have to operate with stricter enviromental controls and will have cleaner emmisions than any powerstation on this island.

gbh

cavedave wrote: »

When these issues come up the argument seems to be something like this

John Gormley: The incinerator well I wrote a strongly worded letter in green pen, that's how angry I am. No I cannot do anything about it I am just the minister for the environment. Lismullen? Yeah I am really peeved about that I might go cycle out there and protest myself. Do something about it? No I cannot do anything about it I am just the minister for the environment. I might ask the cleaning lady in the department of the environment if she can get it stopped she has a lot more power then me. The ward hunt, no I cannot do anything about it I am just the minister for the environment. What I will do is keep ignoring the issue and hope it goes away. You know I kind of wish I was back in opposition there I could at least talk about fixing all these things but unfortunately I cannot do anything about them now as I am just the minister for the environment.

Agreed...when the Greens were on the opposition benches and canvassing for election it was a case of "put us in power and we will make a difference, we will implement our policies".

They were put in power and to be honest they might as well still be in opposition for all the good they seem to be doing. But I'm sure Bertie is aware of the saying, keep your friends close but your enemies closer. Better to have them on your side of the house when all these dirty deals are being implemented than attacking you from the opposition. Clearly they are the mudguard with Bertie, Brian and Co. coming away clean as a whistle.

And we the fools were lead to believe this would be a "Green" government.

luckat

2 stroke wrote: »

BS Lookat. A super-modern incinerator does not emit sulpher fumes.

My mind bows to your superior knowledge, but alas, my lungs don't listen. Local people say the fumes started when the incinerator was built.

If you want an incinerator directly south of Dublin city centre, a city with a prevailing southwesterly wind, the best of luck to you.

2 stroke

If you want an incinerator directly south of Dublin city centre, a city with a prevailing southwesterly wind, the best of luck to you.

It will probably be one of the cleanest large industries in that area. I've seen incinerators operating in city center areas with cleaner exaust gasses than the city air they were breathing in. EEC law is quite strict on emission control from incinerators. If the same emission limits were applied to Irelands power stations even the gas powered stations would probably have to close down.

luckat

Incinerators are filthy by their nature, unfortunately.

Just listening to RTE Radio 1 at the moment where they're discussing it. Very amusing. I'm sussing out work in France right now. With the price I'd get for my house, I could live really well there. Good health service, nice food, cheaper prices, fine, flirtatious men...

2 stroke

Incinerators are filthy by their nature, unfortunately

You've obviously never visited one. Granted the input end is messed up with our unrecyclable rubbish, but the rest of these plants can be remarkably clean. I've worked a few years in the heat exchanger industry and on my first visit to a waste incinerator I wore old clothes expecting the worst. I was the worst dressed person there, it was so embarrasing. To show me how confident they were in their house keeping, the staff cooked chicken over the incinerator and ate it in their work area. That realy was an eyeopener for me. On another visit to this plant I was informed that locals had a protest rally planned. They actualy protested outside the wrong building.

luckat

2 stroke wrote: »

To show me how confident they were in their house keeping, the staff cooked chicken over the incinerator and ate it in their work area. That realy was an eyeopener for me.

For some reason this reminds me of this story:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article2641749.ece

Daughter of John Gummer’s friend dies from human form of 'mad cow' disease
Yepoka Yeebo

The daughter of a close friend of John Gummer, who famously tried to feed his own child a burger to prove that beef was safe, has died from the human form of mad cow disease.

Elizabeth Smith, whose funeral is due to be held today, died from variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) last week at the age of 23. Her parents, Roger and Molly Smith, said that they found out she had the disease on her 21st birthday.

<snip>

BendiBus

luckat wrote: »

Incinerators are filthy by their nature

In what way? Landfill is pretty filthy too.

My main concern is what the residents are going on about - traffic.

Didn't somebody suggest freight trams delivering waste from a collection site on the outside the M50 as a solution?

mikemac

luckat wrote: »

If you want an incinerator directly south of Dublin city centre, a city with a prevailing southwesterly wind, the best of luck to you.

You're posting rubbish! (no pun intended)

Think about it.
You are correct that the prevailing wind is southwesterly.(due to Gulf Stream)
With a southwesterly wind then any fumes go straight over the Irish sea.
As the Irish sea is directly to the east, that's where a southwesterly wind goes to.

Somone wasn't paying attention in geography class, :rolleyes:
Btw,have you any more misformation for the thread?

2 stroke

luckat wrote: »

For some reason this reminds me of this story:

There must be a mad cow thread on here somewhere.

luckat

micmclo wrote: »

With a southwesterly wind then any fumes go straight over the Irish sea.
As the Irish sea is directly to the east, that's where a southwesterly wind goes to.

Prevailing southwesterly, which will blow it into the bay and across to Howth most of the time. When the wind veers slightly, it'll shower the city with choking fumes.

Maybe you're right and I'm wrong. But looking at the mess that's been made of the sewage system, and the nasty thought of a poison-belching incinerator there, I'm glad I didn't buy that house in Sandymount now.

It seems to me that it's crazy to put an incinerator in the country's main city.

And I won't be voting for the castrato Greens again.

saibhne

Maybe I'm missing something here, but wasn't this incinerator planned and proposed by the previous government? How can Gormley be blamed for the actions of his predecessors? Correct me if I'm wrong but there is no real recourse left to him to once the proposals are rubber stamped by An Bord Pleanala. The problem isn't with Gormley, the problem is in short sighted waste management choices made years ago.

As for the incinerator itself the real issue for me is not with it's efficiency or cleanliness but with the fact that it requires our waste management system to be inefficient to be commercially viable. it requires us to fail at reducing, reusing and recycling. In a period where a serious reduction in our consumption habits is required to enable a sustainable future (Enfo say 90% reduction http://www.enfo.ie/images/shopping.pdf) the Ringend incinerator demands unsustainable practice to continue.

A number of years ago (three I think) I was researching the proposal for the incinerator and rang the information office there to get their side. The very hassled PR rep told me that the bulk of the materials that would be incinerated there would be contaminated domestic waste. Contaminated domestic waste is domestic waste that could be recycled but due to it being mixed with another substance that cannot it needs to be dumped/burned - e.g. dirty paper, paper/plastic mix, dirty plastic packaging.

If as a community we accept the principles of reduce, reuse and recycle -which we will have to in the coming years due to the necessity to reduce consumption of polluting materials, then there will be no viable economy for the existence of this incinerator. My view is that we are being sold another long term massive mistake. Unfortunately there is little anyone - including Minister Gormley - can do about it.

bonkey

luckat wrote: »

For some reason this reminds me of this story:

A tragic death of someone, which cannot be directly linked to mad-cow disease, but which can be anecdotally be linked to someone who argued the stuff was safe.

I can see why that would be reminiscent alright...its a bit like people complaining that problems started occurring when an incinerator they didn't want went into production, rather than actually doing the unthinkable and scientifically measuring the air quality before and after.

In both cases, its a case where there is an appeal to emotion to cover up the lack of science.

bonkey

saibhne wrote: »

As for the incinerator itself the real issue for me is not with it's efficiency or cleanliness but with the fact that it requires our waste management system to be inefficient to be commercially viable.

Not exactly. Its a recognition that our waste management system is inefficient, and that this solution is not currently commercially viable.

it requires us to fail at reducing, reusing and recycling.

No, it doesn't. Noone is syuggesting that you shoudl try and keep incinerators in business, no more than the lack of incinerators at teh moment is an incentive to generate more waste to force the building of incinerators.

If anything, it shoudl galavanise those who are against incinerators to ensure that the lifetime of this project is shortened as much as possible through aggressive adoption of the very policies you mention.

If as a community we accept the principles of reduce, reuse and recycle -which we will have to in the coming years due to the necessity to reduce consumption of polluting materials, then there will be no viable economy for the existence of this incinerator.

At which point it can be shut down. Until and unless we get to that point, however, an incinerator is (arguably) the best way of dealing with the waste that is currently being generated.

My view is that we are being sold another long term massive mistake. Unfortunately there is little anyone - including Minister Gormley - can do about it.

What do you propose be done with the excess rubbish until such times as we stop producing it?

maniac101

saibhne wrote: »

Maybe I'm missing something here, but wasn't this incinerator planned and proposed by the previous government? How can Gormley be blamed for the actions of his predecessors? Correct me if I'm wrong but there is no real recourse left to him to once the proposals are rubber stamped by An Bord Pleanala. The problem isn't with Gormley, the problem is in short sighted waste management choices made years ago.

Well you'll have to agree that this makes the minister look pretty impotent. An Bord Pleanala have ruled that the development is in line with current environmental policy. An environment minister who can't implement his policies and can't prevent developments like this has little value. I believe he once stated that this development would go ahead "over my dead body"? For me, the competence of the minister is the bigger issue here. Yesterday, he announced that he would be donating his recent payrise to the GP. Perhaps he should hold on to it since he's facing a longer period of unemployment in 5 years time!

As for the incinerator itself the real issue for me is not with it's efficiency or cleanliness but with the fact that it requires our waste management system to be inefficient to be commercially viable. it requires us to fail at reducing, reusing and recycling. In a period where a serious reduction in our consumption habits is required to enable a sustainable future (Enfo say 90% reduction http://www.enfo.ie/images/shopping.pdf) the Ringend incinerator demands unsustainable practice to continue.

I fully agree with you here.

bonkey wrote: »

No, it doesn't. Noone is syuggesting that you shoudl try and keep incinerators in business, no more than the lack of incinerators at teh moment is an incentive to generate more waste to force the building of incinerators.

If anything, it shoudl galavanise those who are against incinerators to ensure that the lifetime of this project is shortened as much as possible through aggressive adoption of the very policies you mention.

That would be nice. However, the reality of this development is very different. DCC are giving Elsam a guaranteed delivery of 600,000 tonnes of waste per anum, giving a total gate fee of €53 million p.a. The lifetime of this project is 30 years. Legal contracts do not allow any shortening of the project or any reduction of the processed material. In fact the EPA submission states that "The Dublin Waste to Energy facility has a projected life span of at least 30 years, though this may be extended through maintenance or renewal of equipment and systems."

saibhne

bonkey wrote: »

Not exactly. Its a recognition that our waste management system is inefficient, and that this solution is not currently commercially viable.


No, it doesn't. Noone is syuggesting that you shoudl try and keep incinerators in business, no more than the lack of incinerators at teh moment is an incentive to generate more waste to force the building of incinerators.

If anything, it shoudl galavanise those who are against incinerators to ensure that the lifetime of this project is shortened as much as possible through aggressive adoption of the very policies you mention.


At which point it can be shut down. Until and unless we get to that point, however, an incinerator is (arguably) the best way of dealing with the waste that is currently being generated.

My point here is that this is not part of the deal, building the incinerator ties us into a waste management system that uses incineration as it's main means of disposal. As maniac101 says the time scale is about 30 years requiring the generation of 600,000 tonnes of waste a year.

If we are generating 600,000 tonnes of waste in 10 years let alone 30 then this will be indicative of serious unsustainability in our economy and environment. Having said that I don't think this will happen as the imperative to act is becoming more pronounced - this means in my opinion that this incinerator has a short shelf life where it can operate profitably, once the profit disappears the question is who will honour the contract for 600,000 tonnes?

bonkey wrote: »

What do you propose be done with the excess rubbish until such times as we stop producing it?

Unfortunately I don't have a definitive answer to that, but before you say aha! what is required now is also what was required back 5 - 10 years ago when the incinerator was being bandied about as a solution to our waste needs. The only sustainable way forward is to approach production and consumption from a cyclical perspective - what is taken from our resource base and put into the production process needs to be able to be recycled back into the resource base. This is nothing new, this is the decision that should have been made back then and is still the action that needs to be taken now, Reduce reuse recylcle needs to be the way forward, incineration detracts from this and thus leads us away from where we need to be. We are however lumped with it.

maniac101 wrote: »

Originally Posted by saibhne
Maybe I'm missing something here, but wasn't this incinerator planned and proposed by the previous government? How can Gormley be blamed for the actions of his predecessors? Correct me if I'm wrong but there is no real recourse left to him to once the proposals are rubber stamped by An Bord Pleanala. The problem isn't with Gormley, the problem is in short sighted waste management choices made years ago.

Well you'll have to agree that this makes the minister look pretty impotent. An Bord Pleanala have ruled that the development is in line with current environmental policy. An environment minister who can't implement his policies and can't prevent developments like this has little value. I believe he once stated that this development would go ahead "over my dead body"? For me, the competence of the minister is the bigger issue here. Yesterday, he announced that he would be donating his recent payrise to the GP. Perhaps he should hold on to it since he's facing a longer period of unemployment in 5 years time!

Come on let's be real, he's only in office a few months and is a junior member of a large coalition, he's minister of the environment but he's not King, I don't think he actually has the power to do the things that people on this thread expect of him. I agree he looks impotent but I actually think he is with regards issues signed off by previous ministers. I'm not entirely sure of the mechanics of it but my best guess is that issues like Tara and Poolbeg once sanctioned by the office of the minister for the environment - be it Dick Roche or John Gormley are in the wheels of bureaucracy and aren't available for redress. Last I heard of it Gormley was mentioning judicial review as a possible action against Poolbeg - this doesn't sound like a man with a powerful mandate on this issue. I could be wrong here so if there is someone who can shed some light I would appreciate it.

2 stroke

An Bord Pleanala have ruled that the development is in line with current environmental policy.

We are part of Europe and this would be european environmental policy.
As I see it, the only legal thing the minister for the enviroment can do is insist this plant meets strict european guidelines. His other options are to sieze power and withdraw from the EEC, or resign and have no control at all.

bonkey

saibhne wrote: »

If we are generating 600,000 tonnes of waste in 10 years let alone 30 then this will be indicative of serious unsustainability in our economy and environment.

How much are we generating today?

luckat

Hmmm, junior member, etc - I rememeber many 'junior' members of coalitions who swung government policy because they used the fact that they were necessary for leverage - look at Tony Gregory when he was just a sprat, for instance.

The Greens seem impotent in government, scuttling to do Bertie's bidding like good boys when they're told to, and going missing for a vote where their principles might be wounded if they took them out and used them.

I thought - naive me - that Greens in government meant that some of the eco-crazy policies of Fianna Fail might be turned around, that we might actually become the forty shades of green again.

How do you do that multi-quote thing, by the way?

2 stroke

You cannot swing goverment enviromental policy when we are signed up to follow european enviromental policy.

Tiriel

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1122/incinerator.html

"The Environmental Protection Agency has announced that it is proposing to grant a licence to Dublin City Council for the operation of its incinerator at Poolbeg."

So the move is on...

"Fine Gael has accused Mr Gormley of being 'hapless and helpless', while Labour says he is the first politician to find he had less power in Government than in Opposition."

Hapless and helpless he may be - but I wouldn't swap him for any FG'er!!

2 stroke

luckat wrote: »

and the nasty thought of a poison-belching incinerator there, I'm glad I didn't buy that house in Sandymount now.

It seems to me that it's crazy to put an incinerator in the country's main city.

I too would object to poison-belching incinerator anywhere on this island, as much as I object to our poison-belching power stations, factory boilers, open fireplaces and haloween bonfires. However this is a modern facility which will have to meet strict regulations or it will be shut down.

House prices will not be affected, there used be an incineration plant near Fishermans Warf until a few years ago, U2 made 1 of their videos outside it, property prices werent affected in that area.

The country's main city doesn't have a suitable site for landfilling the countrys main citys rubbish, and nobody else wants it.

mikep

People gotta remember that there are incinerators dotted all over the country already!!
There are probably a few operating in Dublin already and have been for years...also these existing incinerators are probably operating outdated equipment which will in no way compare to the modern ones beiong proposed around the country (that said I believe the type proposed for Cork should be a roatary kiln and not a moving grate design)

BTW Gormely's new white hope of MBT ( mechanical biological treatment) will be met with the same vehemnet oppostion at every site proposed.

2 stroke

Cork_girl wrote: »

"The Environmental Protection Agency has announced that it is proposing to grant a licence to Dublin City Council for the operation of its incinerator at Poolbeg."

This is where it all happens. this licence is the stick this plant can be beaten with if it steps out of line. It is also where to make your submissions to if you are concerned about this incinerator, independent of politics and anything but hapless and helpless.

thehairyone

luckat wrote: »

It seems to me that it's crazy to put an incinerator in the country's main city.

As Dublin is Irelands main producer of waste its makes sense that an incinerator be placed in the city. What other options are there, put it in Kildare or Meath instead, not only will this increase transport costs it is also totally unreasonable to expect the people of these counties to accept 600,00 tonnes of Dublins waste. Waste should be treated as close to its source as possible. Having waste treatment facilities in some ones back garden might make people think about the amount of waste they are producing.

saibhne wrote: »

Reduce reuse recylcle needs to be the way forward, incineration detracts from this and thus leads us away from where we need to be.

Agreed. The incinerator proposed at poolbeg will detract from the 3R’s. All must agree that the 3R’s are the ideal situation to be in. However, I believe this is due to Government policy rather than incineration in principal. The poolbeg incinerator will be privately run and as such will be competing with recycling to treat as much waste as possible. As it is much easier to incinerate than recycle, incineration will win out. However, if incineration was part of an overall waste strategy, where it was used in conjunction with the 3 R’s then this would be a good thing. The only way for this to work is to have publicly run incinerators, where waste management is the bottom line and not profit. With government and most Local Authorities unwilling to take waste management seriously, I doubt this will happen. Also, recycling facilities in Ireland are almost non-existent, most of our recyclable waste is shipped abroad. This situation is completely unsustainable, recycling facilities need to be improved. Some argue that there is a limited market in Ireland for recycled products, I believe this is true (look at the recent closures of the only recycling facilities we had). The government needs to offer substantial tax breaks for these facilities and perhaps tax incentives to companies who use recycled products. As it stands, recycling will not work in Ireland, as its not commercially viable.

While a lot of people disagree with incineration, I believe it should be a vital component of Ireland’s waste strategy. I wish to stress that it should only be a component, it is not a cure all elixir to Ireland’s waste crisis. If we ruled incineration out, then landfill could be the only option for some of our waste. This must not be allowed to happen, waste should be viewed as a resource and putting it in a hole in the ground, no matter how modern the facility, is a crime.

Tiriel

thehairyone wrote: »

If we ruled incineration out, then landfill could be the only option for some of our waste. This must not be allowed to happen, waste should be viewed as a resource and putting it in a hole in the ground, no matter how modern the facility, is a crime.

This is the point most people are missing I think - that it is an alternative that is very difficult to beat.

2 stroke

I'm in favour of a privatly run operation monitered by a public body.
My reason for saying that is I've visited "incinerators" run by the department of health, these were little more than fireplaces and are probably what gave incinerators a bad name in this country. Staff had little or no training and legislation wasn't complied with. Often these machines ran unsupervised with no automatic controls. Hospital porters would just bring waste from the hospital, throw it on the fire and walk away before they choked from the fumes.
You cannot have this goverment run or they will make a feck of it.

thehairyone

A privately run incinerator will focus on gaining maximum profit rather than be part of an integrated waste management strategy that would be of benefit to both society and the environment. Granted, I can see why you wouldnt trust the government to run this facility. However, it wouldnt be the politicians that would run the plant, it would be run by highly qualified scientists (whether it is private or public). Also, if it was to be public, it would have to stick to the same regulations and emissions that a private incinerator would have to adhere to.

I agree with you that in the past incinerators were badly run and operated (i know a hospital porter who in his first day on the job was told to throw an amputated limb into the furnace at UCHG). But these "incinerators" were old even in the early nineties. These incinerators certainly left a bad taste in peoples mouths but I think the main reason incineration is not widely accepted in Ireland is due to scarmongering by the media and certain political parties who should know better.

2 stroke

thehairyone wrote: »

A privately run incinerator will focus on gaining maximum profit rather than be part of an integrated waste management strategy that would be of benefit to both society and the environment. Granted,

Maximum profit is achieved by staying in business long term, not the quick buck. Besides, this plant can only incinerate the waste it is given, it cannot make us produce more waste to make more profit. If you have a problem with your unrecyclable waste going to an incinerator for energy recovery, keep it, pack it into a body cavity or whatever you have to but I don't want it going to landfill. For those that want everything reused or recycled, what do you want used nappies and sanitary towels recycled into.

thehairyone wrote: »

it would be run by highly qualified scientists

LOL. More like it will be run by what I call a "book engineer" i.e. a highly qualified engineer who cannot make it in the real world because of their lack of aptude for their chosen profession. Highly qualified scientists and good engineers have much better things to be doing, having worked in an incineration plant doesn't look well on a c.v. But he wont be doing the actual work. Probably someone who can pass a civil service exam doing that. Now I've nothing against civil servants but they're better working behind a desk than working machinery in general

luckat

Considering Ireland's disgraceful international record on sending 'recyclable' waste to third world countries for sorting, mixed in with filthy household waste, I dread to think what will be burned in the incinerator.

thehairyone

2 stroke wrote: »

Maximum profit is achieved by staying in business long term, not the quick buck. Besides, this plant can only incinerate the waste it is given, it cannot make us produce more waste to make more profit.

A private plant will want as much waste as it can get hold of. This includes plastics, paper and wood. I believe items like these should be recycled. A privately run plant will place a priority on thermal treatment of waste rather than recycling. Therefore, waste such as plastic, paper and wood would be incinerated which would divert large amounts of waste from being recycled. I am pro incineration but see it as the final step in waste management rather than the first. So items such as nappies, sanitory towels and medical waste etc. should be incinerated but in a privately run incinerator incinerating only these non-recyclable items would not be commericially viable. A publically run incinerator (that was part of a broader waste managemnt plan that had the 3R's at its base) that only incinerated non-recyclable waste would more than likely be run at a loss, but isnt that why we pay our taxes.

2 stroke wrote: »

LOL. More like it will be run by what I call a "book engineer" i.e. a highly qualified engineer who cannot make it in the real world because of their lack of aptude for their chosen profession. Highly qualified scientists and good engineers have much better things to be doing, having worked in an incineration plant doesn't look well on a c.v. But he wont be doing the actual work. Probably someone who can pass a civil service exam doing that. Now I've nothing against civil servants but they're better working behind a desk than working machinery in general

If, as you say, that a job in an incineration plant would only attract low end workers, then a "book engineer" in the civil service is the same as a "book engineer" in a privately run incinerator. Both methods of running the incinerator would attract the same type of people to apply for the job. Either way, whoever did run the plant, they would have to stick to the strict licensing restrictions. Whether publically or privately run, there is no escaping that.

thehairyone

This from the Irish Times today on the granting of a draft licence to Dublin City Council to operate its proposed Poolbeg incinerator:

Green Party chairman Senator Dan Boyle said two specific conditions in the draft licence meant waste going for treatment at the incinerator must be "residual". This meant only residual waste would be incinerated after recycling, reuse, composting and separation. "Once pre-treatment occurs there will not be the 600,000 tonnes of waste needed to feed this monster incinerator," he said. Mr Boyle maintained that "under the terms of the EPA's licence, [ the] proposed plant will also be economically unviable."

If this is indeed the case (where only non-recyclable waste will go to the incinerator) then it is a good thing. However, I agree with the green party that the plant may be economically unviable if there is not enough waste left over to thermally treat. Which is why I think a publically run incinerator treating only the "residual waste" that was mentioned in the article (more than likely run at a loss) would be a better option for society and the environmnt. I must note that I don't see a major problem with incinerating compostable (food) waste. We will have to wait and see if this condition stays in the license.

dhaslam

micmclo wrote: »

You're posting rubbish! (no pun intended)

Think about it.
You are correct that the prevailing wind is southwesterly.(due to Gulf Stream)
With a southwesterly wind then any fumes go straight over the Irish sea.
As the Irish sea is directly to the east, that's where a southwesterly wind goes to.

The prevailing wind in Dublin is more from the West because of the mountains to the South.
www.met.ie/climate/wind.asp

Isn't the most iimportant factor in burning waste the separation of plastic and other harmful items first, apparently this is a condition for planning. If the remainder is mainly food waste it may not burn all that well and heat output may be very limited, even with 1600 tonnes per day.

luckat

thehairyone wrote: »

Either way, whoever did run the plant, they would have to stick to the strict licensing restrictions. Whether publically or privately run, there is no escaping that.

Hahahahahahaha!

You've made my day! Thank you. I needed a really good belly-laugh.

thehairyone

If it is the case that only non-recyclable waste will be incinerated I have no problem with it being privately run but as ive already said i have reservations about an economically viable privately run plant treating only non recyclable waste. However, the term "residual waste" seems very broad to me and open to interpretation and its not yet certain if this clause will stay in the license, i expect there to be objections from DCC to this condition.

luckat wrote: »

Hahahahahahaha!

You've made my day! Thank you. I needed a really good belly-laugh.

This incinerator will be the first of its type in the country, as such its operators will want as little bad press as possible leading to very high standards in its operation. Also, whatever you think of the EPA (and they are far from perfect) they will be under immense pressure to have a strict monitoring programme in place to monitor the emissions. If the plant is not up to standard and is found to be breaching its license, action will be taken (whether that be heavy fines or temporary closure), even your cynicism must see the truth of that.

SeanW

saibhne wrote: »

My point here is that this is not part of the deal, building the incinerator ties us into a waste management system that uses incineration as it's main means of disposal. As maniac101 says the time scale is about 30 years requiring the generation of 600,000 tonnes of waste a year.

If we are generating 600,000 tonnes of waste in 10 years let alone 30 then this will be indicative of serious unsustainability in our economy and environment.

But Dublin doesn't HAVE to generate 600,000 tons in 30 years - presumably whatever deal can be extended to cover more time, or to take waste from other counties.

If two cars are made at the same time, one gets raced like crazy, the other was well maintained but spent most of its time parked in a garage, which car is going to be in the best shape in 5 years time?

I suspect it will be the same with an incinerator deal, whether it gets the waste in time or not, it will come from somewhere, some time.

2 stroke

There is much discussion of whether or not this incinerator is viable. The waste directed to this incinerator would otherwise go to landfill, and I don't know of any landfill which is economically viably even in the shorterm. Not to mention the fact that if buried, the waste will rot away underground until some future generation decides to look after it.

With regards to my comment regarding "book engineers", in privatly run operations these can be sacked if incapaple of doing their job. I know of two badly run municipal operations operated by such "engineers". One of them has emailed me privatly today after identifying me from my comments on this forum, I can't see him identifying me publicly though.

luckat

2 stroke wrote: »

The waste directed to this incinerator would otherwise go to landfill

We could get rid of huge amounts of waste if the government took the same steps on needless packaging that it has on plastic bags - ask people to pay for packaging if they want their tomatoes and eggs in cute little plastic packages.

I compost all vegetable waste and most paper. Two-thirds of my rubbish by bulk is plastics of one sort or another - mostly packaging from vegetables and meat, plus plastic bottles from water. There is absolutely no need for this packaging, but it's going to landfill.

In the US, drinks cans can be sold back to recyclers for something like a dime each, and never end up in the rubbish - instead they're collected for pocket money by children and for living money by the homeless, to be resold.

Used newspaper is a valuable resource in some countries - but here it goes to landfill. So does glass, in vast quantities.

Perhaps I should change my ways - instead of trying to be responsible with my own private rubbish, I should just build a big fire in the garden and burn the lot. After all, that's the approach of my government.

2 stroke

Luckat, I sugest you stop buying products with excess packaging, especially the water (I know safety of this depends on where you live). By the way water bottles are not rubbish but reclycables.

luckat

What, I should take the organic carrots and celery and onions out of the bags and boxes and leave them in the supermarket?

As for the safety of water *anywhere in the country*, I've been listening to the excellent series of documentaries on RTE Radio 1 by Philip Boucher Hayes about Ireland's water....

2 stroke

luckat wrote: »

What, I should take the organic carrots and celery and onions out of the bags and boxes and leave them in the supermarket?

Can you realy consider them organic if packed in plastic? I don't. I grow most of my own veg and I sell some in a farmers market, I manage to do this without plastic packaging.

Regarding water quality, I know of companies that have difficulty discharging waste water that would meet the standards for bottled water in this country.

lostexpectation

exactly where are we going to get 600,000 tonnes of contaminated waste from?

seanw says will get it from abroad, it supposed to be only gotten from nearby...

interesting point gormely is making about the ruling saying that the previous (incinerator) policy wasn't rescinded... he's saying that nonsense.

I think the EPA giving the thing 600,000 has harmed more then helped the incinerator,

saibhne

SeanW wrote: »

But Dublin doesn't HAVE to generate 600,000 tons in 30 years - presumably whatever deal can be extended to cover more time, or to take waste from other counties.

If two cars are made at the same time, one gets raced like crazy, the other was well maintained but spent most of its time parked in a garage, which car is going to be in the best shape in 5 years time?

I suspect it will be the same with an incinerator deal, whether it gets the waste in time or not, it will come from somewhere, some time.

Sean W,
Just to clarify, it's 600,000 tonnes per annum for 30 years - I'm not sure there will be much intended idling in the garage going on.

Even if the waste does come from "somewhere, some time" that's still a bad idea - The point I wish to make is that the main issue with an incinerator is in the thinking, the mind set that sees it as a solution in the first place. it not how to dispose of waste but how we eliminate the production of waste that has to be the main focus. I'm not disputing the fact that incinerators work - they burn waste and very well at whatever rate. But we as a global community cannot continue to produce that waste at anywhere near the rate that this incinerator requires to maintain it's cost effectiveness.
Even if the waste came from somewhere else I would view that as a failure of the primary policy set up to reduce that waste in the first place.

saibhne

luckat wrote: »

Hmmm, junior member, etc - I rememeber many 'junior' members of coalitions who swung government policy because they used the fact that they were necessary for leverage - look at Tony Gregory when he was just a sprat, for instance.

The Greens seem impotent in government, scuttling to do Bertie's bidding like good boys when they're told to, and going missing for a vote where their principles might be wounded if they took them out and used them.

I thought - naive me - that Greens in government meant that some of the eco-crazy policies of Fianna Fail might be turned around, that we might actually become the forty shades of green again.

How do you do that multi-quote thing, by the way?

Relevant quote below from the rte site, not saying this is definitive but certainly indicates as I suspected that Gormley is fairly powerless in relation to the implementation of the Poolbeg incinerator. However, what he can do is create his own new policy which will seek to make the incinerator redundant - if he fails at that then maybe you have a point...

"The Taoiseach has told the Dáil that the Minister for the Environment John Gormley does not have the powers to halt the Poolbeg incinerator

He said while the minister had certain powers in relation to these plans, they were limited ones and it was wrong that the minister could use any of his powers in a way that would halt the Poolbeg incinerator."

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1120/incinerator.html?rss

(multi quote thing is done by copying and pasting the html tags around the quote you want to highlight and changing the names of the posters - e.g:

luckat wrote: »

change luckat to whoever you want to quote from.

2 stroke

exactly where are we going to get 600,000 tonnes of contaminated waste from?

By my calculations, if this plant is run at full capacity 365 days a year it will only handle 15% of Dublins waste problem, so it is only part of the solution.

bonkey

2 stroke wrote: »

By my calculations, if this plant is run at full capacity 365 days a year it will only handle !5% of Dublins waste problem, so it is only part of the solution.

600,000 tonnes being 5% would suggest that Dublin generates 12,000,000 tonnes per year.

Where do these figures come from?