Cement Factory to burn tyres from all over the country

Casperbhoy

Using the words green and tyre incinerator in the same sentence is a bit of a contradiction

http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/business/191164/Irish-Cement-factory-in-Limerick-in.html

:mad:

Alf Veedersane

I think you're confusing the process with burning tyres on a bonfire. There's no issue here.

Mr E

Read the article, OP.

Casperbhoy

http://ideaireland.org/library/incinerators-and-their-health-effects/

screamer

Do you know what happens to waste tyres at the moment? they are baled and shipped to China where they are broken down into fuel......
now, sorry, but it's a typical case of NIMBYism, everyone needs the product, wants it, but no one wants to deal with the waste. I think incinerating it in Ireland is far greener than shipping back to China TBH.

Alf Veedersane

Casperbhoy wrote: »

http://ideaireland.org/library/incinerators-and-their-health-effects/

Kilns and waste incinerators are very different.

Not least because of the temperatures kilns operate at.

Cookiemunster

Casperbhoy wrote: »

http://ideaireland.org/library/incinerators-and-their-health-effects/

Do you have an article less than 10 years old that deals with current technology which shows that incinerating tyres is more harmful than burning coal?

moleyv

Making cement takes an enormous amount of energy.

Any steps to be more sustainable and use a waste product is highly welcome as far as I'm concerned.

The big issue for people with the proposed incinerator in Ringaskiddy is the location. Its basically right beside a college campus. Concerns are more about the day to day operation than pollution.

The cement factory is self contained and existing.

Tim76

moleyv wrote: »

Making cement takes an enormous amount of energy.

Any steps to be more sustainable and use a waste product is highly welcome as far as I'm concerned.

The big issue for people with the proposed incinerator in Ringaskiddy is the location. Its basically right beside a college campus. Concerns are more about the day to day operation than pollution.

The cement factory is self contained and existing.

Is there not a new school development planned for Mungret College which is right beside Irish Cement

Casperbhoy

A new school and large playground is planned in Mungret

Alf Veedersane

If they're building a school beside a kiln they're probably ok with the kiln being there.

Casperbhoy

to be fair, the Cement factory does not fill me with confidence.

Ive often came out with a layer of dust on my car

http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/business-news/135076/EPA-investigating--dust-emission-.html

Alf Veedersane

Dust that isn't harmful.

moleyv

No idea about the school. But they currently use fossil fuel, they will be changing that for a more sustainable source of energy, that will be burnt at such a high temp to destroy any toxins.

The cement factory is existing, if they deem a school to be alright there before this upgrade, it only further negates your argument.

Sure people will object, and you will have your opportunity to object or make a submission during the planning process. If you do object I suggest you make your concerns known during that process rather than idly complaining.

Oh and as for driving into a cement factory and complaining about coming out with dust on the car, what do you expect?

Such facilities have a waste license. They will have safe limits they can operate within. One of these will be dust, they will have a limit. It will be measured at a certain distance from the plant at a number of points, this is normally tested by an independent and submitted as part of the ongoing licensing process.

Repeated failures to meet these standards would result in a loss of license. Any extraordinary events will be subject to following mitigation measures and reporting of incidents.

I have no issue if people have a difference of opinion and object, but the arguments so far remind me of people who build a house near a pig farm, then complain about the smell.

Tim76

moleyv wrote: »

the arguments so far remind me of people who build a house near a pig farm, then complain about the smell.

That's all well and good but what if the pig farm decides it wants to build near you?

moleyv

Tim76 wrote:

That's all well and good but what if the pig farm decides it wants to build near you?

Then if I had an objection, I would voice my concerns.

To weigh up if I had an objection, I would look at the planning application.

Pig farms over a certain size have to submit an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and may also be subject to licensing like the cement factory.

One of the EIS areas it must cover aside from safe limits for x, y and z is impact on humans. Part of that would be separation distances from dwellings etc.

And if someone lives in the countryside, they should expect the odd smell of ****e now and then.

Most smells from agricultural facilities is when slurry is being agitated, a limited time frame in that year.

Any more arguments against the cement factory proposal for discussion?

Also for anyone wanting to object, familiarise yourself with the limited time frame in which you can lodge your objection/submission. Also be sure to only make planning related arguments.

Anything along the lines of, I don't want it near me etc could be dismissed.

pajoguy

I would imagine the air quality will be closely monitored by the EPA.

It might also prevent the illegal dumping of tyres down embankments of our national roads. Its a disgrace.

Kristopherus

Casperbhoy wrote: »

to be fair, the Cement factory does not fill me with confidence.

Ive often came out with a layer of dust on my car

http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/business-news/135076/EPA-investigating--dust-emission-.html

So it would be fair to say that you support NIMBY:rolleyes:

Punkyblip

Kristopherus wrote: »

So it would be fair to say that you support NIMBY:rolleyes:

What does being a member of the National Institute of Marlon Brando Yodelers have to do with this? :rolleyes:

zulutango

What kind of emissions would be expected from the incineration of rubber and plastic? Would it not be the same or worse than burning fossil fuels? I can see how it can be regarded as sustainable but I don't see how it can be considered a clean or environmentally friendly process.

Punkyblip

http://www.energyjustice.net/tires

Its all safe

dunworth1

I wonder if Mr Binmans new site on the dock Road is related?

Special Circumstances

dunworth1 wrote: »

I wonder if Mr Binmans new site on the dock Road is related?

It's all part of the "completely clean emissions" district. Brought to you by the same regulations that makes diesel clean and healthy. But only in Europe.

Doesn't seem to be in usa or japan for some reason.

Different diesel I suppose.

Lolz.

Tim76

Punkyblip wrote: »

http://www.energyjustice.net/tires

Its all safe

I think you forgot the quotation marks Articles like that will certainly do a lot to house prices in the area, whether they got the science to back them up or not.

Special Circumstances

Never fear, the EPA are here to protect us!
Nothing gets past these fearless, effective, scientifically rigorous and definitely on the side of Joe Public air quality heroes!
Available around the clock!* Strike while the iron is hot!**

http://www.kilkennypeople.ie/news/business/200946/-EPA-s-reputation-in-tatters.html

https://www.labour.ie/news/2016/01/08/public-confidence-and-credibility-of-epa-is-shot-a/

http://www.thejournal.ie/enva-plant-prime-time-2536834-Jan2016/
A SENATOR HAS accused the Environmental Protection Agency of ‘being asleep at the wheel’ after carcinogenic materials were released in Portlaoise just 150 metres from homes.
http://www.thejournal.ie/john-whelan-says-the-epa-is-colluding-over-a-portlaoise-plant-1410597-Apr2014/


*Some glitches in their phone system have resulted in no record of awkward calls.
** By "hot", understand that the process will be tested in its dormant state not in its active state. Trust them, they know their science and stuff!

Tim76

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Never fear, the EPA are here to protect us!
Nothing gets past these fearless, effective, scientifically rigorous and definitely on the side of Joe Public air quality heroes!
Available around the clock!* Strike while the iron is hot!**

http://www.kilkennypeople.ie/news/business/200946/-EPA-s-reputation-in-tatters.html

https://www.labour.ie/news/2016/01/08/public-confidence-and-credibility-of-epa-is-shot-a/

http://www.thejournal.ie/enva-plant-prime-time-2536834-Jan2016/
A SENATOR HAS accused the Environmental Protection Agency of ‘being asleep at the wheel’ after carcinogenic materials were released in Portlaoise just 150 metres from homes.
http://www.thejournal.ie/john-whelan-says-the-epa-is-colluding-over-a-portlaoise-plant-1410597-Apr2014/


*Some glitches in their phone system have resulted in no record of awkward calls.
** By "hot", understand that the process will be tested in its dormant state not in its active state. Trust them, they know their science and stuff!

That's a relief. It wouldn't be like regulatory bodies in this country (I'm looking at you Central Bank) to drop the ball when it comes to the interest of the public! :rolleyes:

screamer

zulutango wrote: »

What kind of emissions would be expected from the incineration of rubber and plastic? Would it not be the same or worse than burning fossil fuels? I can see how it can be regarded as sustainable but I don't see how it can be considered a clean or environmentally friendly process.

Well, do you know of a way to dispose of tyres that is environmentally friendly? It's problematic in the extreme. In China they are able to reverse engineer them and turn them back into fuel, but of course, the costs in Ireland would be astronomical, and there are problems with emissions etc that the EU would not like. But seriously, tyres don't break down easily, they go to landfill, that's not good either.
We used to have some tyre retreading plants who used to take old tyres and retread them, but everyone wanted new cheap tyres from china, rather than recycled tyres, and with no incentives from the government, this recycling industry has all but disappeared from Ireland. So, now, there is a price to pay for the consumption of new tyres from China, and this is it.
That's just the way things are.

Alf Veedersane

screamer wrote: »

Well, do you know of a way to dispose of tyres that is environmentally friendly? It's problematic in the extreme. In China they are able to reverse engineer them and turn them back into fuel, but of course, the costs in Ireland would be astronomical, and there are problems with emissions etc that the EU would not like. But seriously, tyres don't break down easily, they go to landfill, that's not good either.
We used to have some tyre retreading plants who used to take old tyres and retread them, but everyone wanted new cheap tyres from china, rather than recycled tyres, and with no incentives from the government, this recycling industry has all but disappeared from Ireland. So, now, there is a price to pay for the consumption of new tyres from China, and this is it.
That's just the way things are.

Not in the EU. The majority of tyres are banned under the landfill directive.

Tim76

For anyone who wishes to view the application the reference file number is 16153. Follow the link below and enter the number in the relevant search bar...

http://eplan.limerick.ie/SearchExact

No docs or drawings have been scanned nor uploaded as yet despite LCC have the app for over a week now. As mentioned earlier in the thread there is a limited time frame to make a submission/observation so if you do have any concerns they will have to be made known before Sunday 03/04/2016 00:00:00. Link below for advice on doing same...

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/planning_permission/commenting_on_planning_application.html

The EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) will make for some interesting reading but bear in mind this document has been prepared on behalf of the applicant and will be heavily skewed to support their views.

Alf Veedersane

Tim76 wrote: »

The EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) will make for some interesting reading but bear in mind this document has been prepared on behalf of the applicant and will be heavily skewed to support their views.

Bear in mind you're free to disagree with any findings in the EIS and counter it with science to back you up.

But the above reads like you're framing the content of the EIS as being flawed before it has even been published.

Cookiemunster

@Tim76. Obviously you're totally against this, but is it worse than what's already there? They currently burn fossil fuels on site. Surely this method gives off less emissions than burning fossil fuels.

screamer

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Not in the EU. The majority of tyres are banned under the landfill directive.

Yep I know, I missed a word they don't break down easily when they go to landfill. As I posted already, they are shipped back to China for disposal.
Oh, and by the way, every tyre you purchase from July onwards will cost you an additional 5 euro for disposal which goes to the quango that has been setup to monitor waste tyre disposal. That fee is only going to go up.............

Tim76

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

But the above reads like you're framing the content of the EIS as being flawed before it has even been published.

The EIS has been commissioned by the applicant and lodged in support of the application so it's a fact of life that it will be biased.

Tim76

Cookiemunster wrote: »

@Tim76. Obviously you're totally against this, but is it worse than what's already there? They currently burn fossil fuels on site. Surely this method gives off less emissions than burning fossil fuels.

I'm not totally against it, I just feel that the people of the area should familiarise themselves with the proposed development and make their concerns known (if any) during the limited timeframe.

I would be interested in reading any unbiased articles on how the burning of rubber & plastics compares to the burning of fossil fuels with regard to emissions but I wouldn't be making any blind statements on which is less polluting before then.

Alf Veedersane

Tim76 wrote: »

The EIS has been commissioned by the applicant and lodged in support of the application so it's a fact of life that it will be biased.

Why would it being in support of the application mean it's biased and not just a case of the EIS not having a reason to not support it?

Alf Veedersane

Tim76 wrote: »

I would be interested in reading any unbiased articles on how the burning of rubber & plastics compares to the burning of fossil fuels with regard to emissions but I wouldn't be making any blind statements on which is less polluting before then.

An objection from a company that recycles tires which was made to the EPA when Irish Cement in Drogheda were looking to add tyres to the list of wastes licensed for incineration at the plant. They agreed that co-incineration with tyres reduces in GHG savings.

They don't have a vested interest in playing down the environmental benefits of burning tyres over fossil fuels.

Granted, the attached is light on the science of the comparison but I was intrigued/surprised they agreed on the GHG savings of usingtyres.

zulutango

Cookiemunster wrote: »

@Tim76. Obviously you're totally against this, but is it worse than what's already there? They currently burn fossil fuels on site. Surely this method gives off less emissions than burning fossil fuels.

What makes you think it would give off less (or even less harmful) emissions than fossil fuels?

zulutango

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

They agreed that co-incineration with tyres reduces in GHG savings.

Can you re-word this? Are you saying that the objector conceded that co-incineration with tires would lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions?

Casperbhoy

Pulled from previous link

"Based on the results of the [EPA rotary kiln incinerator simulator] test program, it can be concluded that, with the exception of zinc emissions, potential emissions from TDF are not expected to be very much different than from other conventional fossil fuels, as long as combustion occurs in a well-designed, well-operated and well-maintained combustion device." (Italics ours.)
However, there are many problems with this. First of all, the test data is not an accurate measure of the actual day-to-day emissions of a given plant. As reported by Greenpeace, "Trial burns are generally considered a poor indicator of operation on a daily basis: during trial burns when regulatory authorization is at stake and government officials are at the site, variables such as wastefeed, temperature, oxygen flow, and pollution control device efficiency are carefully maintained to optimize performance. On a day-to-day basis, emissions may be considerably higher." 3 Dr. Neil Carman confirms this:
"But during stack tests of TDF, cement kilns will do several things to make emissions and combustion look good-to-decent for such facilities:
• run at higher excess air to improve combustion efficiency
• control kiln parameters more precisely
• prevent kiln solid ring formation and buildup that creates havoc for good combustion of any fuels
• burn lower TDF levels during stack tests than they may be seeking to burn operationally
• operate and maintain their ESPs or baghouses in top condition to keep particulate emissions to a reduced level, and

Alf Veedersane

zulutango wrote: »

Can you re-word this? Are you saying that the objector conceded that co-incineration with tires would lead to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions?

I am saying that the objector agrees with the application that co-incineration would lead to a reduction in GHG emissions over fossil fuels

While both co-incineration of tyres in a cement kiln and material recycling result in reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Schmidt, et al., (2009) found that material recycling results in over twice the greenhouse gas emissions savings of co-incineration (-1,922kg C02eq / t tyres compared to -796kg CO2eq / t tyres).

Special Circumstances

Greenhouse gas emissions reduction = it must be good, right?

Smells like a bit of a diversion to me, sleight of hand, smoke and mirrors.

Greenhouse gas reduction is the reason European cities have far higher concentrations of pollutants that DIRECTLY harm humans - carcinogenic lung clogging particulates and Nox. Because a gas we all exhale, a gas we all consume in fizzy drinks is somehow classed as "EVIL", public enemy number 1 in Europe.

I couldn't give a crap about Greenhouse gases until you satisfy me about emissions that directly affect humans right here, right now.
What are the particulate emissions from this type of incinerator?
Dioxins?

"Greenhouse gas reduction at any human cost" is not the way forward.
"Greenhouse gas reduction" by itself isn't a justifications for anything until you know the full picture.
"Greenhouse gas reduction" doesn't automatically outweigh any possible negative aspects of the process.

Limerick Dude

Tim76 wrote: »

The EIS has been commissioned by the applicant and lodged in support of the application so it's a fact of life that it will be biased.

The various components of the EIS will be compiled by independent consultants who are not biased. They will still get paid whether the application fails or not, yet they are hired to get the application across the line. If the design of the facility is a concern from a water or air quality POV for example, then a solution will be sought and subsequently incorporated into the EIS.

Alf Veedersane

Special Circumstances wrote: »

"Greenhouse gas reduction at any human cost" is not the way forward.
"Greenhouse gas reduction" by itself isn't a justifications for anything until you know the full picture.
"Greenhouse gas reduction" doesn't automatically outweigh any possible negative aspects of the process.

No one is arguing to the contrary.

Special Circumstances

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

No one is arguing to the contrary.

Just wondering if it's a deliberate omission by people in favour of GHG reduction, or trying to use this as a sign that process is healthy and safe overall. An inconvenient truth, if you will.

Chemical Byrne

Casperbhoy wrote: »

A new school and large playground is planned in Mungret

I think it is perplexing how you get people getting all animated about any sort of industry which uses a waste product as fuel even though the facility would be strictly controlled and monitored by the EPA. And then they have absolutely no problem sitting at home in a neigourhood with open coal or turf fires which smoulder and belch out copious amounts of very noxious gasses as a result of the low combustion temperature.

Then you have people at the protests whinging about fumes and whatever else and there are a few of them smoking fags. FFS.

Alf Veedersane

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Just wondering if it's a deliberate omission by people in favour of GHG reduction, or trying to use this as a sign that process is healthy and safe overall. An inconvenient truth, if you will.

No. I wouldn't argue that GHG levels are the only metric to be considered.

Casperbhoy

One metric is Green house gases, thats important.
The really bad stuff are toxic emissions like mercury, lead, cadmium and thallium, and other heavy metals. This is the kinds stuff you dont want to inhale

http://www.zerowasteeurope.eu/2014/11/european-gathering-against-waste-incineration-in-cement-kilns/

Special Circumstances

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

I think it is perplexing how you get people getting all animated about any sort of industry which uses a waste product as fuel even though the facility would be strictly controlled and monitored by the EPA. And then they have absolutely no problem sitting at home in a neigourhood with open coal or turf fires which smoulder and belch out copious amounts of very noxious gasses as a result of the low combustion temperature.

Then you have people at the protests whinging about fumes and whatever else and there are a few of them smoking fags. FFS.

EPA.
+Strictly controlled.
+Monitored.
=Lolz.

Mango Joe

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

If they're building a school beside a kiln they're probably ok with the kiln being there.

http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/local-news/143899/Residents-say-no-to-gasification-plant.html

The Mayor of Limerick City and County Council has admitted they made a “mistake” in granting a lease to a company planning to build a waste-to-energy plant at Gortadroma in West Limerick.

........

Local GP Mary Woulfe told the meeting that the proposal was “completely unacceptable”.

“I find absolutely incredulous that someone can stand up there and try to defend a plant that is going to be burning thousands of tonnes of rubber every day and try to tell us that it will have no consequences,” she said.

Please do not underestimate the idiocy of your local Councillors.

- These 24 carat fools might well put a Kiln beside a primary school, secondary school, park and playground through stupidity, corruption, ignorance, apathy or simply because their own kids live and are educated elsewhere.....

moleyv

Casperbhoy wrote:

One metric is Green house gases, thats important. The really bad stuff are toxic emissions like mercury, lead, cadmium and thallium, and other heavy metals. This is the kinds stuff you dont want to inhale

Very true, that is why you look at the whole process, not just the incineration. Exhausts are sent up a smoke stack. Smoke stacks are part of the filtering process, not just a means of getting the smoke higher. The use electrostatic charges to capture the tiny particulates AND heavy metals.

And the example in your link of a cement kiln in the UK was operating without license restrictions.

The limerick plant is already subject to a license and strict monitoring, this will be amended for the proposal if it gets the go ahead.

Also the use of ash within cement is known as GGBS. Its used in very special circumstance due to it's properties. Some projects it was used on a large scale are the Jack Lynch Tunnel in Cork, and although I'm not certain, likely the limerick tunnel.

Special Circumstances wrote:

EPA. +Strictly controlled. +Monitored. =Lolz.

This is a 'computer says no' argument. Try harder.

Your earlier links too, comments from councillors/TDs, probably rip them apart on other topics, then sing praises when an it suits.

Take waste water treatment for example, Limerick was/is the only city in ROI meeting EPA standards for waste treatment. North Dublin recently had a new plant, but it doesn't treat all the city.

And no, the EPA aren't brushing this under the carpet, they make this public and are constantly trying to bring up the standards.

But then again how is it fixed, major investment, which requires what? Water charges or higher taxes.

A lot of the population are happy to allow untreated waste flow into our rivers and seas AND do what they can to oppose new methods of waste treatment/disposal. They are the biggest risk to our health as a whole.

I say well done to Irish Cement for putting forward something new. I'm happy to let the powers that be decide if its safe and monitor as necessary.

moleyv

Mango Joe wrote:

Please do not underestimate the idiocy of your local Councillors.

I think their only regret was not consulting with the public by any appreciable means in the run up to a general election.