Gormley being challenged on Poolbeg Incinerator...

MrDarcy

Ok I'm no fan of Gormley but in fairness to the man he has actually been elected. It appears from what I'm listening to today that the company behind the Poolbeg Incinerator project are threatening all sorts of consequences if this project doesn't go ahead, they are now looking for a meeting with Brian Cowen, I assume this is some kind of an attempt get Gormley's position on this overturned.

Meanwhile all this is being done in the name of 600 jobs and to assist the economy which I'm all for. But I'm a actually very uneasy with this rampant attempt by an unelected multinational business organisation, to dictate what we are to do here in relation to our waste disposal policies in this country, threatening us with jobs and investment. Not just their own investment I might add, but also wider FDI.

Head The Wall

Contracts have been signed with this company, they are not bullying anyone only standing their ground. Now is surely the best time cost wise to build the plant, that's what I would be looking at if I was a shareholder in the company.

They also will have a couple of million invested in the project already. Gormley is just looking out for his job in this situation, he was on the news last week hyping up a change to his new waste policy which would make the incinerator unviable.

Govt will get it's ass sued off them if they don't go ahead with this, they should have thought of all this before they signed the papers

mikemac

Dublin City Council signed a contract to send 320,000 tonnes of waste to Poolbeg
The council can achieve this.

Also, the capacity of Poolbeg is much larger so it can handle waste from surrounding counties too. Sending the trucks at night was discussed but of course, residents added this to their list of objections

If the company has a contract with DCC and have designed and invested in the site based on that commitment, the contract can't just be cancelled, not without serious compensation.

I know John Gormley has been speaking on this project for a number of years.
It's all too late now, it is going ahead and won't be stopped.
John Gormley is lashing out now and making sure people see him do this. But it's far, far too late and he cannot change anything. Realy, protesting for PR sake now

If he wanted to do something, 2007 and 2008 was the time to stand firm

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/watchdog-rejects-poolbeg-complaint-2259157.html

THE controversial €350m Poolbeg incinerator moved a step closer to reality yesterday after the competition watchdog quashed complaints the plant breached certain laws.

The ruling was made after claims from private waste management companies that the plant is anti-competitive.

Poolbeg -- a public/private partnership between Dublin City Council (DCC), US giant Covanta Energy and Danish firm Dong -- will have the capacity to process 600,000 tonnes of waste per annum.

However, the Irish Waste Management Agency (IWMA) made the complaints, including claims of numerous breaches of competition law.

They had claimed the deal between the combined operators of the plant favoured Poolbeg as the facility to treat waste from the wider Dublin region.

The Competition Authority rejected all of the complaints, bar one, relating to Dublin City Council's policy of asking home owners to separate glass according to colour at recycling centres.

The Poolbeg plant has been mired in controversy since it was first mooted over 10 years ago. It is located in the constituency of Environment Minister John Gormley who has been accused of having a conflict of interest over the project.

While it has been approved by a number of agencies, including the Department of the Environment, a foreshore licence is required for the construction of a water cooling system.

DCC first lodged an application for a foreshore licence almost two years ago and until it is issued to Covanta Energy, the plant will not be able to proceed.

All the preliminary work on the licence has been done, but no decision has emerged.

The IWMA has said it will seek a meeting with the watchdog over its decision.

Pete_Cavan

In fairness, the incinerator has been approved by An Bord Plannala and EPA so it obviously meets are the relevant standards and is deemed safe. If thats the case why would anybody, and particularly a member of our government, want to block something that will create hundreds of jobs and ease our reliance on landfill for the disposal of waste? Well because he opposed it before and cant do a u-turn on it now. The company wants to meet Biffo but he will have to side with John Gormless because he he doesnt Gormless and the Greens will pull out of government and FF will lose record amounts of seats.

In this country ABP and EPA are the bodies that are charged with determining if an incinerator should be built. Gormley, even as Minister for the Environment has no real say in the issue and has no power to stop it only he is trying to introduce new levies to make it unviable. He has absolutely no right to do this and should keep his big noise out. He just wants to make it as dificult as possible for this crowd because they want to built the incinerator in his constituency. You can be sure if they pulled out in the morning, Gormley would drop the levies thing as well and would have no objection to anyone else building an incinerator anywhere else in the country.

This is just NIMBY on a national scale and it is going to hurt the country in the long run. US multi nationals will see our government as unreasonable and this country as a difficult place to do business. And where does Gromley suggest all the waste goes? Landfill? Sorry what colour did you say your party was Mr. Gormley? I'd sooner see Gormley and his shower out of government before Biffo and his lot, and thats saying something.

Cookie_Monster

how as minister for the enviroment can he possibly object to an incenerator?

I don't see how he can, sounds much more NIMBY than real concerns

Poly

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

In fairness, the incinerator has been approved by An Bord Plannala and EPA so it obviously meets are the relevant standards and is deemed safe.

Bord Plannala are fcukwits!!
We all know what a storrmer An Bord Plannala played in the boom.

IrishTonyO

Gormley should be removed from having anything to do with this project immediately. We face a major compensation claim by Covanta and also massive fines from the EU, all because 1 green TD wants people to see him fighting this, even though he is meant to implement the government policy on this. That is why he is now trying to delay and change policy.

It is disgraceful what is happening and am glad to see Covanta going over Gormley's head and going to Cowen

Nijmegen

Whaddya know, Parish Pump Politics meets Government Policy.

John Gormley is an eejit.

And without it, and with dumps filling up, RTE news reports that the stretched local authorities are going to pay out 60million euro to private contractors to take their waste?

Thanks John.

mikemac

If this incinerator was in Wexford or Kerry or Donegal (I'm just picking corners as examples, could be anywhere) then John Gormley would be welcoming this and telling us of the problems of landfills, most people know the issues with landfills already.

But no, it is in his constituency and in the next few years, his local voters will hammer him for allowing this to go ahead. If Minister for Environment can't do anything then nobody can.

But we need to keep politicians out of planning issues, the EPA are the organization with oversight here.

Speaking out now when it is far too late to do anything is just trying to fight the fight for appearance sake and try to save his skin come election time.

As said, the EU will hit Ireland with fines if we don't sort waste issues and the government will deservedly get hit for compensation in a court case for breach of contract.
And this sends out a message that Ireland breaks contracts with multi-nationals, have rogue senior ministers and a difficult place to do business.
This project could have been stopped......in 2007 before contracts were signed and not now

ART6

My understanding for what it's worth is that the hold up is in the company's application for an offshore licence for the cooling water pipes from the plant. They applied in 2008 and have heard nothing since. If true then it sounds like that's either PS bone idleness or a deliberate attempt to sabotage the project.

Head The Wall

According to Gormley there was some delay and his department only received the request in Jan 2010. A lie if you ask me

Secondly what do we actually recycle in this country, am I correct in saying that everything has to be exported to get recycled. I know Quinn has a glass plant somewhere around Fermanagh but I don't know does that recycle glass. I'm sure you have seen plenty of these trucks on the road, they're collecting glass for recycling. Everything in my county gets compacted put into containers and sent to Dublin (I am presuming to the port)



There's also the complaint that the incinerator shouldn't be in Dublin as it's in the city. Ecologically that's the best place to put it, right beside 25% of the country's population as they are the ones that will be using it. Put it outside Dublin city and there would be extra costs because of having to transport it there and trucks coming back empty. This would be bad for the environment.

Gormley is definitely playing with fire on this one

The_Thing

The first thing into the incinerator when it's up and running should be Gormley and the rest of the so-called Green Party.

Liam Byrne

Gormley is only throwing shapes in order to appear to be against it, because he knows it's going to go ahead regardless, but he can bull**** "I tried".

The meeting with Cowen, etc, is merely FF allowing him to look good in return for Gormley's continued backing of the current dodgy government.

The Greens did the same thing with Shannon Airport and Tara, remember ? They came back and said that Tara had been signed, but we tried.

Typical "playing politics" and bull****tery of the highest order, as usual.

mikemac

Head The Wall wrote: »

Secondly what do we actually recycle in this country, am I correct in saying that everything has to be exported to get recycled. I know Quinn has a glass plant somewhere around Fermanagh but I don't know does that recycle glass. I'm sure you have seen plenty of these trucks on the road, they're collecting glass for recycling. Everything in my county gets compacted put into containers and sent to Dublin (I am presuming to the port)

I think there is a REPAK recycling centre in Meath, I'm not 100% sure.
You are correct, a lot of our recyclable material is exported, "dumping" on our problems on other countries and paying for it.

Incineration is not a perfect solution but it's a hundred times better then landfill.
As said, if Poolbeg was not in his constituency Minister Gormley would not give a damn.

The CEO of the Conventa was on the Today FM with Matt Copper today.
No bull**** kind of guy and he put his case forward.
John Gormley has failed and now wants to put in recycle licence scheme so this project becomes uneconomic. Hey, at least he can say he tried come election time
Where was he in 2007/2008, it's too late now to try delaying tactics. 2008 was when applications were lodged, it's too late now

Every CEO in the world is learning Ireland is not a place to invest in even after contracts are signed. We'll get a difficult to work with reputation.

I know the first thing going in that incinerator :mad:

Head The Wall

By sending our recycling abroad we're not dumping it on them as such as it will get processed but for the greens it's not very eco friendly with all the fuel burnt transporting it.

There are also Refuse Derived Fuel plants available but I don't know if this incinerator is going to be one (using the heat generated in the incineration to generate power)

mikemac

I believe there are plans to turn Poolbeg into a waste to power station.
It has massive capacity, can burn rubbish for Dublin City Council and for other councils too.

As for the people objecting as it is in a city, hey it is in the docklands and even now it's run down area and the docklands is an industrial area.

Conventa promise 600 jobs, not something to be laughed at certainly.

IrishTonyO

Head The Wall wrote: »

By sending our recycling abroad we're not dumping it on them as such as it will get processed but for the greens it's not very eco friendly with all the fuel burnt transporting it.

There are also Refuse Derived Fuel plants available but I don't know if this incinerator is going to be one (using the heat generated in the incineration to generate power)

Yes the incinerator in Poolbeg is going to generate electricity.

doctorwu

These type of incinarator plants are all over europe. The Green Party in Germany recommends the same plants. Local gombeenism that could cost the nation millions. Gormleys last stand.

mikemac

The people in Gormleys area do not want it

So you are correct, it is his last stand.
This will go ahead and the Minister of Environment failed, definite exit back to the county council

oppenheimer1

feelingstressed wrote: »

I believe there are plans to turn Poolbeg into a waste to power station.
It has massive capacity, can burn rubbish for Dublin City Council and for other councils too.

As for the people objecting as it is in a city, hey it is in the docklands and even now it's run down area and the docklands is an industrial area.

Conventa promise 600 jobs, not something to be laughed at certainly.

This old creates jobs line that is being trotted out now is irrelevant. No matter how many jobs something creates, if it is a hazard it should be avoided. However in the case of the proposed incinerator this is not the case. It could bring many benefits to the people in Ringsend, like district heating for which I understand there were pipes installed for. It will also generate electricity, be odourless and run to standard.

Ireland needs an incinerator. Its not green either for councils to be loading containers with rubbish and sending them to landfill in china or to be incinerated in Germany.

Cookie_Monster

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Yes the incinerator in Poolbeg is going to generate electricity.

will it provide hot water to the locale too, or is this too much to hope for?

oh well , okay

will it provide hot water to the locale too, or is this too much to hope for?

I'd imagine John Gormley may end up in hot water over it , although I doubt that really answers your question .

MrDarcy

The_Thing wrote: »

The first thing into the incinerator when it's up and running should be Gormley and the rest of the so-called Green Party.

LMAO!

MrDarcy

Thanks for all the posts on this folks, it has been a real education!

Pete_Cavan

Head The Wall wrote: »

According to Gormley there was some delay and his department only received the request in Jan 2010. A lie if you ask me

The delay is in abtaining a foreshore licence to allow an out-flow pipe into the sea which is issued by the Department of the Environment. It is true that they would have only received the request in Jan 2010 but that is because DOE were only given responcibility for issuing these licences at the start of this year. Covantamade their application in 2008 and claim they should have been top of the pile when it came to DOE reviewing the applications. Im sure this is just a delay tactice from Gormley who must have told them to "misplace" their application. I cant believe how two faced some people can be (a Green Minister for the Environment opposing the greenest thing this country has seen in years) and how some one can put their own needs before the needs of the country they were elected to represent even though their party will take a hammering at the next election.

MrDarcy

The one thing I think is a factor here though is the NIMBY attitude from Gormley's constituents. As a matter of policy, waste generated in the capital should be dealt with/processed in the same region.

Cookie_Monster

and anyway its in the port, along with powerstations, scrap metal yards, sewage plants, container terminals and ferry terminals. hardly going to stand out or detract from the area...

Scarab80

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

and anyway its in the port, along with powerstations, scrap metal yards, sewage plants, container terminals and ferry terminals. hardly going to stand out or detract from the area...

It's also right beside the Dublin Port Tunnel. There is probably no better place in the country to place this incinerator!

ART6

feelingstressed wrote: »

As said, the EU will hit Ireland with fines if we don't sort waste issues and the government will deservedly get hit for compensation in a court case for breach of contract.
And this sends out a message that Ireland breaks contracts with multi-nationals, have rogue senior ministers and a difficult place to do business.
This project could have been stopped......in 2007 before contracts were signed and not now

The EU has imposed landfill avoidance targets (LATS) These mean that governments have to set targets for local authorities for the maximum amount of waste they can landfill, and they must take steps to phase out organic waste landfill altogether. I don't know how LATS have been applied in Ireland, but in the UK where my employer is based, from 2011 every tonne of waste landfilled over the target will incur a fine of £150. So, as an example, if Dublin was set a target of 200,000 tonnes to landfill, but sent the 320,000 tonnes that should have gone to Poolbeg, then by UK standards they would incur a fine of £18,000,000 or €21,240,000 at curent exchange rates. That is what Gormley risks saddling the Dublin taxpayers with.

Head The Wall wrote: »

By sending our recycling abroad we're not dumping it on them as such as it will get processed but for the greens it's not very eco friendly with all the fuel burnt transporting it.

There are also Refuse Derived Fuel plants available but I don't know if this incinerator is going to be one (using the heat generated in the incineration to generate power)

Recyclables have for years been exported by many countries -- steel scrap to Spain, plastics to China, etc etc. Ireland is a little unusual in that it exports most recylables, and this really makes recycling here uneconomic and environmentally unsound. We are an offshore island on the northern extremity of Europe, and transport costs and pollution are unsustainable.

Refuse derived fuel (RDF) is not the same thing as incineration although it is regulated by the EU Waste Incineration Directives (WID) that were first introduced in 1996. RDF plants seek to manufacture a solid fuel product from the combustible fraction of waste (paper, cardboard, plastics, tectiles etc.). The processes are normally technically complex and they don't treat all of the waste, but they do create a fuel that is almost carbon neutral.

Incinerators burn mixed waste in vast quantities, although in recent years some have started some degree of pre-sorting to take out materials that are not combustible. The days of mass burn incinerators where the waste was simply burned and the heat lost are long gone, and the WID sets very strict limits on emissions to atmosphere -- in many cases more severe that a coal burning plant would experience.

Anyone with a modern incinerator in their region need not worry. Children will not be born with two heads or goats with six legs. Equally, they will not be aasaulted by flies and rats, will not live with foul odours, or water course pollution and methane gas escape all from landfill. They will not be slowly poisoned by the dreaded dioxins, as incinerators (and RDF fuels) are designed to prevent dioxin formation and have to meet very strict combustion conditions in doing so.

Incinerators are not necessarily the best solution for dealing with growing mountains of waste, but they are sure as hell a lot better than burying it in the ground and polluting the locations for generations - a modern compacted landfill can remain biologically active for a hundred years, and given EU Ground Water Protection Directives, finding somewhere to make a landfill hole is getting more difficult by the day.

As usual Gormley and the "Greens" are taking the simplistic evangelistical approach. Scream for the protection of the environment and the frogs and the bats but don't ever offer an economically, environmentally, technically practical alternative. Demand that everything is recycled, when that is actually impossible and even if it was other countries have their own recyclables. Demand that Tesco stop packaging everything when the reality is that commercial competition (and jobs) relies upon attracting the customer's eye. Stop wrapping everything and save the paper, and repeal the food hygeine regulations to allow it, then all the people dying of food poisoning can read about how Gormley is on top of the situation.

The problem that we have here is that there is a fanatical green tail wagging a FF dog. The dog tolerates the errant tail because without it he wouldn't be a dog.

Macha

ART6 wrote: »

Recyclables have for years been exported by many countries -- steel scrap to Spain, plastics to China, etc etc. Ireland is a little unusual in that it exports most recylables, and this really makes recycling here uneconomic and environmentally unsound. We are an offshore island on the northern extremity of Europe, and transport costs and pollution are unsustainable.

Can you provide a link to research on that?

Head The Wall

Scrap metal is exported but I don't know where. No smelting furnace in Ireland although as far as I know Cavanaghs hava a foundry in Birr for Cast Iron.

We used to export 50% of our glass in 2008 maybe less now since this plant opened

Minister Gormley Opens New €5 Million State-of-the-Art Glass Recycling Facility in Ireland

Don't know much about what happens to Plastics and cardboard

dean21

he is protecting his seat at any cost
he dose not give a crap about ireland or anything green

ART6

taconnol wrote: »

Can you provide a link to research on that?

The EPA site
http://www.epa.ie/downloads/pubs/waste/stats/EPA_National_Waste_Report_2008.pdf

gives a lot of information on this.

ei.sdraob

Is it me or are the resident Greens very silent on this thread...

I was looking forward to reading the usual spin and hogwash

Head The Wall

ART6 wrote: »

The EPA site
http://www.epa.ie/downloads/pubs/waste/stats/EPA_National_Waste_Report_2008.pdf

gives a lot of information on this.

Page 23 of the EPA report has the stast on what recycling gets exported

ART6

The difficulty I have with environmental fanatics like the Green party and Greenpeace etc is that they never seem to be able to apply proven science or even consider it for a second. They prefer their hysterical opposition to every human activity, every engineering advance, every attempt to use science and technology to improve the human condition.

I must state an interest here. I am a director of an environmental engineering company and I have 30 years of experience and am a published author in the field. My company does not build incinerators, but I do know quite a lot about the technology. I have lost count of the number of times, at public meetings, I have had to put up with the heckling of "environmentalists" who seemed to believe that shouting and screaming and refusing to accept proven science was all they needed to do to protect the fish, frogs, lesser crested newts or whatever. Their solution to the environmental issues seemed to require the whole human race to retire to caves but never light fires to cook anything.

There is one salient fact that Gormley & Co do not want to consider. If the Poolbeg incinerator does not get built then the Irish taxpayer will face multi-million euro fines from the EU, just at the time when we need such fines most.

I am not an incinerator enthusiast, although many years ago I worked in one. They are the long stop that can solve the immediate problem before we all end up to our knees in our own wastes. Oh, we can recycle everything, even if it causes more pollution than simply using virgin materials, but who is going to be the beneficiary of our "recyclables"? China, a major outlet for plastics, is clamping down as they have enough of their own. India doesn't really want our container ships full of waste for their landfills.

In this little country on the northern outskirts of the EU we have to start managing our own (inescapable) wastes. The hysterics and machinations of Gormley and his gang are not going to help us.

Macha

ART6 wrote: »

The EPA site
http://www.epa.ie/downloads/pubs/waste/stats/EPA_National_Waste_Report_2008.pdf

gives a lot of information on this.

Thanks but can you tell me where it says that the fact that most recyclables are exported is environmentally unsound? I can't seem to find it.

ART6

taconnol wrote: »

Thanks but can you tell me where it says that the fact that most recyclables are exported is environmentally unsound? I can't seem to find it.

The EPA is never going to state that any form of recyling is environmentally unsound since that would conflict with government and EU policy. I was simply quoting from my own experience. The report does say, as far as I can recall, that most of our recyclables go to the UK, from where many of them go on to Europe and elsewhere.

So consider the three bin system that is common here -- the recyclables bin (or bag) contains paper, card, plastics, cans etc in small quantities from each household. A council truck calls to collect them separately once every three weeks, and the average collection vehicle can carry about 8 tonnes. If it's in a town it might do two collection rounds a day, so at most about 16 tonnes. Average municipal waste is about 8% metals, 6% glass, 7% plastics, 35% paper and card, 3% textiles, 5% fines, and 36% organics, so the daily truck load is likely to produce 1.28 tonnes of mixed ferrous and nonferrous metals, 1.12 tonnes of plastics, 5.6 tonnes of paper and card, of which only about 5 tonnes is suitable for re-pulping. So the truck has been burning fossil fuel all day to recover those small amounts, and the collection crews have to be paid together with the other council staff.

Now those materials go somewhere to be separated, and that requires mechanical separation plant that consumes electricity. The plant doesn't only run when someone chucks a can into it. It runs at least for an 8 hour dayshift, and in some cases 24 hrs a day. So now let's say that the 5.6 tonnes of paper and card have been separated from everything else and baled in a baling machine that uses wire binding to hold the bales together. Havingseparated the metals we are now adding some back, but baling is inescapable for transport reasons.

We then load a 44 tonne truck with bales and drive them to a ferry to take them to the UK. The truck and the ferry both use a lot of fuel, as does the truck that collects the trailer at the other end, and again, the truck drivers and the ferry crews have to be paid. Then add in all of the vehicle and equipment maintenance, depreciation etc. The life cycle analysis of that load of waste paper may, perhaps, imply that the costs of recovering it and the consumption of fossil fuels in doing so may outweigh the costs of simply burning it as a fuel, and growing new trees to make paper might have a better environmental result. I would suggest that an even worse issue might apply to the other materials.

Another point is that much recycling is actually downcycling. Clean white paper becomes newsprint, which next time round becomes egg boxes. Other than PET the plastics that were containers etc are likely to become fence posts.

One personal experience I would share: A large RDF plant in London was built to receive commercial and packaging wastes, make fuel pellets from them, and burn them in a power station. For some time they were receiving baled paper and card from a recycling centre in Dublin every week, and charging the supplier £30 per tonne gate fee when they accepted it. So the stuff was being processed, transported hundreds of miles, and then simply burned at the end of it.

It might just as well have been burned in Dublin, which is why I cannot find a reasonable objection to the planned incinerator.

Macha

Thanks for the comprehensive reply. Waste isn't my area so it's good to learn something about it.

I would point out that a recent UK report concluded that recycling is almost always better than landfill or energy capture solutions. This report was specific to the UK, although many international studies were included in the review, and each material was considered differently. The report does note that waste-to-energy facilities can be the most environmentally beneficial solution.

It would seem you're right, however, in saying that the entire life-cycle of the material needs to be considered, not just until it leaves Irish territory. Intervention can be made in key parts of that cycle, for example the sources of energy used like electricity and transport fuel. You can download the report here if you're interested:

http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/Environmental_benefits_of_recycling_2010_update.271b808e.8816.pdf

I don't really have a big problem with the Poolbeg incinerator but it would be interesting to see an analysis of how recycling processes could be altered to make it more environmentally sound and then in turn how this would compare with the incinerator in say 2020. I find Irish planning is rarely future-proofed and the setting out of future scenarios doesn't happen very often.

sh1tstirrer

MrDarcy wrote: »

Ok I'm no fan of Gormley but in fairness to the man he has actually been elected..

He wasn't elected actually, he got in when they swapped votes and Fianna Fail took them on.

Head The Wall

taconnol wrote: »

Thanks but can you tell me where it says that the fact that most recyclables are exported is environmentally unsound? I can't seem to find it.

Simply put if we recycled in this country it is more ecological than exporting it.

I'm on about the processing not the collection of recycling

ART6

Head The Wall wrote: »

Simply put if we recycled in this country it is more ecological than exporting it.

I'm on about the processing not the collection of recycling

That is of course true. Exporting low value materials to the UK and elsewhere purely in the name of "recycling" suggests to me another one of the fads that has bedevilled the waste disposal industry for generations. Recycling is only of value if it (a) benefits the environment or (b) is the lowest cost option without causing environmental issues, or (c) extends the availability of non-renewables such as coil, oil, and natural gas.

Sending baled paper from separate collection rounds to the UK via sorting plants does not, to me, fit any of those criteria. It is argued that it costs less to make a tonne of newsprint from a tonne of recycled paper, and that is undoubtedly so, but in the case we are discussing here it does little or nothing for (a), little or nothing for (b) since from the waste disposal perspective it is not the lowest cost option and the use of fossil fuels transporting it is not environmentally sound, and it doesn't significanly assist with (c). In fact for years the paper industry was responding to "Green" claims that their logging was destroying the environment by pointing out that if it wasn't for paper pulp there would be a lot less trees in this world.

Life cycle analysis should account for the environmental and financial costs of felling a tree, transporting it, pulping it and making paper, then recovering that paper from wastes after use, separating it, baling and transporting it, and then finally making more (lower grade) paper or cardboard. Unfortunately all to often the advocates of a particular analysis start at the mid point not at the beginning.

Paper is a renewable resource. Using it as a fuel to generate power is no different to the current demand for the increased use of biofuels. Paper is just as much a biofuel as is wood, since they both have the same origin.

The only real issue that the Poolbeg incinerator might face is what exactly comprises the 320,000 tonnes of waste it's supposed to burn. If it's what is left over after recycling operations then it is classed as "residual waste" and that generally does not contain sufficiently energy rich material to maintain the furnace temperatures required by the Waste Incineration Directive. Fossil fuels end up being used to maintain the temperatures and prevent the formation of dioxins and furans, while more fossil fuels are used sending the energy rich fractions to the UK where they are charged for and may then still be burned. Therein lies madness.

Recycling is not the universal panacea. It is simply an option that should be weighed. It is more a political initiative, and political initiatives do have a habit of sticking like glue to the party line and ignoring science, engineering, and financial viability. They can do that easily when someone else (you and I) are paying for it. Perhaps that's why the Poolbeg incinerator is being obstructed?

Anyway, apologies to the OP for pretty well hijacking his post. I'll get off my hobby horse now:p

ei.sdraob

ART6 wrote: »

The difficulty I have with environmental fanatics like the Green party and Greenpeace etc is that they never seem to be able to apply proven science or even consider it for a second. They prefer their hysterical opposition to every human activity, every engineering advance, every attempt to use science and technology to improve the human condition.

I must state an interest here. I am a director of an environmental engineering company and I have 30 years of experience and am a published author in the field. My company does not build incinerators, but I do know quite a lot about the technology. I have lost count of the number of times, at public meetings, I have had to put up with the heckling of "environmentalists" who seemed to believe that shouting and screaming and refusing to accept proven science was all they needed to do to protect the fish, frogs, lesser crested newts or whatever. Their solution to the environmental issues seemed to require the whole human race to retire to caves but never light fires to cook anything.

There is one salient fact that Gormley & Co do not want to consider. If the Poolbeg incinerator does not get built then the Irish taxpayer will face multi-million euro fines from the EU, just at the time when we need such fines most.

I am not an incinerator enthusiast, although many years ago I worked in one. They are the long stop that can solve the immediate problem before we all end up to our knees in our own wastes. Oh, we can recycle everything, even if it causes more pollution than simply using virgin materials, but who is going to be the beneficiary of our "recyclables"? China, a major outlet for plastics, is clamping down as they have enough of their own. India doesn't really want our container ships full of waste for their landfills.

In this little country on the northern outskirts of the EU we have to start managing our own (inescapable) wastes. The hysterics and machinations of Gormley and his gang are not going to help us.

Thank you very much for your posts

I am in same boat as you, while I care about the environment I feel that hippy enviro-nutcases will and have done alot of damage.

I absolutely hate the "Luddite" views towards modern technology, science (but yet hold science on pedestal if it suits a certain narrow agenda) and engineering, if climate change is really as big a problem as being claimed then we need to use all tools in the toolbox and not get all snotty

For example the complete refusal to even contemplate nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels in order to buy time to buildup renewables to 80%+ of the grid supply (if thats even possible)

Or the fear of genetic engineering technologies

Or the constant pimping of wind power as the only solution

And yes this whole incinerator nonsense now.

astrofool

Art6 sounds like an ex-greenpeace physics teacher I had, who was saying the exact same thing 15 years ago, and it's still going on.

I hope against hope that Minister Gormless doesn't get elected next time, the man is an idiot.

flutered

astrofool wrote: »

Art6 sounds like an ex-greenpeace physics teacher I had, who was saying the exact same thing 15 years ago, and it's still going on.

I hope against hope that Minister Gormless doesn't get elected next time, the man is an idiot.

it would make more sense to pray that the greens go into obliberation,

astrofool

flutered wrote: »

it would make more sense to pray that the greens go into obliberation,

I don't think we need to bother praying for that.

ART6

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Thank you very much for your posts

I am in same boat as you, while I care about the environment I feel that hippy enviro-nutcases will and have done alot of damage.

I absolutely hate the "Luddite" views towards modern technology, science (but yet hold science on pedestal if it suits a certain narrow agenda) and engineering, if climate change is really as big a problem as being claimed then we need to use all tools in the toolbox and not get all snotty

For example the complete refusal to even contemplate nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels in order to buy time to buildup renewables to 80%+ of the grid supply (if thats even possible)

Or the fear of genetic engineering technologies

Or the constant pimping of wind power as the only solution

And yes this whole incinerator nonsense now.

Off topic, but I entirely agree with your comment about nuclear power. It's worth considering the folowing calorific values:

Coal 30 MJ/kg
Heavy fuel oil 43 KJ/kg
Gas 37 MJ/m3
Wood 16 MJ/kg
Peat 16 MJ/kg

So, a smallish power station burning 100,000 tonnes of coal a year would need to burn nearly 200,000 tonnes of wood for the same output. One burning 100,000 tonnes of oil a year would need 270,000 tonnes of wood (if it could accommodate it). That is a lot of wood for just one plant. I have no idea how many tonnes of timber are in the average Quilte forest, or how long it takes to reach harvest, but---

Biofuels in general have similar calorific values to wood and peat, so the above gives some indication of how much would need to be produced from whatever source. That leads me to believe that in spite of the political posturing, biofuels while a useful addition are not the solution. Neither is the visually polluting wind power. For me, nuclear is the only way to go and massive investment should be made into the best and most scientific way of dealing with radioactive waste.

The proposed incinerator may not do much for our energy needs, but at least it will be getting rid of something we don't want and delivering something we do.

Liam Byrne

ART6 wrote: »

The proposed incinerator may not do much for our energy needs, but at least it will be getting rid of something we don't want and delivering something we do.

Hmmmm......interesting parallel there, including the fact that Gormley is against it.

peasant

Head The Wall wrote: »

I'm sure you have seen plenty of these trucks on the road, they're collecting glass for recycling.

Just on that note ...that's a delivery truck for fresh, new float glass ...they go back empty. Nothing to do with recycling whatsoever

Head The Wall

Where do they be delivering this Glass as I do see them in numerous locations around the country?

peasant

There are two large glass processing plants down in Tipperary and several glazing companies all over the country. Anywhere that makes windows and other architectural glass or automotive glass.