“Burnbabyburn
You are aware residual waste is falling and incineration is a totally rigid process with Authorities committed to long term fixed feedstock supply contracts and serious financial penalties for any shortfall.
An increasing number of Authorities are successfully segregating waste , achieving 70% recycling and avoiding residual waste problems.
You infer that incineration is economical but where is the data? The Industry sadly appears reluctant to provide details of financial impact , gate fees for waste , on costs and penalties for feedstock shortfall..
You claim I am against incineration but the reality is my concern is the pollution created by our choice of waste streaming, the economics and the fact that burning destroys valuable resources. We are aware recycling of cardboard produces energy gain 70% higher than burning in EfW. This indicates a little effort in waste segregation can prove to be worthwhile.
The Hykeham EfW details 19.24 tonnes/hr burning rate will produce 11MWhr/hr, waste energy content stated at 11 Mj/kg this indicates 18.6 % efficiency far below the 26/27% quoted. I note AD electrical efficiency is also quoted to be 26% .
You detail the range of undesirable material placed in bins which will impact on AD but having been involved in waste treatment control system design I can confirm the public have unfortunately dumped a wide range of contaminated material into toilets, drains and sewers that has then gone through AD with safe disposal of the digestate over many decades. It just needs the application of due diligence in disposal. A number of UK Authorities and Continental Countries embrace AD with no apparent digestate problem.
You comment that the electricity from EfWs replaces fossil fuel but the difference in hazardous pollution created per unit of power causes concern. Hykeham EfW data indicates SO2 burden per unit of power out 400 times higher than equivalent gas and PM pollution 29 times higher, this reflects in external health and environmental damage with costs.
Burnbabyburn – The Hykeham EfW emissions could be far lower with the application of the best available technology, there is no practical reason that prevents this so why are those responsible failing to implement the necessary action required to minimise pollution impact across Lincoln? Rgds Brian Wilson”

“Ranza1
Unfortunately, i disagree with the arguments you put forward. Firstly, if you against incineration then you need to offer an alternative solution that is both practical, economic and environmentally accepted for the treatment of residual waste. I have stated before and will continue to do so, unless you can get every member of the UK to diligently separate their waste into the relevant fractions to allow maximum recycling then you cannot find the Utopia that you are looking for. Even then, you will still have residual waste!

There is a limit to what you can do with residual MSW in terms of dirty MRF's (or transfer stations as you call them). There is a limit of what you can extract in terms of recyclables from residual waste because good clean recyclables become contaminated when placed in residual MSW.

If you can remove all the organic waste from residual waste successfully (as you allude to) then it will still have the same waste classification if fed into an AD plant. The digestate cannot be spread to land or used as a compost like material. It is classified as contaminated. Think about what people put in their residual bins. There is no guarantee that Joe Bloggs will not place items like dirty batteries, nappies, dog faeces etc into a wheelie bin. All of which cause serious problems.

So you have a problem, you have pretty much the same amount of digestate as residual waste that you put into you AD. What next… Well Landfill or incinerate. So that adds more cost to the Tax payer if a local Authority decided to go down the AD route for Residual MSW.

Digestate that comes out of AD can only be spread onto land if it comes from separate green garden waste and separate food waste collections that have not been mixed with any other waste. Again, I am sceptical of the cleanliness of this due to the nature of human beings (in the UK at least.. Switzerland maybe different). Most Waste Management Companies and the Environment Agency are wary of the potential impact of getting this wrong in the future. Just think of the litigation against the EA, Local Authorities and Waste Management companies if land becomes contaminated (Foot and Mouth???).

The UK Government promote AD, from an environmental and economic point of view. This only works with the additional revenues given for so called renewable energy produced. In this case Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROC's). The price of ROC's will ultimately decrease in value over time as more and more AD plants etc come onto line (This is also contributing to increased energy prices). Therefore, there is a point in the near future when AD plants become uneconomic.

AD efficiencies as also pretty poor compared to the 26/27% energy recovery of EfW's.

You also haven't mentioned that EfW's do not receive any ROC's for organic material burnt. Considering 40%-50% of Residual Waste is organic material then there is a strong argument that this element of waste burnt can be classed as renewable energy and could attract ROC's!! This could become reality in the near future and if you really look at the alternatives and the cost and effort going into separate recycling, additional vehicles on the road to collect and distribute (air pollution!), the limitations in markets (Recyclables are seen as commodities and are exposed to vast price changes – supply and demand law) then I think EfW will easily lead the treatment technology soluton.

So Ranza1, considering the social, economical, environmental and lifecycle of material production (to satisfy the consumer) all the way through to disposal, I think there is a strong argument that at this moment in time, there is not other solution for dealing with residual waste that is proven, safe, economical and environmentally friendly!

You have never ever mentioned the amount of electricity produced in the UK from EfW and the amount of fossil fuel it has displaced.

Lets look at the big picture and not a snap shot.”

“Burnbabyburn
Segregation of waste at domestic level is preferred but techniques for segregation of non-biodegradable material at waste transfer stations have advanced rapidly. I think you underestimate the public willingness to assist in recycling if given the opportunity by the Local Authority because children have a keen interest. Unfortunately the LCC decision to commit maximum resources to incineration locks out any superior less expensive waste streaming alternatives for the next 25/50 yrs in Lincolnshire.
The rapid increase in land dedicated to biomass and biofuel production provides vast areas for digestate disposal avoiding food production, the restrictions being borehole locations for supply of potable water. The new Humberside bioethanol plant processing 1,100,000 tonnes of wheat each year will take a large area of land out of food production but SRC, willow and miscanthus tie up the land for much longer periods. Rgds Brian Wilson”

“Ranza1

When you put residual waste through an AD plant, what happens to the digestate once you have taken off the methane and driven a gas engine??

Put 1 tonne of waste into an AD plant and guess what, you get virtually 1 tonne of digestate out.

The only place for that digestate to go is in landfill (or EfW) as it is contaminated with non biodegradable material. You cannot spread it on land as it will pollute the environment and could get into our food stream.

So AD is completely floored unless all the organic content of waste can be collected seperately. As mentioned in another discussion.. You cant get everyone to recycle, human nature dictates it.”

“Lincoln-Biker- I answered your question on residual waste and answered your question on power provision, it is your choice of the many clean alternatives at much lower capital cost.
I unfortunately found your questions 3&4 impossible to answer because honestly unaware of any energy source that comes without emissions impact in construction. Would be interested in knowledge of any you can recommend.
Would welcome any evidence that this incinerator is the best solution for waste management in Lincolnshire, with proof of minimising cost, maximising efficient use of resources and most important protecting health and environment. LCC prediction of regular percentage residual waste increase over recent years appears incorrect yet now committing to vast project needing guaranteed 150,000 tonne each year for next 50yrs.
My concern is the impact both health and financial and only seek the truth can you explain accusation of "propaganda" please? Rgds Brian Wilson”

“That investment into Greener energy is why our Gas and Electric bills are so high, and why the Economy will not recover (ok that and shareholders). We can't have everything how we want it, we cannot have cheap bills, low to no emissions and all the investment into new technologies that keep us moving forward. The fact that at some point this plant will pay for itself and reduce Land fill is good enough for me to want it. We can argue all day at what is better to remove waste and what the best for or energy sources are. This is why so many scientists have been working for so many years on the subject.”

“I'm reading propoganda waffle and seeing no answers...”

“Lincoln_Biker – In response to your questions
1. How to deal with 90% of Lincolnshire landfill?
With Lincolnshire waste having substantial biodegradable content the Gov recommended route is AD providing biogas. Councils in the UK are reporting ability to divert 70% from landfill without using incineration. Waste reduction ,re-use and recycling technology are allowing better use of resources so main factor for future waste streaming is flexibility which rules out incineration.. In Lincolnshire there is a need for inert waste to replace extraction and on existing landfill the gas capture provides the most economical form of EFW.
LCC Intention to Landfill 150,000 tonnes of hazardous waste at Whisby sadly defies logic. "Neutralising" it in concrete only stores up problems for future generations.
2. The plant parameters indicate capital of £12 M per useful MW of power out so it becomes far more expensive than many clean sources. Derating the plant and losing 30 million units of output will mean thousands of homes will not now be powered from this project.
3 &4.I am not aware of any method of energy production that has no emissions impact. They all have impact in construction if not in operation. This does not excuse us from applying the little grey cells to ensure we invest in minimum impact sources and use public money wisely. Rgds Brian Wilson”

“Ok Ranza1, as you are so well informed, so well educated and everybody's favourite busy body, I have a specification for you:
1) Figure out how to deal with 90% of Lincolnshires landfill
2)Work out how to generate a "useful power output now detailed at only 11MW " across four sites.
3)Do the above on zero emissions and a budget that suits your attitude.
4)Ensure that there is no environmental impact at all. Not even a blade of grass can be sacrificed.

This should be graound breaking stuff...”

“This combustion plant is confirmed to degrade air quality in a very sensitive location for the next 50yrs and commit the ratepayers to a massive financial burden at a time of financial difficulties so the question becomes, can it be justified? How do they justify the deliberate air pollution, this plant details 8,300 cubic metres of air pollution per tonne processed, average German EFW plant details 4,200 cubic metres. Pollution concentration far higher than equivalent Continental plants, magnitude of additional pollution depends on which set of the conflicting emissions data is used from LCC/WRG websites. Are Continental lives considered more valuable than ours?
LCC claim incinerator avoids punitive landfill taxes but confirm Districts already conform with 2014/2015 requirements, recycling/composting increasing and DEFRA confirm residual waste per household falling.
Supporters of this project should check out the financial and environmental impact. It will be far more expensive and far less flexible than alternative waste streaming processes. The external health and environmental impact needs to be evaluated based on Gov confirmation that the air quality degradation created by this type of combustion process adds £billions to NHS and environmental costs. EU report on external costs of energy production also confirms impact.
The waste reality and LCC decisions made to date indicate the plant will have continuous sustainability problems and sadly compete with far superior waste streaming. Where is the due diligence and duty of care in committing vast sums to this project but cutting back support in many areas that will impact on the vulnerable across the County?
Hoping the supporters will offer data to justify this project because information produced to date indicates it will be the most costly decision ever . Rgds Brian Wilson”