News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos


£8m 'incinerator' set for go-ahead

AN “incinerator” planned for Cheney Manor would produce enough energy to power 6,000 homes.

An £8.3m waste treatment solution could be up and running within two years if a proposal is approved by councillors at tonight’s cabinet meeting.

Three small-scale units would be built near the Waterside Park recycling centre, in Cheney Manor Industrial Estate, to tackle the town’s non-recyclable waste.

If successful Swindon would be the first local authority to use the technology.

Richard Fisher, the head of waste management at Swindon Council, said: “The difference between this and an incinerator is the same as the difference between a microwave and a log burner.

“This is a thermal treatment system that produces gas rather than heat and flames. That gas can then be used to make electricity.

“The energy produced by each module will be about a megawatt, which is enough to power 2,000 homes. As we would have three modules that would mean we could power 6,000 homes.”

The system would initially cost the council slightly more than it pays to send rubbish to landfill but should eventually save money.

Over the next 10 years the new system would cost the council £54m as opposed to the £80m cost of doing nothing, said Mr Fisher. This is a combination of fines for not hitting Government targets on reducing the amount of rubbish sent to landfilll, increased landfill taxes and haulage costs, among other costs.

Mr Fisher said: “We have also estimated that there is a potential income of £10m over that period so this is a sensible investment for the council.

“We are obliged to reduce the amount of waste we are sending to landfill and, after looking into all the options, we have concluded this is the best long-term solution for the council and for the town.”

But Green Party parliamentary candidate Chris Goodall cast doubt on the scheme saying that “gasification” was a “lazy” way of tackling the landfill problem.

He said: “There is still huge scope for encouraging people to reduce the amount of waste they are putting in the bin. The problem with facilities such as these is that councils generally get tied into long contracts where they are obliged to provide a certain amount of waste.

“There is now very little waste that cannot be recycled so firstly the council could be opening itself up to fines if it cannot meet those targets and I’m also dubious they will get enough waste to power 6,000 homes.

“From an environmental point gasifiers are far better than incinerators but it is still a lazy way of tackling the problem.”

Comments(32)

Janais is back says...
12:20am Wed 20 Jan 10

OK, so say it works - but is that the best location for it? Look at the actual area proposed to site it - what other expansion is due for that area - will it fit in?

How much extra will the Council Tax Payers have to cough up for getting rid of the rubbish generated by the non Tax payers?

itsamess says...
6:53am Wed 20 Jan 10

When is an incinerator not an incinerator? Another first for Swindon is claimed--new technology.Landfill sites have for years produced methane as a natural by-product that was just burnt off. Perhaps the legislation that creates wastage should be looked at as that causes goods to be double packed or triple packed. We stopped using the common brown paper bags in favour of plastic ones We stopped using crumpled up paper to pack breakables in favour of polystyrenes when papers are easily recyclable. My concerns will be that this Council will be the first authority to use this--Why have others not used it if it is so revolutionary?

Meldrews Dad says...
8:54am Wed 20 Jan 10

Many years ago we had an incinerator and our "environmentalist" friends campaigned long and hard to have it shut to ensure they would have landfill problems to justify tax increases.

Now we have hope of turning rubbish in to much needed fuel and they are whinging again.

Congratulations to our council on getting off their backsides and providing something useful for a change.

Beats a new canal hands down!

Bobfm says...
9:01am Wed 20 Jan 10

It is not Government targets on landfill it is the EU's, and what makes the targets totally ridiculous is that they are based on levels of waste as of 1995.

Given that the Directive was in 1999, the growth in waste and subsequent growth in waste makes these targets actually irrelevant as the waste levels will still exceed 1995 levels, which is why other disposal methods are used.

By 2010 the biodegradable waste landfilled must be reduced to 75% of that produced in 1995.

• By 2013 the biodegradable waste landfilled must be reduced to 50% of that produced in 1995.

• By 2020 the biodegradable waste landfilled must be reduced to 35% of that produced in 1995.

http://www.ciwm.co.u
k/pma/2044


This plant is an efficient way of reducing waste and producing electricity and provided it is to the benefit of local communities and not just sold to the grid then it seems to be a sound idea, in my opinion.

vladdy says...
9:41am Wed 20 Jan 10

Oh our dear Swindon Council, so forward thinking. Putting in a plant to burn rubbish in 2010. When most councils are banning plastic bags and pushing for large recycling targets our lot wants to build a huge building that, according to receycling targets, should be useless in a couple of years....This administration is over...

Des Moffatt says...
9:43am Wed 20 Jan 10

I support this initiative.
Unlike canals in the centre of town, spending hundreds of thousands in buying the tabernacle stones without a clear plan for their re-use or re-running the Wifi experiment tried in other parts of the country and world, I as the Local Councillor for the area support this plan.
I understand the technology which could be described as burning without fire, smoke or particle emission.
Building it is a misleading phrase, it is a modular system which can be extended, reduced or moved. The initial intention is for three modules and I would hope that there could be more centres for dealing with waste in the Swindon region so that transport of waste is also reduced.
I have no quarrel with the Green argument that we should be doing something about the production of waste in the first place, lets all give the excessive packing back to the supermarkets at the point of sale. The packaging a mobile phone comes with is quite ridiculous.
Des Moffatt
Councillor Western

Bobfm says...
9:54am Wed 20 Jan 10

These plants 'incinerate' up to 85% of the waste volume, meaning an almost immediate compliance with the Landfill Directive.

Given that a grossly in efficient wind turbine in a Scottish village can provide all it's electricity and also sell 100k's worth to the national grid. This seems to be a win, win project unlike the lose, lose project of the wifi mess.

These incinerators are already used world wide.

vladdy, with an ever growing population waste will never totally disappear, however if that waste can provide other utilities that has to be a good thing. Banning plastic bags doesn't exactly achieve a great deal when LA's provide plastic sacks 5 times the size to bag up waste for landfill.

Support_British_Manufacturing says...
10:46am Wed 20 Jan 10

I fully support this project. As Bob says it's a win, win project.

Grimwald says...
10:50am Wed 20 Jan 10

Well now I know why so much recycling was left behind yesterday, simply because it wasn't in those Mickey Mouse bins the Council provide. I suggest that we are not really serious about recycling and to avoid landfill they we will incinerate it - great!!!

Bobfm says...
11:01am Wed 20 Jan 10

Grimwald, you are right if recycling was the real objective then are are other ways of achieving it.

Return to re-usable bottles, for beer, milk, soft drinks etc. That would recycle millions of tons without the excessive cost or 'melting' etc.

As for this method of 'incineration' as it says there is little or no emissions so does not add to CO2 emissions, even if they were a problem, which of course post East Anglia we know for certain they are not.

Casual Observer says...
11:11am Wed 20 Jan 10

Good posts Bob, very informative. Sounds like a very good scheme and makes a lot more sense than burying the stuff.

itsamess says...
11:15am Wed 20 Jan 10

This may comply with landfill directives--but does nothing to meet recycling targets. Councillor Muppet dont come on here trying to score political points when it was your groups leadership that created the decline in swindon and your former leader and ward councillor who made so many errors the tories walked into power. You and your colleagues have stood idly by as your ward--or parts of--became the target for the collection of revenue from parking against the principles of the law. Blame yourselves for the decline in support which has allowed vast swathes of properties to be flattened as you lost sight of what was going on around you.

itsamess says...
11:25am Wed 20 Jan 10

Anyone questioned why other Councils have not used this technology? There are many who are in serious difficulty with running out of landfill space--one would have thought they would have embraced this technology--and the govt due to the energy savings. Is there no residue from this system=ashes--gasses
- or is this like magic--everything disappears.

Bobfm says...
12:05pm Wed 20 Jan 10

itsamess, I rarely have difficulty in following you logical arguments but on this one I do.

Of course there will be 'waste', but as I posted that would equate to just 15% of the mass used. Even if this was simply landfilled then it would be well within the targets set.

Achieving the recycling targets is linked to landfill, not recycling per say, a common misnomer.

vladdy says...
12:39pm Wed 20 Jan 10

itsamess I agree with you. With Bobfm towing the party line, you lose sight of the fact of what these incinerators do. Burn waste. If they were so great they would be all over the place. I reckon it is archaic thinking from Bob and all the rest of the politicians and bureaucrats on this one. Look forward men not backwards. Lets recycle like nothern Europe, then if that fails, and only then, do we move towards burning our waste.

itsamess says...
1:07pm Wed 20 Jan 10

As i said Bob--Why have not all Councils adopted this method of disposing of waste. Surely the Govt would be over the moon to boost the supply of energy and avoid the building of nuclear power stations. Its simple--we are not as usual getting the true facts. It does not help with recycling either as thats about saving resources not turning them into ash.

Casual Observer says...
1:16pm Wed 20 Jan 10

It isn't about NOT recycling, it's about better disposal of the waste that would normally be sent to landfill.
 
Recycling is still the best answer but for the stuff that can't currently be recycled, turning it into usable energy makes a lot of sense.

Bobfm says...
1:24pm Wed 20 Jan 10

vladdy, interesting comment about the rest of Europe, the most efficient country in recycling terms is, if I recall correctly, Sweden, who advocate that 60% of all waste be used to generate electricity, using this type of plant, and other means.

Bobfm says...
1:29pm Wed 20 Jan 10

itsamess, in a recent study 90% of all plastics in one US state ended up in landfill, when it's value as a medium for generating energy made it as valuable as fuel oil itself.

It has long been said that LA's are not recycling as was intended we know that millions of tons of waste are sent thousands of miles to places like China. Hardly good for the environment.

vladdy says...
1:51pm Wed 20 Jan 10

These are Sweden's recycling rates from 2007. I would suggest to Bob that when the UK or Swindon reaches these levels they would then have the right to burn some of the remnants

Amount recycled plastic, 65%. Sweden's goal: 70%
Amount recycled paper packaging, 73%. Sweden's goal: 65%
Amount recycled metal packaging, 67%. Sweden's goal: 70%
Amount recycled glass, 95%. Sweden's goal: 70%
Amount recycled newspaper, 85%. Sweden's goal: 75%

IzzyP says...
2:49pm Wed 20 Jan 10

I agree with some of the comments above, it would be much smarter to force our supermarkets to look at reducing their packaging and for us to reuse what we can.

Whoever named it the 'Waterside Park Recycling Centre' ?!! they make it sound like a nice spot for a stroll rather than a municipal tip!

Mr_Big says...
3:01pm Wed 20 Jan 10

So the Adver will finally have a use....

Grimwald says...
3:36pm Wed 20 Jan 10

I am so pleased that Councillor Moffat supports Conservative Rod Bluh on this issue. It goes to prove that party politics in our council is no different regardless of for whom you vote. I am shocked that Councillor Moffat approves of inceration as an alternative to recycling. I can assure Councillor Moffat that there will be an Independent Candidate against the incinerator standing in his ward this May. Their leaflet and message will be Labour Councillor Des Moffat supports Conservative administration's incinerator.

Grimwald says...
3:40pm Wed 20 Jan 10

Bobfm wrote:
Grimwald, you are right if recycling was the real objective then are are other ways of achieving it. Return to re-usable bottles, for beer, milk, soft drinks etc. That would recycle millions of tons without the excessive cost or 'melting' etc. As for this method of 'incineration' as it says there is little or no emissions so does not add to CO2 emissions, even if they were a problem, which of course post East Anglia we know for certain they are not.
ok Bob, I am not suprised you support this Conservative idea as you are so friendly with Justin Tomlinson you seem to have lost your objectivety as a politician. Do you recycle your bottles in your pub so why deny other people that opportunity?

itsamess says...
5:22pm Wed 20 Jan 10

Bob--you ignored the question--why has no other authority used this system? China will buy any form of waste and you will rarely find anything in their waste bins as everyone gets paid for anything that can be recycled. As far as this system not producing CO2 or there is no danger in the gasses i strongly suggest you study your sciences as that is pure nonsense. I am a great advocate of recycling.

Bobfm says...
5:55pm Wed 20 Jan 10

Grimwald, yes I do recycle, the point I was making that you clearly missed was that products like beer etc, were in bottles that were routinely recycled repeatedly therefore there was no requirement for recycling companies adding to business cost.

Quite what my friendship with Justin to do with anything is beyond me, as for objectivity is utilising waste destined for land fill to create electricity, which in turn reduces that 'mass' by 85% thus saving on landfill, not objective.

itsamess, clearly you are in favour of recycling but the point is that councils are not exactly recycling by sending it to China, just reducing their landfill commitment.

It's like moving unwanted guests to Swindon by moving them to Devizes, the problem is not morally solved, just moved.

I Too says...
7:24pm Wed 20 Jan 10

Wow!
We've got a spare £8 million.
That is a nice surprise.
Not as nice as learning that, it's possible to burn plastics, without producing acrid fumes though.
Today is a great day.
I'm off for a swim now, in Swindon centre canal basin.

Captain Sensible says...
9:51am Thu 21 Jan 10

Why not just burn your rubbish in your garden?
.
Hey presto! No need for an expensive incinerator to be built, and no need to clog up the roads with hundreds of recycling lorrys belching out diesel fumes.
.
Simples.

Mr_Big says...
2:05pm Thu 21 Jan 10

I Too wrote:
Wow! We've got a spare £8 million. That is a nice surprise. Not as nice as learning that, it's possible to burn plastics, without producing acrid fumes though. Today is a great day. I'm off for a swim now, in Swindon centre canal basin.
Your breath produces more acrid fumes than an incinerator ever would!

Bobfm says...
5:47pm Thu 21 Jan 10

Humans exhale 1 KG of carbon dioxide a day but never fear we are carbon neutral as are all living species.

I Too says...
9:07pm Thu 21 Jan 10

Phew! Thanks Bob. I was worried there for a moment ;-)

prole says...
10:28pm Thu 21 Jan 10

Stepping stones guys, and in the right direction. Even if it breaks even over the next ten years , let alone make a profit it got to be better that the current day alternatives, and who knows maybe in ten years we may also be recycling as much as the Swedes. I have not seen Cllr Bluh raising his head on this one. Still smarting after the wifi i suspect so will wait to gauge public opinion.

click2find

Most popular


About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree