EPA grants Poolbeg incinerator licence

spadder

I would like to formally recognise the green party as the most useless shower of cnuts this country has ever seen.


http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/1202/incinerator.html

and the catch:

"One of the most controversial aspects of the plant is a clause in the contract which states the council must provide the plant operator with a specified amount of waste or pay if this target is not achieved"

Fratton Fred

I have nothing against the incinerator, rubbish needs to go somewhere and if this were pushed out into the country somewhere, we would just have more lorries on the roads, so i think this is probably the best place for it.

I think a little bit more info should be gleaned before we criticise the clause regarding the amount of rubbish burnt. The contractor is setting up a business on the understanding that the council provides it with a certain level of revenue per year, which is fine. However, the contract should be structured in such a way that it is more financailly viable not to burn rubbish than to burn it. What should not be allowed to happen, is that the council in incentivised to incinerate rather than recycle. The levels should also be reviewed regularly as well, to ensure we do not end up with a west link toll brige type scenario.

spadder

"One of the most controversial aspects of the plant is a clause in the contract which states the council must provide the plant operator with a specified amount of waste or pay if this target is not achieved"-

So when we try to recycle more we pay more to another quango.
This is the M50 all over again.

How can the "Environmental protection agency" justify burning rubbish?

Dob74

What do you what to do with the waste dump it in the sea? Incineration is the way to go, no more landfills. No one wants to live next to one but they have to go somewhere.

spadder

Dob74 wrote: »

What do you what to do with the waste dump it in the sea? Incineration is the way to go, no more landfills. No one wants to live next to one but they have to go somewhere.

Sort it, and reuse it. The only thing that should be burned is biological / hospital waste.

Fratton Fred

spadder wrote: »

"One of the most controversial aspects of the plant is a clause in the contract which states the council must provide the plant operator with a specified amount of waste or pay if this target is not achieved"-

So when we try to recycle more we pay more to another quango.
This is the M50 all over again.

How can the "Environmental protection agency" justify burning rubbish?

we don't know that, all we know is that a fee has to be paid (compensation for loss of revenue i presume) if a certain amount ot waste is not burnt. The operator has no other way of funding this operation, yet it will have fixed costs to cover.

The EPA has to establish the most efficient way of disposing of rubbish. This is probably the best.

spadder wrote: »

Sort it, and reuse it. The only thing that should be burned is biological / hospital waste.

in an ideal world, yes, but its not.

Are you offering to do the sorting btw?

spadder

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The EPA has to establish the most efficient way of disposing of rubbish. This is probably the best.


Are you offering to do the sorting btw?

I thought the EPA looked after the protecting the environment? If they feel burning rubbish in a city is suitable, there are some dark forces (FF) at work.

Waste management companies dispose of rubbish.

Yes, I would set up a sorting depot if I had the money, it's big business.
People are under the illusion that stuff they throw out is just rubbish, it's a valuable resource. We are made feel that the recycle centres are doing us a favour. It's big business.

RedPlanet

I wonder how this incinerator will hamper recycling.
If the council must provide a certain amount of waste, then where is the incentive to recycle?

Fratton Fred

RedPlanet wrote: »

I wonder how this incinerator will hamper recycling.
If the council must provide a certain amount of waste, then where is the incentive to recycle?

I am guessing here, but if i was negotiating the contract, I would set it so that the council pay (for example) €200 per tonne to burn rubbish, or €100 per tonne if they miss the minimum agreed amount. Therefore it is €100 per tonne to recycle.

Fratton Fred

spadder wrote: »

I thought the EPA looked after the protecting the environment? If they feel burning rubbish in a city is suitable, there are some dark forces (FF) at work.

Waste management companies dispose of rubbish.

Yes, I would set up a sorting depot if I had the money, it's big business.
People are under the illusion that stuff they throw out is just rubbish, it's a valuable resource. We are made feel that the recycle centres are doing us a favour. It's big business.

so what, we should take it by 35 tonne lorry to the middle of the country side and chuck it in a lake? I'm sure the people of Meath will love having their environment ruined so that the Dubs can feel better about not having to burn their rubbish.

Yes, sorting is very profitable and i agree that most rubbish can be recycled but that is more about changing people's attitudes than whether or not an incinerator should be built.

I don't know if you have been to poolbeg, but it isn't exactly in the middle of the city.

egan007

Incinerator - It's funny that people have a problem with them but not with fires in their back garden / bonfires which are FAR more deadly.

Most of the arguments against it are uninformed....I'd blame the repression..

brianthebard

Well now that Gormley's pet project has been shot down maybe he'll start getting interested in the actual running of the country? Doubtful...

P. Breathnach

Let's stop fooling ourselves. While the national performance on recycling waste has improved greatly, we still generate a great deal of waste with no real worth for recycling. The stuff that goes into my bin is not the valuable resource spadder believes in (okay, I think I am more careful about recycling and waste minimisation than average).

So what do we do with that stuff? Landfill has its environmental downside, and so has incineration. It looks to me as if incineration is the lesser of two evils.

What's wrong with having an incinerator in Dublin? It's processing the waste close to its source. Should we have a convoy of trucks using of expensive fuel to take it to Westmeath or Wexford? That idea is, well, rubbish. All that is needed is to ensure that the incineration is done in the right way. I trust that is what the EPA is doing in setting its conditions.

The people of Vienna have no problem with having an incinerator in their city.

Villain

Gormley will be under serious pressure especially in his own constituency.

We do need incineration but in the city centre?

murfie

Well it appears Gormley is a lame duck minisiter! I am delighted dublin city council are not listening to him. Incenerators are used all over the world and as always Ireland are the last to come up to speed with modern technology!

P. Breathnach

Villain wrote: »

We do need incineration but in the city centre?

That's where the rubbish is!

turgon

Its not like they throw it out their back yard and burn it, these processes are controlled. People need to stop being so ignorant, you cant keep filling the land, incineration is the way forward. Two words: get real.

Spadder suggest reusing everything. I got a few used condoms there, what do I do with these?

Fratton Fred

turgon wrote: »

Its not like they throw it out their back yard and burn it, these processes are controlled. People need to stop being so ignorant, you cant keep filling the land, incineration is the way forward. Two words: get real.

Spadder suggest reusing everything. I got a few used condoms there, what do I do with these?

turn them inside out and use them again

Macha

turgon wrote: »

Its not like they throw it out their back yard and burn it, these processes are controlled. People need to stop being so ignorant, you cant keep filling the land, incineration is the way forward. Two words: get real.

True, landfills are far from ideal. But our recycling rates have stagnated at their target of 35% and there has been no suggestion of increasing our target.

Also, we may recycle a lot but we also create very high levels of waste. There's no point patting ourselves on the back if we just keep creating more and more waste.

Incineration is a good idea because energy can be extracted from the burned materials. However, we should be producing less waste and recycling more. After all, there is also an environmental impact in extracting natural resources to create the packaging, etc in the first place and therefore simply incinerating everything is not a good idea.

So we need an incinerator, but a small one. And not one with the silly condition attached that if we don't produce enough waste (!), we have to pay a fine. I understand why it's there, but I still don't agree with it.

It's just like the cycling scheme with JC Deceaux - the public sector is totally incapable of getting a good deal out of a PPP.

Mr.Micro

I would be the first to admit that I would not like an incinerator near me. Having said that what is the alternative here in Ireland? We call ourselves green or mostly we do, yet the amount of rubbish that can be seen along the roadsides, rubbish dumped in scenic spots and many places up and down the country, not to mention all the burning barrels that festoon the landscape on a daily basis. Landfill is not a safe method of disposal nor even efficient. I fear there is no alternative but to have an incinerator.

P. Breathnach

taconnol wrote: »

... the public sector is totally incapable of getting a good deal out of a PPP.

Of course it can't. That's a given. A public-private partnership is a mechanism for allowing business to make profit out of public provision. The idea of doing things because they are good for people or for the community has been removed from the agenda.

Macha

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I would be the first to admit that I would not like an incinerator near me.

It's funny. The biggest problem with living near an incinerator is really the increased traffic. The technology is advanced enough now that there really are no health risks-you get more dioxins from smoking a cigarette. However, I wouldn't like to live near one because it would devalue my property (not for any valid reason, but just because other people have unfounded fears)

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Of course it can't. That's a given. A public-private partnership is a mechanism for allowing business to make profit out of public provision. The idea of doing things because they are good for people or for the community has been removed from the agenda.

Well...in theory PPPs can be benficial. Private businesses provide large amounts of capital and take on the risk BUT as we have seen with McNamara, the contracts are not water-tight enough to prevent the private partner from disappearing when they feel the risk is too high. Also, in relation to public housing, previously public land is sold off to private developers which is not replaced anywhere else, thereby reducing the overall stock of public housing. So while the increased mix of public/private housing is good and reduces the ghettoisation of public housing, they still manage to mess it up!

There are examples of good PPP schemes in other countries (naturally..). The cycling scheme in Paris has been excellent and the Parisian authorities got a way better deal out of JC Decaux than we did.

The simple fact that we don't need an incinerator as big as the one proposed should be clear evidence that we are being screwed. It's no different from the dodgy plumber who comes in and tells you that you need a replacement boiler when all you need is a decent service on the existing boiler.

Fratton Fred

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Of course it can't. That's a given. A public-private partnership is a mechanism for allowing business to make profit out of public provision. The idea of doing things because they are good for people or for the community has been removed from the agenda.

Not always. it allows a public operation to be run on commercial lines. For example, the operator may have been given a contract to incinerate rubbish for a period of five years, after that time the position can be reviewed again. What is does allow for, is a competitive tendering process to be carried out and the council to have avery clear understanding of what it's costs will be. It also means that in five years time, the council could walk away and not have to worry about an outdated incineration plant. That would be the contractors responsibility. The contractor also takes on the responsibilty of meeting any environmental legislation that comes into play, which may incur additional costs the council doesn't have to worry about. (And fines if it breaks any rules) it also means the employees will not be public sector, which should save a few bob as well

This is a simple case of outsourcing, as none of us know how the contract has been constructed, we could always give the council the benefit of the doubt and presume they have done a good job.

turgon

Fratton Fred wrote: »

This is a simple case of outsourcing, as none of us know how the contract has been constructed, we could always give the council the benefit of the doubt and presume they have done a good job.

Not when you living in Ireland.

P. Breathnach

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Not always. it allows a public operation to be run on commercial lines. For example, the operator may have been given a contract to incinerate rubbish for a period of five years, after that time the position can be reviewed again. What is does allow for, is a competitive tendering process to be carried out and the council to have avery clear understanding of what it's costs will be. It also means that in five years time, the council could walk away and not have to worry about an outdated incineration plant. That would be the contractors responsibility. The contractor also takes on the responsibilty of meeting any environmental legislation that comes into play, which may incur additional costs the council doesn't have to worry about. (And fines if it breaks any rules) it also means the employees will not be public sector, which should save a few bob as well

This is a simple case of outsourcing, as none of us know how the contract has been constructed, we could always give the council the benefit of the doubt and presume they have done a good job.

My brief comment left a lot of room for nuance, and most broad statements allow room for exceptions. But your optimistic view of PPPs is, I think, a bit overstated. Many on the advantages you suggest would be disadvantages to contractor, and you can be quite sure that only a very naive operator would undertake those burdens of risk without getting terms that made the deal acceptable to them. For example, if a council were free to walk away from an arrangement after five years, then you can be sure that the contractor will secure a price that yields a profit within that time -- and then, if there is an extension of the contract, it's a fair guess that it will be very highly profitable because initial investments will already have been covered.

Fratton Fred

P. Breathnach wrote: »

My brief comment left a lot of room for nuance, and most broad statements allow room for exceptions. But your optimistic view of PPPs is, I think, a bit overstated. Many on the advantages you suggest would be disadvantages to contractor, and you can be quite sure that only a very naive operator would undertake those burdens of risk without getting terms that made the deal acceptable to them. For example, if a council were free to walk away from an arrangement after five years, then you can be sure that the contractor will secure a price that yields a profit within that time -- and then, if there is an extension of the contract, it's a fair guess that it will be very highly profitable because initial investments will already have been covered.

Oh yeah, I should have added a few "Mutually Beneficials" and "Win - Win Scenarios" in there for good measure, but it was getting a bit sickening tbh

The point I was trying to get across is that these things can be done properly and work out well, but that is of course on the assumption that a public servant isn't giving the contract to their brother in law :rolleyes:

Mr.Micro

The point I was trying to get across is that these things can be done properly and work out well, but that is of course on the assumption that a public servant isn't giving the contract to their brother in law

As this is Ireland the home of the brown envelope and nepotism, one cannot automatically assume that any contract is above reproach. Cynical but true. Too many ill or unqualified people in jobs who do not have a clue. Cue any crisis and see the fallout.

P. Breathnach

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The point I was trying to get across is that these things can be done properly and work out well, but that is of course on the assumption that a public servant isn't giving the contract to their brother in law :rolleyes:

I'm more concerned about the cosy relationships that many people in business seek to (and seem to manage to) cultivate with political parties or individual politicians who are in a position to make decisions.

mikep

spadder wrote: »

Yes, I would set up a sorting depot if I had the money, it's big business.
People are under the illusion that stuff they throw out is just rubbish, it's a valuable resource. We are made feel that the recycle centres are doing us a favour. It's big business.

Check this out: http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/1031/recycling.html

Also do you honestly believe it is beneficial to the environment to send material from Ireland to India and China for "recycling"???

spadder

turgon wrote: »

Spadder suggest reusing everything. I got a few used condoms there, what do I do with these?

your Ma, she'll use them:D

schoolboy error Turgon