stage, often requiring resubmissions and appeal before approval.
The purpose of decentralisation and localism is to free local Government from central and regional control, which is intended to empower local people and to enable local communities to have a real say in local growth. But with rights come responsibilities, and such is the power of local opinion, well informed local communities are crucial if we want to reach these goals and create a more efficient planning system, and avoid planning functions becoming incoherent and ineffective.
Balanced information needs to be readily accessible about recycling and waste management and the required associated facilities, and the evidence backing their environmental sustainability. We urge the industry to talk to its communities about the pros of building a strong network of waste management sites and not just lie low hoping that objections won’t be raised. Let’s take the debate out into the forums we have available, be proactive, and tackle issues and objections head on. We are in a fantastic position to argue our case, hold our ground and show how, with the right support, the waste management sector can help local communities deal with their own waste over the long term and in a sustainable way.
The UK waste industry is going through a period of significant change and facing some of its toughest challenges yet. With the Government setting tough targets on the UK’s fuel use and landfill waste disposal levels, there is a renewed enthusiasm to reduce the nation’s reliance on fossil fuels through increased generation of renewable energy. Alongside needing to meet national quotas, it is also widely acknowledged that we need to substantially reduce our reliance on fossil fuels The UK already relies heavily on imported fuels from countries such as Norway and Russia. Recent statistics [from ONS and Platts - 29 July 2010] highlight a precarious state of energy dependency for the UK with a third of gas supplies now coming from overseas. To
put this into context, we are relying on imports for the equivalent of 7.6million homes or more than three times the number of households in Wales.
Whilst the benefits of energy generation from waste in all its forms are being increasingly recognised by the Government and society, it is rarely the first form of renewable power that comes to mind. Currently waste accounts for 1.5% of all energy produced in the UK, roughly the same as wind. This comes from two technologies: landfill gas, and various combustion processes, commonly known as EfW. The scope for additional landfill gas power is limited but there is considerable potential for expansion in EfW. Viridor estimates that waste could account for 6% of UK electricity by 2015 if planning permission to build infrastructure and facilities is better enabled.
There are several benefits of using EfW technologies, not least of which is that it significantly reduces the amount of residual waste heading for landfill, thus helping the UK to work towards meeting current EU landfill targets. In addition, unlike other popular forms of renewable energy, such as solar or wind, EfW provides a consistent source of base-load electricity due to the fact there will always be a steady supply waste that needs to be disposed of. Facilities are also located conveniently for cost-effective grid connections, as waste is produced in volume from our main population centres.
Balanced and accurate understanding among our stakeholders is one of the greatest challenges facing both the waste industry and the Government when it comes to waste recycling and treatment options. We need the means to deal with Britain’s waste, but currently there is a distinct lack of understanding of the proven technologies available and their associated pros and cons. It is an unfortunate reality that whilst everyone is a waste producer, the general public do not usually want the problem to be dealt with in their local environment and the default position for many is therefore one of opposing the development of such facilities.
It’s common for communities to object to proposed waste facilities on the grounds that they are worried emissions are unsafe and will cause health problems in the local area. The reality is that EfW, for example, is subject to extremely stringent air quality standards, much higher than those for conventional power stations or other industrial processes. Yet some sections of the public remain distrustful of the information that is currently available to them. A Viridor proposed EfW facility in the South West of England received 800 letters of opposition, following a campaign coordinated by a parliamentary candidate with little chance of electoral success. Concerns ranged from air quality, impact
|132| ENVIRONMENT INDUSTRY MAGAZINE
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180