Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Sunday, 7th September 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Sheffield Star site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Incinerator controversy



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

I AM responding to Coun Shaffaq Mohammed about Veolia's planning application to import waste to Sheffield's incinerator. (Disappointed by Green comments, July 17).
He says the application is still in its early stages. In fact, we are in the final six weeks of a process which started with pre-application discussion in 2007; the application was received on May 28; official consultation period ended on June 24; a decision is due by September 2.

He says the environmental impact assessment is not yet completed. In fact, the environmental assessment is already on the council website. It misleadingly claims that the impact of trucking 75,000 tonnes per year of domestic waste (currently landfilled) into Sheffield and 75,000 tonnes of commercial waste (currently incinerated) out to Doncaster will not worsen Sheffield's carbon footprint because commercial waste produces less greenhouse gases than domestic waste landfilled.

He says that Green Party councillors voted against recycling measures. In fact, these measures were part of the Lib Dems' budget, which proposed to take £1.4m from mainstream council funds to spend on kerbside collection of glass and cans.

Green councillors support recycling, but believe that it should be funded via the Veolia contract and not by cutting other services. We also know that glass is the least carbon-saving material to take out of the incinerator. The priority is plastics.

Coun Jillian Creasy, Sheffield Green Party

I WRITE in response to your article July 12 "You'll turn us into the dustbin of South Yorkshire."

With regard to the question of lorry loads of waste being transported, why not transport the waste from Rotherham by canal? This used to be the method over 50 years ago for bringing coal to the Blackburn Meadows power station. The canal goes right to the door of the incinerator.

More thought needs to be applied to the role of the incinerator. This is not just a waste disposal plant, it is an energy facility that feeds many hundreds of properties in the city. I was proud to be involved in the setting up of this project in 1986.

I would ask Veolia how much bio-waste is in this 75,000 tonnes, and do we want it in our incinerator?

Bio-waste can cool the incinerator and we need steam to generate electricity and heat.

What we should be doing is extracting bio-waste from all of our waste streams and using that to generate electricity, heat and fuel for our vehicles from specialist bio-waste recovery plants.

In 1986, we were light years ahead of all other councils in the UK and sadly, in the last 20 years, we have stood still.

Landfill in Barnsley and Rotherham will affect all of us, apart from the millions of pounds that will be needed for landfill costs and taxes. Landfill generates methane which is generally recognised as being 40 times as damaging to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.

Alf Meade, Sheffield S6

READ MORE
Main news index
Your letters.
Features
Find out what else is going on in your area and send us the news that is happening In Your Neighbourhood, click here
Check out the very latest on South Yorkshire's roads - including live traffic cameras on Sheffield's commuter routes - with our Traffic section
Latest sport.

The full article contains 548 words and appears in Sheffield Star newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 24 July 2008 7:24 AM
  • Source: Sheffield Star
  • Location: Sheffield
 
Prev
1
Next
1

dromedarys,

at home writing this 24/07/2008 16:12:59
Of course a lot of the Councillors support this idea as it generates a good income for the council. The heat produced is not cheap and was originally index linked to the cost of other energy.

When energy prices rise so does the cost of the heat supplied even though its much cheaper to produce.

Its about time that someone challenged the way in which the Council are forcing this expensive heating system upon Council tenants. You can chose your gas supplier, electricity supplier but Council tenants are force into accepting it and have choice or say in the matter.

Even if they don't use the system they get charged for having it installed, something that may in fact be illegal!

Norfolk Park is a prime example of where it has failed. The pipeline was too big and heat was lost so the loss had to be recouped by hiking the price considerably. Even though its still in place its hardly used. The "New builds" do not use it because of the expense and the restriction it places on owners of property.

Lets get real, its about the generation of money but add the term "Green" and people fall for it.

Will the Council release the figures of the profit made last year on the sales of heat? Will Veolia do the same? What happened to the 1/3 partnership that the Council had in the original set-up?

Some serious question need answering here.

If you want to be green then generate more electricity and use it to power the transport system in Sheffield. The tram route already has overhead lines and it does not take a great leap of imagination to use them. Remember trolleybuses?

It would be much greener and cut the C02 emissions across the City and would at least benefit all.

My apologies for the long post.
2

dromedarys,

nice and warm in bed 26/07/2008 02:28:46
Forgot to say;

Who will be supplying the heat to the 1500 refurbished ParkHill flats in a few years time?

And is the VAT on the heat charged at the green level, ie 5%, as the last time I looked it was still 17.5% so something is wrong there as well.
3

dromedarys,

nice and warm in bed 26/07/2008 02:29:29
Forgot to say;

Who will be supplying the heat to the 1500 refurbished ParkHill flats in a few years time?

And is the VAT on the heat charged at the green level, ie 5%, as the last time I looked it was still 17.5% so something is wrong there as well.
4

Michael Ryan,

Shrewsbury 26/07/2008 11:16:05
Sheffield Star readers should be aware that the cheapest and safest system of waste disposal is plasma gasification and that Veolia have been awarded a major contract to operate a plasma gasification plant in Midland, Michigan, by Dow Corning.

When Veolia were challenged over the above fact by Peter Kitchen, of the Shrewsbury Chronicle, Martin Curtois, group communications manager for Veoila was quoted as follows in Shrewsbury Chronicle, 25 Oct 2007:
"Our understanding is that plasma melt technology is desgned for industrial and hazardous waste and is not suitable and is unproven for municipal solid waste."

The City of Ottawa announced at the beginning of July 2007 that Plasco were to build a plasma gasification plant to dispose of municipal waste.

Europlasma have built, or are building, a plasma gasification plant in South Bordeax to dispose of municipal waste.

Plasma gasification is being used to safely dispose of a municipal landfil site in St Lucie County, Florida.

Here in the UK, the Health Protection Agency tell us that emissions from incinerators pose no harm to health and yet the HPA have failed to examine any rates of illness or premature deaths in the electoral wards around any incinerator, including Bernard Road, Sheffield. Don't take my word for this appalling fact, read the articles of 22 May 2008 in the Dorking Advertiser and the Surrey Mirror, via links on left hand side of the home page at www.ukhr.org


Kind regards,

Michael Ryan,
Shrewsbury
Prev
1
Next

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.