Petition to stop an incinerator being built in Surrey [title edited by MNHQ]

[Discopanda]

I live in Middlesex but we are also governed by Surrey County Council. They're going ahead with plans to build an incinerator at the local tip and recycling centre. Didn't ask people's opinions, they're basically just doing it for the money (they get £2million from Sita) and I feel really let down by the council's attitude. They're well aware that this means major damage to the environment, the air quality and people's heath, including increased rates of asthma and certain cancers. People have been protesting, trying to raise money to parliament, it's all falling on deaf ears. AIBU to have completely lost faith in local politics?
There are a couple of ongoing petitions, including this one epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/69081 if anybody wants to sign.

[TooHasty]

'At our eco-park there are facilities to recycle everything from batteries to mixed material items'

there isn;'t always the demand for recyclable rubbish .Then what are they supposed to do?

[Nomama]

So.... you didn't consider the links and the history of the development that you are apparently unaware of then?

A quick read suggests that the eco park you have now was as a result of a previous council plan - recycle or we will have to get an incinerator.

Residents chose to re-cycle so council shelved incinerator plan. Now, to deal with whatever is not being recycled they are planning a gasification plant.

You seem to be making an uninformed fuss and seem to have your facts wrong!

The same is happening here... lots of people up in arms over an incinerator that has not been proposed. It is really annoying as the real objections cannot be discussed as the council has to spend an inordinate amount of time and money trying to eradicate misconceptions.

[Discopanda]

Actually I'm not "too embarrassed" to come back 26point2miles, I just didn't get round to it. At our eco-park there are facilities to recycle everything from batteries to mixed material items as well as the dump itself which is supposed to be for the few items that cannot be recycled. If items are being burned, people are going to stop bothering to recycle. As it is there is tonnes of waste in the dump that could actually be recycled if people sort their waste properly, an incinerator is going to make people more complacent. It isn't just CO2 being released, it's heavy metals from mixed materials that are the real problem.

[offtoseethewizard64]

Good luck with that campaign OP. They have just finished building one of those in our area. There were lots of meetings about it - people protested - they still built it. It sticks out like a blot on the landscape as it is on the edge of town so it is all fields to the North of it. It is about to be tested and go live. Your rubbish has to go somewhere, the council will choose the cheapest option.

[Nomama]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-11097603

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-11390011

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-21320223

Well, it is not an incinerator, and was not done quickly, without thought or due process... in 2009 the original plan was scrapped because residents increased recycling and replacing the incinerator plans with a gasification plant became possible

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/surrey/8414984.stm

Sorry OP, but your histrionics won't help anyone!

Far from being done without consultation it has been a long drawn out process with local residents taking part in all stages of the planning! Unless of course you don't think 7 years is a long time and the council scrapping the first option due to local responses being a positive, collaborative effort!

[26Point2Miles]

Op is probably too embarrassed to come Back

[SunnySomer]

I live in a city which recycles its recyclable products (paper, plastics, tins, glass, compost), then incinerates the rest. The energy that is generated powers the city's two hospitals, the town hall, some schools and a load more besides. Seems to me a sensible way to go. In the long term reducing waste as much as possible is sensible - but in the immediate term it still exists and needs to be disposed of somehow. Rather do it cleanly than bury it, or ship it elsewhere to pollute someone else's land and air.

[outofcontrol2014]

I am pushed for time, but look, the issue isn't simply one of the combustion process and capture of gases compared to landfill (which I agree is a dreadful solution).

The process of making a product uses energy. There's the energy from getting the raw materials in the first place, and then the energy associated with manufacturing. Often it takes a lot more energy than you release in burning that product later as waste (paper products like newsprint being a good example).

The environmentally responsible question to ask is not simply 'does this process release lots of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere' but 'is incineration the best way to conserve that embodied energy that has been poured into products'?

In other words, we need to look at energy conservation across the whole lifecycle of a product, not simply at the burning technology itself.

And here is where high rates of recycling are a MUCH better idea than burning for most waste fractions. There is a wealth of evidence from study after study that suggests that burning paper is a bad way of recovering energy compared to recycling, for instance. There seems to be an increasing evidence base that recycling plastics conserves more energy than burning them. Etc. etc. etc.

This isn't just about the science, though - waste is a huge political issue. Incinerators are a very costly thing to build, and they come with all kinds of political strings attached - councils tend to be locked into contracts to supply the incineration plant with waste, which often reduces recycling rates in their area.

[TooHasty]

If you don't want carbon dioxide being released, maybe you should stop breathing

[chemenger]

It is not incineration.

[chemenger]

outofcontrol I have summarised what I know and what I have found out. Rather than sending us to read up please summarise the better approaches to reducing landfill that you have identified.

[outofcontrol2014]

A quick google search would be all it would take to lead you to some of the scientific papers in this area, or to statements from all of the main environmental charities - all of whom oppose incineration.

[chemenger]

I agree with DrSnowman's comments on incineration and with Scholes34.

Gasification plants (which this is apparently; calling it an incinerator is misleading) produce syngas (a mixture of (usually) hydrogen, carbon monoxide and some carbon dioxide) by heating waste under controlled conditions with restricted oxygen. The syngas is then burnt to produce energy either to generate electricity or heat for district heating. The waste itself is not burnt directly.
Burning syngas will produce water and carbon dioxide, just like any other fuel combustion. However I would imagine that when producing syngas from waste it is likely that other gases will be present which could lead to acid gases, for example in the combustion gases. These are relatively easy to remove in post-combustion treatment, as are any particulates (although you would not expect much, if any, particulate material from a well controlled syngas combustion). I think it is likely that formation of dioxin is totally avoided in a gasification plant. Cleaning combustion gases is a very well established process used in many facilities.
It's clear from the publicity material that the waste to be treated in this gasifier is the residual waste after recyclables and organic material that will be treated in the anerobic digester have been diverted so there is no environmental opportunity cost, there is no other use for this material and it would otherwise be landfilled.
Caveat, I am not an expert on gasification, just a generalist chemical engineer.
If this were incineration I have to say that these are used very successfully over large parts of the rest of Europe, notably Scandinavia, with little trouble.

Over to you OP with your analysis of the situation! To be honest I have added nothing to the very clear information supplied in the Web page for the facility being so vigorously opposed by people who don't even seem to know the name of the technology being used.

[outofcontrol2014]

This is not about NIMBYism - its about there being better ways both of reducing the amount of waste going to landfill (as Scholes says) and of recycling it to conserve energy, and about recycling being a much better alternative in terms of reuse and energy conservation.

[outofcontrol2014]

Have you guys actually gone away and done any reading?

[radiobedhead]

Has the OP come back with any ideas?

[Scholes34]

We should initially put our time and energies into reducing the amount of waste we produce. Why on earth do I need to have plastic wrapped around my four tins of baked beans when the tills in the supermarket are sophisticated enough to charge a cheaper price per can when I buy four. Why do my yogurts need cardboard wrapped round them? Recycling is all very well, but when we don't need to have produced that waste in the first place . . .

[DrSnowman]

Incineration in a modern plant is very clean, a well built incinerator is like a multicoloured bird soaring into the sky while emitting a song of total joy when compared with most other waste disposal methods for household waste.

It is clean, very little dioxin is formed due to the way that the incinerator operates, most of the small amount of dioxin which does form is trapped in the filters. Also the acidic gases are scrubbed out of the flu gases.

Also it makes recycling more easy, I have toured some incineration plants. I have seen how they harvest scrap metal from the ash pile. The incineration process compacts the waste which saves space in the landfill site. Also the waste is less likely to leach if it is landfilled after burning.

Gasification is even better it forms a useful fuel from the waste

Incineration is good for the environment in terms of greenhouse gases. Methane from a landfill is a stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. It is better to burn the waste rather than allow to rot and generate methane.

By the way I do not work in the incineration industry, I have no vested interest in it.

[MidniteScribbler]

About two minutes of googling shows that this is not an incinerator, it's a gasification facility. Completely different thing. Gosh, I hate when people jump on a bandwagon and don't do any research.

[Santas3rdnipple]

You should see the state of Runcorns new incinerator.

Google it. It's a living nightmare

[ShadowKat]

We have a waste to energy incinerator near us. It incinerates lots of rubbish and produces electricity for the national grid. Plus there's filtration in the chimneys to minimise any air pollution. I think it's a pretty good way to get rid of rubbish.

[FantasticMrsFoxx]

I very much doubt they are building an incinerator. The Environment Agency wouldn't allow it for one thing. They will be building an 'energy from waste' facility and generating lots of lovely cheap electricity for the local community. The EA will also stipulate the type of waste that can/cannot be burnt e.g. no easily recyclable materials, no paint, batteries or asbestos.
Hospitals have incinerators for clinical waste, and crematoria are incinerators too - less stringent regulated than EfW. I'd be more concerned if you had a hospital chimney or crematoria near your house!!

[HighwayDragon]

Andrew also known as a NIMBY - nit in my back yard.

[Andrewofgg]

OP You are a SOBBY. You want it in Some Other Bugger's Back Yard.

[WooWooOwl]

Getting rid of waste is never going to be good for the environment, but it has to be done somehow.

I'm interested to hear what you think would be a better alternative for this particular council and why it would be better.