Login Register
 °

Incinerator firm tells campaigners: 'You're wrong'

By citizenmike  |  Posted: December 11, 2012

Incinerator plans

Incinerator plans

Comments (0)

Incinerator bosses have hit out at campaigners saying their 'misinformation is out of proportion'.

Urbaser Balfour Beatty, who want to build a £500million incinerator, have written an open letter to action group Glosvain to allay their fears over the plans.

Glosvain are worried that the burner will put out a toxic cloud which will impact on human health.

But UBB have hit back saying the claims are 'wrong' in order to draw a line under the ongoing debate.

Javier Peiro, project director, said: "The misinformation is now out of proportion so we want to set out the facts about recovering energy from waste."

Sue Oppenheimer, chairman of Glosvain, said: "Urbaser Balfour Beatty admits that there is pollution coming out of the stack – all that they are disputing is the level of risk. 

"The Health Protection Agency is currently testing the risk for infant mortality downwind of incinerators. They will report in 2014. We should wait for the outcome of that.

"Our argument is that this is the wrong technology in wrong place – there is cheaper, less visually intrusive, safer and better technology available and in use in other areas of the country, and currently being built elsewhere by UBB."

You can view the open letter here: http://www.ubbgloucestershire.co.uk/useruploads/files/ubb_response_to_glosvain_plume_maps[1].pdf

For the full story, see Wednesday's Citizen.

Read more from Gloucester Citizen

Do you have something to say? Leave your comment here...

max 4000 characters
  • Bonkim2003  |  December 12 2012, 8:42AM

    CommsGuy - I have no problem with energy from waste - the electricity is a byproduct - a little extra that helps pay for waste disposal - not main reason for its construction. I was commenting on a contractor being used to justify the plant and technical justification - it is for GlosCC to do all that and deal with a sceptical public. Such plants are as safe as they can be - same technologies as used widely all over the world - now you may think combustion is not good for the environment - to what degree - if it was that dangerous for humanity we need to take steps to go back in time to a pre-industrial era - which we probably will in a century or two, even decades given the huge population explosion (7billion + ) and fast depletion of the earth's water, energy, and essential mineral resources. The EFW plant is puny in terms of the huge amounts of combustion based processing taking place all over the worls. The problem with a lot of people now enjoying the good life that past industrial history has brought is that they have little understanding of technology or business but not short on consuming huge quantities of consumer goods and energy to maintain their profligate lifestyles - consuming without questioning where all that is made or coming from. Glosvain needs to first show by example rather than complaining about small quantities of emissions from a plant that should on the whole be the best costwise and environmentally - the byproduct electricity however small will offset fossil fuels and on balance such plants offset roughly 400kg equivalent fossil fuels for every tonne of waste fed in. The emissions you can calculate - if you know how - is much less than the wood burners and domestic gas and oil boilers combined in the area the waste is collected - in fact recycling and collecting vast tonnages of garden and food wastes consume huge amounts of fossil fuels - totally unnecessary - and Gloss CC should have looked disposal in tandem with collection - the best cost/environmentally efficient answer would have been a much larger EFW plant and a materials recovery facility located adjacent to it - that would have reduced collection cost and processing emissions compared with the complex multi-bin systems in place now. Britain is turning into a society of ill-informed NIMBYs - what a contrast to its glorious industrial past.

  • CommsGuy  |  December 12 2012, 1:21AM

    Re Bonkim2003 Has the county council no brains?" Rearrange the sentence for your answer : The county council has no brains. Perhaps Urbaser are dealing with the public because they are afraid they are going to lose the [very juicy] contract. The burner is too big; the small amount of electricity is a by-product to get round the law; it's in the wrong place; waste is declining; recycling's on the way up; industry are waking up to the fact that waste is a resource not a fuel. And there's no guarantee they'll get planning permission. Just ask yourself : exactly why do they need a chimney over 200 feet tall. Still, they'll do all right even if they lose the contract, what's the compensation? £15 million? £17million? £18million? How much is it exactly?

  • Bonkim2003  |  December 11 2012, 12:50PM

    Why is this firm dealing with the public? It is for the county council to justify their choice. Urbaser is merely a contractor doing a job it is paid to do. Has the county council no brains?

    |   7

      YOUR COMMENTS AWAITING MODERATION

       
       
       

      MORE NEWS HEADLINES