Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi,


I've seen articles on the incinerator etc but this issue didn't really grab my attention until I saw the following paragraph:


"emissions from the proposed waste incinerator will be released into the atmosphere and, with the prevailing winds, be cast out over Waddon, central Croydon, Norbury and Norwood, and carried eastwards towards Dulwich, Tulse Hill, Sanderstead and West Wickham."


That would mean East Dulwich??


Rest of the article herehttp://insidecroydon.com/2012/03/17/wake-up-waddon-this-really-is-a-1bn-incinerator/

We already receive emissions from SELCHP, and this looks similar. Provided it's run properly (and there are laws about that) the worst that'll come out is nitrogen oxides.


That might sound scary, but they'll be a very small addition to the same sort of pollution we already enjoy from motor traffic.

EvaC Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The nitrogen oxides aren't great for anyone's

> health.


True enough. And, having looked at some actual numbers in the meantime, particularly with an eye to the future, I'm not sure they aren't worth worrying about.


SELCHP handles around 420,000 tonnes of waste each year. According to Greenpeace (in the interests of balance), incineration generates up to 5000 cubic meters of gases (mostly air) per tonne. So that's 2.1bn cubic meters of gases. The European Limit (which SELCHP doesn't break, apparently) is 200mg of oxides of nitrogen per cubic meter of gas, which amounts to 420,000 kg of nitrogen oxides over a year.


A car emits around 80mg per km driven (assuming all cars meets the Euro 6 standards for new vehicles that will come into force in 2015). If we assume Londoners drive around 5000 miles a year in their cars (less than the national average, and a bit below where car club membership makes sense), that's 8000km or 640g of nitrogen oxides (NOx) per car.


An incinerator, therefore, kicks out as much as 660,000 clean new cars, and it would take just 3.7 incinerators to match the total NOx emissions from London's 2.5m cars. That's faintly shocking.


There are lots of things wrong with my sums. For a start, the emissions standards for cars are currently much higher, not all cars on the roads are very new and some of them might clamber out of the gutter for more than a weekly crawl round the South Circular. It's also likely that Greenpeace's 5000 tonnes of gas per tonne of waste is a neat exaggeration aimed at the lazy headline, given that Greenpeace, bless their cotton socks, are sometimes less inclined to thought than tub-thumping. But that's not the point.


The point is that we're currently doing a lot of work, and spending a lot of money, on reducing NOx emissions from cars and other sources, and it seems very silly to let incinerators put them all back again. In short, although the reductions in car emissions over the next couple of decades will be equivalent to 33 more incinerators, we're not reducing car emissions just so we can build incinerators. We're reducing emissions because they're bad for people, children (where different) and, in all probability, kittens.


Admittedly, an incinerator is not a car but an energy generator, and if we compare emissions from incinerators with those from coal-fired power plants, they look very much better. And cars are far from the only sources of NOx pollution - the Baltic Wharf monitoring (as per this air quality report) showed no clear difference in NOx levels whether the incinerator was operating or not. Possibly because incinerators have chimneys, meaning all the nice pollution won't get inhaled by us, but by unfortunates in the provinces or, even better, France (though, again, that's more along the lines of cheating than progress).


Whichever way I look at it, I'm still faintly shocked, and given that it's taken a largely sober Saturday evening, when I'd rather have been shaking whatever it's called in a cosy discotheque, to dissect a bunch of numbers that really shouldn't need dissecting, I'm inclined to wonder if someone hasn't gone to some trouble to make it difficult. There may be other issues with other pollutants, too and, although the Health Impact Assessment of 2005 for SELCHP didn't seem to find anything worrying, that, again, was only against current guidelines.


Sadly, it's difficult to get much sense out of issues like this. Apart from the obvious attempts at politicking, commercial puffery and the tendentious invention of correlations (bless their cotton socks, again), which really don't help, it's difficult to see what's best. Incinerator emissions at present aren't really noticeable amidst all the rest of the pollution. But in the world we're building, with cleaner cars, they'll become a greater proportion of the whole. On the one hand, air quality in London will improve overall, and we'll get power from our rubbish. On the other hand, air quality (not necessarily in London, given the chimneys) won't improve as quick as it might. It's tricky, but I'm not sure we'd be wise to leave the decision entirely to a bunfight between commercial interests, tub-thumping campaigners and (not that they don't mean well) politicians. Though I confidently expect that's exactly what we'll do.

The one thing people forget in this situation is that this is NOT a yes/no discussion: it IS an either/or discussion.


From a waste disposal situation it's EITHER landfill OR an incinerator. In this scenario an incinerator wins by a spectacular margin.


From an energy situation it's EITHER fossil/nuclear power OR an incinerator. In this scenario an incinerator wins by a spectacular margin.


So comparing incinerators with family car output is completely irrelevant.


All of the references made criticizing the incinerator either completely ignore this issue, or in the case of Greenpeace fail to tell you that actually they don't want any of the above. A manifesto that's downright childish in its wishful thinking. People aren't going to suddenly stop creating waste or use less electricity.


Once you take those issues into account, I'm afraid the incinerator will simply boil down to a NIMBY argument.


I have no respect for NIMBYISM here: it's built on poor science. The reason why incinerators are difficult to study is that their environmental impact is so small that you can't tell if they're on or off.

http://www.bbacweb.com/Alternatives.htm


link above on alternative.


Kings Lyn have signed a 16 year contract with another

alternative company "material works ltd" who will deal with processing

residual waste, turning it to a viable end product.


Link to Kings Lynn below


http://www.outsourcereye.co.uk/2013/01/14/bc_of_kings_lynn_and_west_norfolk_contracts_material_works/#.UU8sgKMRcYI

  • 10 months later...

Hello, I saw that a while back some ED forum posters were following the Croydon Incinerator issue, which may blow fumes over East Dulwich. For those interested in learning more there is a Stop the Incinerator fund raising campaign on Feb 24th

in Croydon


http://insidecroydon.com/2014/02/10/stop-the-incinerator-campaign-fund-raiser-feb-24/

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Where did I say he did a good job? Yup and Corbyn was very close to Len McCluskey and funded by Unite wasn't he...they're all as bad as each other... Labour have to purge their party of the far-left - they're a disaster. Allan Johnson summed it up so well on election night in 2019....  
    • Thank you for the detailed advise @trinidad It is definitely damage we are concerned about. I don’t think Evri would agree to pay the bill to fix our gate or letter box if they were to be damaged as a result of their delivery drivers helper. Our doorbell can be heard from outside when rung so we don’t quite believe the aggressive simultaneous door/letter box banging is necessary. It can be quite a shock it is done very aggressively.  I’ll definitely action the steps you’ve kindly provided along with a phone call tomorrow. I do sympathise with the role drivers have and how busy they are, which is why we tried communicating directly with her but sadly we haven’t succeeded 
    • What outcome would you like? Disciplinary action? Not to have the driver back? Retraining? I know there is alot of pressure on drivers to deliver within a set day. if he slams the gate, is it evidence he is causing damage, or is the noise a irritant to yourself? You could put a sign up or buy a signing asking to close the gate gentle???? can you hear the door bell from the door? he might be ringing, not hearing and therefore knocking. In trhe notes section of the be livery page, there is a note section, although there is not 100 per cent these notes would be read as these drivers are constantly rushing.  I did a google search for you, i found this and you can try the envri website Contact Us | Evri   To complain to Evri, you can follow these steps: Contact Customer Service: Call Evri's customer service at 0330 808 5456 for assistance with your complaint.    1 Write a Letter: Address your complaint to Capitol House, 1 Capitol Close, Morley, Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS27 0WH.    1 Use the Official Website: Visit the Evri complaints page on their official website for detailed instructions on how to submit a complaint.    2 Email or Call for Specific Issues: For issues like missing or damaged parcels, you can email or call 0800 988 8888, which is free to call.    1 These methods will help you effectively communicate your concerns to Evri.   My driver is called anthony, he is brilliant to be honest. I cant fault him.
    • When I have more time and energy, I will look up the actual number of votes cast for each party in that election, rather than the number of seats won. I'm interested to see that you apparently  think that  Boris Johnson did a good job of "leading the country through Covid." Is your memory really that short? I won't stoop to calling Johnson and his cronies names in the way that you seem to think is appropriate for left wing politicians. At least the left wing politicians have some semblance of morals and a concern for people who aren't in some over privileged inner circle and/or raking in money for themselves on the back of an epidemic. I'm not going to open a can of worms on here  by commenting on the disgraceful so called "purge". 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...