Poolbeg Incinerator

onimpulse

How did we let this happen?

The new Incinerator at Poolbeg is now up and running and is spewing out smoke almost non stop. Did we really need to build an incinerator so close to the city centre? Surely there were better locations?

While other cities in the world try to move industrial sites out of city centres we put new polluting buildings in areas that would otherwise be amazing recreational and scenic areas.

How short sighted and ignorant are our planners to allow this and how stupid are we that we didn't stop it?! Now we're stuck with it for decades most likely.

waxon-waxoff

Im guessing its steam not smoke spewing out of the chimney? I was going down Bath ave last week and i could'nt see the Poolbeg chimneys as there was a massive cloud of smoke/ steam blocking them out. Did nobody at planning realise there would be so much emissions?

So the landmark, iconic Poolbeg chimneys were spared the wrecking ball only to disappear in a low hanging cloud.

uck51js9zml2yt

It's emitting less toxins than the vehicles which use the roads in the surrounding area

. Let's ban cars!

gerrowadat

It's steam.

aliveandkicking

onimpulse wrote: »

How did we let this happen?

The new Incinerator at Poolbeg is now up and running and is spewing out smoke almost non stop. Did we really need to build an incinerator so close to the city centre? Surely there were better locations?

While other cities in the world try to move industrial sites out of city centres we put new polluting buildings in areas that would otherwise be amazing recreational and scenic areas.

How short sighted and ignorant are our planners to allow this and how stupid are we that we didn't stop it?! Now we're stuck with it for decades most likely.

The white "smoke" you can see is steam. The actual emissions from the incinerator is less than from all the cars and trucks using the roads around Dublin Port not to mention all the ships coming in and out of the port spewing out vast amounts of pollution from using dirty bunker fuel. Did you also know that literally right beside the incinerator is a gas fired power generation plant? That plant burns gas pretty much 24/7 and the resulting emissions is vastly more than from the incinerator.

When fully commissioned the incinerator will provide steam to the power plant meaning the power plant will be able to produce electricity using the steam from the incinerator. Rather than increasing pollution in the area the incinerator will actually reduce it as the power plant won't be burning as much gas. The clue is in the official name of the incinerator - Dublin Waste to Energy.

Maybe before forming such strong opinions on something it might be an idea to do a small bit of research on it?

odyssey06

I am glad to hear that it is steam.

That said it is an eyesore when the wind blows it back across the city. The steam stacks are too low. Its a pity there was no way to route it through the much taller Poolbeg stacks. Lets hope it is only temporary while the plant generator becomes operational.

onimpulse

aliveandkicking wrote: »

The white "smoke" you can see is steam. The actual emissions from the incinerator is less than from all the cars and trucks using the roads around Dublin Port not to mention all the ships coming in and out of the port spewing out vast amounts of pollution from using dirty bunker fuel. Did you also know that literally right beside the incinerator is a gas fired power generation plant? That plant burns gas pretty much 24/7 and the resulting emissions is vastly more than from the incinerator.

When fully commissioned the incinerator will provide steam to the power plant meaning the power plant will be able to produce electricity using the steam from the incinerator. Rather than increasing pollution in the area the incinerator will actually reduce it as the power plant won't be burning as much gas. The clue is in the official name of the incinerator - Dublin Waste to Energy.

Maybe before forming such strong opinions on something it might be an idea to do a small bit of research on it?

While I'm glad to hear it will eventually reduce pollution, why is the steam currently being emitted? Is that temporary? In any case, it's an eyesore. Go out today for a walk on Dollymount and tell me otherwise.

I know the area is zoned industrial but I think that should be revised, we should be reclaiming spaces like that for recreational use not further industrialising them. There was a proposal a few years ago to move the Port north to near Drogheda, I would fully support such a move so we can clean up our beaches and the port area. We have amazing natural resources in terms of tourism and recreation in Dublin, overshadowed by industry and pollution. Most cities are now making moves to rezone areas like this as recreational or commercial and moving industrial area out of city centres. We're doing the exact opposite which is really disappointing.

onimpulse

Simeon Deafening Clothespin wrote: »

It's emitting less toxins than the vehicles which use the roads in the surrounding area

. Let's ban cars!

How much additional traffic is it generating?

alastair

onimpulse wrote: »

While I'm glad to hear it will eventually reduce pollution, why is the steam currently being emitted? Is that temporary? In any case, it's an eyesore. Go out today for a walk on Dollymount and tell me otherwise.

It's no more an eyesore than the rest of the power/industrial structures that have been along there since before any of us were born. It's emitting steam as it's been operational as an incinerator for a number of weeks now. Personally I don't think the steam is remotely unsightly.

onimpulse

alastair wrote: »

It's no more an eyesore than the rest of the power/industrial structures that have been along there since before any of us were born. It's emitting steam as it's been operational as an incinerator for a number of weeks now. Personally I don't think the steam is remotely unsightly.

And because it's like that since before most of us were born - we can't possibly consider changing that... we have to make it worse?

odyssey06

alastair wrote: »

It's no more an eyesore than the rest of the power/industrial structures that have been along there since before any of us were born. It's emitting steam as it's been operational as an incinerator for a number of weeks now. Personally I don't think the steam is remotely unsightly.

The steam is the eyesore. It creates a dreadful impression especially considering that visiting cruise liners sail right past it.

alastair

onimpulse wrote: »

And because it's like that since before most of us were born - we can't possibly consider changing that... we have to make it worse?

It's not being made worse, and it makes perfect sense that an industrial area would be the location for an industrial activity. The primary landmark of the area was, for decades, pumping actual toxic smoke out, and yet it's a well loved icon of the city. A bit of stream, that actually dissipates within close proximity to the incinerator is really offensive to no-one with a modicum of perspective.

alastair

odyssey06 wrote: »

The steam is the eyesore. It creates a dreadful impression especially considering that visiting cruise liners sail right past it.

No doubt they're equally offended by the typical port structures in pretty much all city ports then. but I supposed if you're determined to look past generating stations - active and derelict, brownfield dereliction and carparks, gasometers, fuel dumps, stockyards, sewage treatment plants, and the roll-on roll-off freight activities, they could well be alarmed at the sight of a bit of steam.

odyssey06

alastair wrote: »

No doubt they're equally offended by the typical port structures in pretty much all city ports then. but I supposed if you're determined to look past generating stations - active and derelict, brownfield dereliction and carparks, gasometers, fuel dumps, stockyards, sewage treatment plants, and the roll-on roll-off freight activities, they could well be alarmed at the sight of a bit of steam.

How are they supposed to know it is steam?

They dont know it is steam... they expect most of those things at a port. They probably don't expect whats looks like a smoking power plant.
It looks awful. If I think that, I guarantee so do most of the cruise visitors. It creates an awful impression coming into the city.
Appearances matter when it comes to tourism.

alastair

odyssey06 wrote: »

How are they supposed to know it is steam?

They dont know it is steam... they expect most of those things at a port. They probably don't expect whats looks like a smoking power plant.
It looks awful. If I think that, I guarantee so do most of the cruise visitors. It creates an awful impression coming into the city.
Appearances matter when it comes to tourism.

It doesn't look like smoke, it looks like steam. And it's not impacting on any cruise ship tourists - the port is pig ugly in any case - they're going elsewhere in Dublin.

BTW - the busiest tourist attraction in the country:


The steam there doesn't seem to dissuade the tourists.

onimpulse

alastair wrote: »

It's not being made worse, and it makes perfect sense that an industrial area would be the location for an industrial activity. The primary landmark of the area was, for decades, pumping actual toxic smoke out, and yet it's a well loved icon of the city. A bit of stream, that actually dissipates within close proximity to the incinerator is really offensive to no-one with a modicum of perspective.

I disagree.The fact that the area has been worse in the past doesn't mean this is ok. Can we not aim to clean up the city, in particular areas like this which are visible and in close proximity to recreational areas (our cities beaches for example).

Or maybe your rational which excuses lack of vision by citing the poor history of planning in the city is exactly the type of attitude which limits ambition and achievements in this country.

alastair

onimpulse wrote: »

I disagree.The fact that the area has been worse in the past doesn't mean this is ok. Can we not aim to clean up the city, in particular areas like this which are visible and in close proximity to recreational areas (our cities beaches for example).

Or maybe your rational which excuses lack of vision by citing the poor history of planning in the city is exactly the type of attitude which limits ambition and achievements in this country.

It's not about being 'worse in the past'. It's an industrial area, and will remain so, as long as it's a working port. Nothing 'ambitious' in attempting to pretend that steam is smoke, and that you can relocate sewage works away from the city that they serve. The area serves multiple necessary purposes for the life of the city, and the consequent industrial structures really don't impact on tourism, or the enjoyment of the beaches - which continue to be highly popular.

onimpulse

alastair wrote: »

It's not about being 'worse in the past'. It's an industrial area, and will remain so, as long as it's a working port. Nothing 'ambitious' in attempting to pretend that steam is smoke, and that you can relocate sewage works away from the city that they serve. The area serves multiple necessary purposes for the life of the city, and the consequent industrial structures really don't impact on tourism, or the enjoyment of the beaches - which continue to be highly popular.

Please refrain from inaccurate accusations in an attempt to discredit my argument.

I find it amusing that you mention sewage works and enjoyment of beaches so shortly after no swim notices at Dublin main beaches.

The area does not have to be industrial and should not be. The fact you and others can't even consider such a possibility is a limiting factor in the future positive development of this city.

alastair

onimpulse wrote: »

I find it amusing that you mention sewage works and enjoyment of beaches so shortly after no swim notices at Dublin main beaches.

The area does not have to be industrial and should not be. The fact you and others can't even consider such a possibility is a limiting factor in the future positive development of this city.

Not sure why you're amused. The point of the sewage treatment plant is to avoid raw sewage entering the sea. It's the absence of sewage treatment that brings about no swim notices.

The intrinsic nature of a working port is that it's industrial. Sorry if this poses difficulties for you.

hidinginthebush

This incinerator burns solid household waste at extremely high temperatures. The heat generated by this burning is used to power turbines which generate electricity. The leftover ash, metals, etc. are retrieved or recycled (eg ash can be used for fertilisers).

The general public are mainly fearful of the emissions from these plants, however, as pointed out, the plant mainly emits steam. The exhaust puts out numerous particulates, dioxins, etc., but these are removed via a process called "scrubbing" of the gas, which removes these nasty chemicals through filtering through lime, carbon, and physical means.

It is safe and environmental solution, and these plants are stringently monitored, with any infringement on the rules reported to, and punished by the EPA accordingly, in line with Irish and European guidelines. The EPA are well within their powers to inspect the site at any stage and can at a moment's notice close this site if it is found to be unsafe.

While some people bemoan the existence of the plant, the alternative is to construct or send the waste to one of our already overfill landfill sites, or to export the waste to be burned / disposed abroad at great cost, I think I'd settle for a steam-emitting, power-generating plant every time.

onimpulse

Every single angle possible is being covered here to be outraged at, it's remarkable.

"Whaaaa smoke!"
"It's not smoke"
"That doesn't matter!"

I mean what the hell?

onimpulse wrote: »

How much additional traffic is it generating?

All traffic to the plant, bar that coming from Ringsend itself, including traffic coming from the south, is routed through the Port Tunnel. So it's putting a few extra vehicles on the motorways of the city. It is generating no extra traffic in the city itself.

screamer

Shock horror Dublin being expected to deal with its own waste! Better get used to it cause there's not enough waste in Ireland to keep the incinerator fed and running at capacity. Waste will be imported to keep it burning at full capacity that's why it was built by the port....rocket science isn't it.

uck51js9zml2yt

Typical boards.
Outrage at its "smoke" which is really not smoke.
Outrage at its shape, outrage at its location....the list goes on.
Much better to send everything to landfill , it doesn't create steam.
No one is outraged at all the people standing outside pubs smoking and filling out lungs with toxins as we pass by!

I actually think it looks quiet nice coming in from sandymount.
One of the best thing is to happen in Dublin (prior to Tyrone being beaten at the weekend)

odyssey06

Simeon Deafening Clothespin wrote: »

Typical boards...
Much better to send everything to landfill , it doesn't create steam.

Rubbish. Literally.

Where did anyone say that??? Go back through the thread.
Please find me the reference where that was said.

Typical boards ... If you raise any sort of objection to something, you're assumed to oppose all progress and must be shouted down.

screamer

odyssey06 wrote: »

Rubbish. Literally.

Where did anyone say that??? Go back through the thread.
Please find me the reference where that was said.

Typical boards ... If you raise any sort of objection to something, you're assumed to oppose all progress and must be shouted down.

The time for concerns is long gone poolbeg had one of the longest most disputed planning applications ever. The incinerator has some of the most modern technology and has cost millions and they have to be recouped now. But sure good old nimbyism prevails.

odyssey06

hidinginthebush wrote: »

While some people bemoan the existence of the plant, the alternative is to construct or send the waste to one of our already overfill landfill sites, or to export the waste to be burned / disposed abroad at great cost, I think I'd settle for a steam-emitting, power-generating plant every time.

Was that the only alternative???
Strange you don't consider any other alternative locations in which to build it?
The equation you have constructed seems to be: build the plant in Dublin Port or else no plant.
Maybe Dublin Port was the only place for it, I don't know.
But I don't buy the formula as presented.

I'm not objecting to a power-generating incinerator full stop.
I'm saying I'm not sure it was put in the best location, given it's effect on the skyline view of the city.
I'm glad to hear it's steam coming out of it but not smoke - I'm not sure how the lay person is supposed to realise that though.

odyssey06

screamer wrote: »

The time for concerns is long gone poolbeg had one of the longest most disputed planning applications ever. The incinerator has some of the most modern technology and has cost millions and they have to be recouped now. But sure good old nimbyism prevails.

Anyone opposed to the deployment of modern technology is engaged in NIMBYISM. You read it here.
You can roll that argument out to defend the Death Star! Come on now.

We should change the planning process: "Will your device\structure use the most modern technology"?
Yes: "Grand, put it anywhere you like."
No: "Please tick Yes."

If we're going to have a Death Star can we at least have one that looks a bit sleeker?

killbillvol2

What submissions did the OP and/or odyssey06 make during the multiple public consultations on this issue?

TheChizler

odyssey06 wrote: »

How are they supposed to know it is steam?

They dont know it is steam... they expect most of those things at a port. They probably don't expect whats looks like a smoking power plant.
It looks awful. If I think that, I guarantee so do most of the cruise visitors. It creates an awful impression coming into the city.
Appearances matter when it comes to tourism.

The vast majority of "smoke" from modern power plants is in fact steam, unlike the diesel exhaust coming out of the cruise liner they're on.

odyssey06

killbillvol2 wrote: »

What submissions did the OP and/or odyssey06 make during the multiple public consultations on this issue?

There was no public consultatation on this. There was a sham process.

Dublin City Council ignored the overwhelming vote of its own councillors on the issue. The vote was 50 out of 52 councillors against the proposal.

In what city do you think a Council which ignores the officials I elected will pay the slightest heed to a submission it doesn't like by an ordinary voter?
Hint: it's not this one.

wordofwarning

hidinginthebush wrote: »

This incinerator burns solid household waste at extremely high temperatures. The heat generated by this burning is used to power turbines which generate electricity. The leftover ash, metals, etc. are retrieved or recycled (eg ash can be used for fertilisers).

The remaining hot water can be used to heat homes. The new developments close to the site will likely use the hot water for heating etc. This is another bonus

There appears to be more outrage from this plant actually disposing of waste in a safe manner than the illegal dumping found in Wicklow/Donegal. There is more outrage from the highly regulated plant than illegal waste getting into ground water etc.

odyssey06

wordofwarning wrote: »

There appears to be more outrage from this plant actually disposing of waste in a safe manner than the illegal dumping found in Wicklow/Donegal. There is more outrage from the highly regulated plant than illegal waste getting into ground water etc.

Not really. I've no problem with putting the illegal dumpers into the incinerator along with the waste they were about to dump, illegally.
As long as said emissions are not toxic.

That's the only way I can see that the incinerator is going to solve the problem of illegal dumping.

It's not as if the illegal dumpers can stroll up unseen in a hi-ace van and offload their stuff for free into the incinerator ... so it doesn't have appeal for that kind of individual.

So I'm not seeing how the incinerator will help with the illegal dumping - which is outrageous.

odyssey06

onimpulse wrote: »

The area does not have to be industrial and should not be. The fact you and others can't even consider such a possibility is a limiting factor in the future positive development of this city.

David McWilliams had a recent article about why we should move the port and use the large amount of land close to the city centre for residential \ offices etc etc - as has been done in Oslo, Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Bilbao.

"We are one of the last major cities to have a port on the most valuable prime land... At the moment Dublin Port is the greatest waste of prime land imaginable... the State could sell the Port lands for €6 to 7 billion, and build a new port at a fraction of the cost."

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2017/08/20/move-dublin-port-and-create-new-city-on-the-water

killbillvol2

odyssey06 wrote: »

There was no public consultatation on this. There was a sham process.

Dublin City Council ignored the overwhelming vote of its own councillors on the issue. The vote was 50 out of 52 councillors against the proposal.

In what city do you think a Council which ignores the officials I elected will pay the slightest heed to a submission it doesn't like by an ordinary voter?
Hint: it's not this one.

Whatever about its effectiveness, there was more than one public consultation on this. I take it you didn't make a submission.

And a submission from an ordinary voter to the actual process, however much it's a drop in the ocean, is still more effective than posting on boards after the incinerator is up and running.

Cookie_Monster

Why is everyone dismissing the emissions as "just steam"? While no where near as bad as smoke and containing far less dangerous emissions it is still dumping a lot of waste heat into the atmosphere.

Don't get me wrong, I support incineration as a good method of dealing with waste (currently at least until better options become mainstream and cost effective) but it's not "just steam"

Del2005

odyssey06 wrote: »

I'm not objecting to a power-generating incinerator full stop.
I'm saying I'm not sure it was put in the best location, given it's effect on the skyline view of the city.
I'm glad to hear it's steam coming out of it but not smoke - I'm not sure how the lay person is supposed to realise that though.

The skyline of the city should be full of tall buildings and then the incinerator wouldn't be noticed but instead we send people 70km+ outside the city to commute, by filthy diesel cars, into the city. Yet you are worried about a bit of steam when the low rise city is polluted with highly dangerous exhaust emissions.

Del2005

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Why is everyone dismissing the emissions as "just steam"? While no where near as bad as smoke and containing far less dangerous emissions it is still dumping a lot of waste heat into the atmosphere.

Don't get me wrong, I support incineration as a good method of dealing with waste (currently at least until better options become mainstream and cost effective) but it's not "just steam"

The amount of heat being generated by the incinerator is miniscule compared to the heat generated by the city. So getting rid of the city would be better.

dunleakelleher

onimpulse wrote: »

How did we let this happen?

The new Incinerator at Poolbeg is now up and running and is spewing out smoke almost non stop. Did we really need to build an incinerator so close to the city centre? Surely there were better locations?

While other cities in the world try to move industrial sites out of city centres we put new polluting buildings in areas that would otherwise be amazing recreational and scenic areas.

How short sighted and ignorant are our planners to allow this and how stupid are we that we didn't stop it?! Now we're stuck with it for decades most likely.

well, most of the waste incinerated in the plant is generated in the city, so location is local to the source.
also yes industrial sites are being moved out of cities,
but for the reasons mentioned above.(lose to source) you are incorrect in assuming that most European cities have these facilities far out. in fact, most have them very central to the city.

odyssey06

Del2005 wrote: »

The skyline of the city should be full of tall buildings and then the incinerator wouldn't be noticed but instead we send people 70km+ outside the city to commute, by filthy diesel cars, into the city. Yet you are worried about a bit of steam when the low rise city is polluted with highly dangerous exhaust emissions.

What have diesel cars got to do with the location of the incinerator???
The government encouraged diesel engines through motor tax - why?
How did we not know in 2008 that diesel emissions were dangerous to human health?
Did whichever state body who signed off on that also sign off that the incinerator was safe?

Does it mean we shouldn't worry about something cosmetic like graffiti on our streets, because there are diesel cars?
Why can't someone be worried about multiple things?


It was Dublin city council that placed the incinerator where they did; and it's Dublin city council that blocks those tall buildings.
Should we assume Dublin city council is infallible?

wordofwarning

odyssey06 wrote: »

It's not as if the illegal dumpers can stroll up unseen in a hi-ace van and offload their stuff for free into the incinerator ... so it doesn't have appeal for that kind of individual.

So I'm not seeing how the incinerator will help with the illegal dumping - which is outrageous.

You have a very strong opinion on waste disposal. But you don't seem to know much about the quality waste disposal that went on in Donegal

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/donegal-refuse-collector-a-serial-environmental-offender-1.3081208

Not all illegal dumping is carried out by people in a hi-ace van...

Here is another county and another example

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/wicklow-council-staff-gave-different-statements-on-illegal-dump-1.3038001

How much research and knowledge do you have on waste disposal in this state? You have very very strong opinions on it...

But you don't seem to understand how some counties dealt with their waste. You don't even appear to realise that an illegal dump is not someone dumping stuff at the end of a lane. But also a private operator not managing their disposal correctly.

An incinerator is a way for a private operator to dispose of their waste correctly. So it is no "outrageous" to assume an incinerator can reduce illegal dumping, if you know what an illegal dump is in the first place...

odyssey06

wordofwarning wrote: »

You have a very strong opinion on waste disposal. But you don't seem to know much about the quality waste disposal that went on in Donegal...

What has the Poolbeg incinerator got to do with that guy in Donegal???
Why do I have to know about Donegal to have an opinion on an incinerator in Poolbeg, Dublin?
Is there an incinerator in Donegal who we can use as a reference example for Poolbeg? Because othewise, Donegal could have never existed, or ceased to exist tomorrow, for all the difference it makes to this discussion.

If the Poolbeg incinerator had been operational for the last 10 years, please explain to me how it would have stopped the guy in Donegal for ignoring all the current laws and regulations and put an end to his illegal dumping?

The only thing that will make a difference is enforcement of laws.

If someone is dumping illegally, whether it's a private operator or some guy at the end of a lane, put them in jail. It has absolutely zero to do with the Poolbeg incinerator and it is a logical fallacy to try to tie them together.

There are already legal places for waste to be disposed of. An incinerator is another legal place to dispose of waste. There are zero grounds to believe that this will make a difference to someone already ignoring all the legal places for waste to be disposed of.

wordofwarning

odyssey06 wrote: »

What has the Poolbeg incinerator got to do with that guy in Donegal???
Why do I have to know about Donegal to have an opinion on an incinerator in Poolbeg, Dublin?
Is there an incinerator in Donegal who we can use as a reference example for Poolbeg? Because othewise, Donegal could have never existed, or ceased to exist tomorrow, for all the difference it makes to this discussion.

There are already legal places for waste to be disposed of. An incinerator is another legal place to dispose of waste. There are zero grounds to believe that this will make a difference to someone already ignoring all the legal places for waste to be disposed of.

Illegal dumping has worsened over the last few decades as it was harder and harder to find landfill to dump waste. It became more and more expensive. So people started to create illegal landfills

It is nice to see you acknowledge that private operator also illegal dump. I got from your previous post that you only seemed to think that it was only guys in Hi Ace vans, which is not the case clearly. I included this examples to hammer the point to you. Their location is not relevant to the discussion.

Well not entirely. I notice in your point you keep mentioning Donegal and what does it have to do with Dublin. There was illegal dumping in Wicklow. With Poolbeg opening decades ago. That might have never happened.

I dont know if you read the articles. But there is a clearly a trend of councils allegedly knowing about the illegal dumping or possibly use the dump for themselves. If the councils have a cheap and alternative option to landfill ie an incinerator. It will reduce illegal dumping.

I honestly don't think you fully understand what illegal dumping is and who is doing it. So I don't see how you can say this incinerator will not reduce illegal dumping when IMO you don't seem to fully understand it

odyssey06

wordofwarning wrote: »

Well not entirely. I notice in your point you keep mentioning Donegal and what does it have to do with Dublin. There was illegal dumping in Wicklow. With Poolbeg opening decades ago. That might have never happened.
I dont know if you read the articles. But there is a clearly a trend of councils allegedly knowing about the illegal dumping or possibly use the dump for themselves. If the councils have a cheap and alternative option to landfill ie an incinerator. It will reduce illegal dumping.
I honestly don't think you fully understand what illegal dumping is and who is doing it. So I don't see how you can say this incinerator will not reduce illegal dumping when IMO you don't seem to fully understand it

You were the one who brought Donegal into the conversation though?

I have asked you to explain how Poolbeg incinerator will reduce illegal waste.
Your response in essence is ... you don't fully understand illegal waste.
Maybe I don't! But that's not what this discussion is about.

If Wicklow County Council is run by a bunch of cowboys who don't care about illegal dumping, if they are already flouting and ignoring all the regulations about illegal dumping, we have a situation full stop. Incinerator or not.
Are we really saying that county councils cannot be trusted to discharge their legal obligations on waste, therefore we must have an incinerator in Dublin city?
And if Wicklow county council cannot be trusted on waste, why can Dublin city council be trusted?

So I reject these assertions:
(a) That one needs to have a full understanding about the national illegal waste situation before commenting on an incinerator in Dublin
(b) That the incinerator will reduce illegal waste and that somehow by questioning the current incinerator design and location I am somehow holding up tackling illegal waste in the country.

neris

odyssey06 wrote: »

David McWilliams had a recent article about why we should move the port and use the large amount of land close to the city centre for residential \ offices etc etc - as has been done in Oslo, Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Bilbao.

"We are one of the last major cities to have a port on the most valuable prime land... At the moment Dublin Port is the greatest waste of prime land imaginable... the State could sell the Port lands for €6 to 7 billion, and build a new port at a fraction of the cost."

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2017/08/20/move-dublin-port-and-create-new-city-on-the-water

It would take decades to move the port and all its infrastructure, along with the building of a new port and its infrastructure. the port isnt just a few boats and cranes its an industrial area full of oil terminals, oil storage facilities, warehouses and operational industrial buildings & sites. The contamination in the ground alone would probably cause major headaches from an environmental point of view. McWiliams says theres only 140 people employed in the port which is absolute bollox when you consider all the other businesses located in the port area who employ office staff, truck drivers, shop assistants etc. The building of a new port any where is going to take a long time and at the moment theres no where along the east coast that could handle half the ships coming into dublin port without major dredging and then your into the problems of dumping that at sea.

PaulieC

onimpulse wrote: »

I know the area is zoned industrial but I think that should be revised, we should be reclaiming spaces like that for recreational use not further industrialising them. There was a proposal a few years ago to move the Port north to near Drogheda, I would fully support such a move so we can clean up our beaches and the port area. We have amazing natural resources in terms of tourism and recreation in Dublin, overshadowed by industry and pollution. Most cities are now making moves to rezone areas like this as recreational or commercial and moving industrial area out of city centres. We're doing the exact opposite which is really disappointing.

You just want the whole shebang moved to Drogheda and let them deal with it ?

odyssey06

neris wrote: »

It would take decades to move the port and all its infrastructure, along with the building of a new port and its infrastructure. the port isnt just a few boats and cranes its an industrial area full of oil terminals, oil storage facilities, warehouses and operational industrial buildings & sites. The contamination in the ground alone would probably cause major headaches from an environmental point of view. McWiliams says theres only 140 people employed in the port which is absolute bollox when you consider all the other businesses located in the port area who employ office staff, truck drivers, shop assistants etc. The building of a new port any where is going to take a long time and at the moment theres no where along the east coast that could handle half the ships coming into dublin port without major dredging and then your into the problems of dumping that at sea.

"Transforming Dublin would be a millennial project and would take time but this is what great cities do: they build and they build for the future with a one hundred year vision."

Not dimissing the obstacles you have outlined, but it doesn't seem like McWilliams is suggesting short term solutions here...

odyssey06

PaulieC wrote: »

What the actual fcuk ? You're not a Nimby, you just want the whole shebang moved to Drogheda and let them deal with it ?

What's wrong with having a major port near you?
Apart from its incinerartor and the amount of valuable land it is tying up?

What exactly are the people of Dublin city having to "deal with it" at the moment?

PaulieC

odyssey06 wrote: »

Anyone opposed to the deployment of modern technology is engaged in NIMBYISM. You read it here.
You can roll that argument out to defend the Death Star! Come on now.

We should change the planning process: "Will your device\structure use the most modern technology"?
Yes: "Grand, put it anywhere you like."
No: "Please tick Yes."

If we're going to have a Death Star can we at least have one that looks a bit sleeker?

onimpulse wrote: »

While I'm glad to hear it will eventually reduce pollution, why is the steam currently being emitted? Is that temporary? In any case, it's an eyesore. Go out today for a walk on Dollymount and tell me otherwise.

I know the area is zoned industrial but I think that should be revised, we should be reclaiming spaces like that for recreational use not further industrialising them. There was a proposal a few years ago to move the Port north to near Drogheda, I would fully support such a move so we can clean up our beaches and the port area. We have amazing natural resources in terms of tourism and recreation in Dublin, overshadowed by industry and pollution. Most cities are now making moves to rezone areas like this as recreational or commercial and moving industrial area out of city centres. We're doing the exact opposite which is really disappointing.

odyssey06 wrote: »

What's wrong with having a major port near you?
Apart from its incinerartor and the amount of valuable land it is tying up?

What exactly are the people of Dublin city having to "deal with it" at the moment?

Sorry...mixed up user names Edited original reply...

odyssey06

PaulieC wrote: »

you complained about Nimbys and said that the whole thing should be moved to a different location. Why should some other location deal with your rubbish and your imports and exports ?

I don't think it's a helpful phrase to be honest. People can have valid objections to a development in their area, and concerns about the nature and design of the development, without it being NIMBYISM.

What is there to deal with - aside from the incinerator - about Dublin port, that any other coastal county on the eastern seaboard should complain about???
The implication of that would be that the people near the port in Dublin are having to put up with something you see...

It's not "your" imports and exports, the goods coming in and out of Dublin port are the imports and exports of half the country. So the question is where is it best placed.

And actually, the proposed new port of Drogheda would have been located at least partly within Dublin county boundaries:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremore_Port

neris

odyssey06 wrote: »

"Transforming Dublin would be a millennial project and would take time but this is what great cities do: they build and they build for the future with a one hundred year vision."

Not dimissing the obstacles you have outlined, but it doesn't seem like McWilliams is suggesting short term solutions here...

As a very long term project yes it is very possible and yes in time would work with a bit of joined up thinking, long term planning and adjusting plans years down the line as things change but the problem with irish planning seems to be build for the "Now" and not plan for the long term future generations from now or even a decade or 2 away.

odyssey06

Simeon Deafening Clothespin wrote: »

I actually think it looks quiet nice coming in from sandymount.

ps I think it does look sleeker from the southside, looks more 'hunkered' or nestled in. On the northside we seem to see it rearing its 'backside'.