Sending ash back part of Jersey incinerator plan

ASH from Jersey’s incinerator could be shipped back for use in Guernsey’s construction industry if local waste is exported to the sister isle.

La Collette incinerator in Jersey

ASH from Jersey’s incinerator could be shipped back for use in Guernsey’s construction industry if local waste is exported to the sister isle.

The recommendation was made as part of the Jersey Environment Scrutiny Panel’s ash disposal report, part of which considered the possible importation of Guernsey waste.

Jersey remains on a shortlist of potential export jurisdictions currently being weighed up by Public Services.

In the Jersey paper it recommended that the current policy of permanently burying bottom ash – IBA – in sealed cells at La Collette should stop.

Instead, it said all IBA produced in future should be processed into incinerator bottom ash aggregate – IBAA – of a consistent quality ‘suitable for use by the local construction industry’.

Comments for: "Sending ash back part of Jersey incinerator plan"


Yes ! The orchestrator of this initiative has used their innovative mind to invent a strategy that solves waste disposal issues whilst fulfilling the 'Social','Environmental' an 'Economic' aspects of the sustainability venn diagram. Innovation and creativity are major prerequisites for enabling the local political machine to avert the quandaries that it encounters.

I applaud the sentiment behind this enterprise further because it advocates cooperation, thereby subtlety reinforcing the idea that, if we are to be the architects of our own future and not allow ourselves to succumb to contextual changes, collaboration between two islands, or indeed nations, is essential- even if there are some aggressive chauvinists who view cooperation as a threat to the welfare of their cherished fatherland.


Hang on let me see if I have this right. We did not build a incinerator and get energy from waste. Instead we will pay to ship it to jersey where we will will pay to have it burnt anyway then we will pay to ship it back. Then the so called toxic ash can now be used in the building industry. I’m lost for words, I know there would be an initial cost of an incinerator but really ????? So it would seem the whole no incinerator fiasco was just a not in my backyard situation (out of sight out of mind)and if you are an environmentalist what did you save or gain, Nothing. The ideas this island comes up with are truly mind boggling sometimes.


Perhaps these 'mind boggling' concepts are merely a product of innovative thinking and are reflective of a genuine attempt to avert issues that were previously unavoidable because of a lack of originality. Even if they do not completely solve the problems encountered, it's the unconventional thinking that matters because, eventually, some radical, positive changes could be made concerning environmental, social, economic, political etc affairs. That is if they remain diligent and willing experiment.


Moreover, if I had a high-ranking political role and if it was my duty to carry out a costs vs benefits analysis, I would fervently embrace this venture before social housing in Belle Greve Bay- it may yield little gain with concern to the environment, but it, in my opinion, is certainly the lesser of two evils. Perhaps 'evils' is not the best way to describe the unfavourable aspects of these ideas. Indeed, a costs vs benefits analysis would enable a more informed compromise to be made.


Encase the ash in concrete and use the concrete blocks in the foundations of Belle Greve bay reclamation.


Why bother with the expense of concrete? Just dump in a designated land reclamation area. Why not Belle Greve?

The sea will be here and clean, long after we are all dead so the sooner tree huggers and enviromentalists shut up the more money we will save. With that money we can treat more humans in the hospital, or educate our kids better, or something else that benefits us all.


Why encase in concrete? It will give a new lease of life for the commercial concrete mixer at the airport instead of sending it back. Is there not rubbish encased in the concrete blocks keeping the ground back at the cats ladder in Vauvert? The ones with false granite fronts.


Chris. I just posted a comment below another of your comments but it would have been better placed here. Ignoring the environment in the misguided belief that you will 'save money' is thinking that would have been more suited to the last century.... actually no, make that the century before that.

A new book due to come out on the 14th Jan might be a good read for you if you could tolerate for a nano-second the idea that humans might not be quite so omnipotent as some would like to believe.


Stop this insanity and just build our own Incinerator. It is hypocritical to be against having our own Incinerator but being in favour of allowing Jersey to burn our waste in theirs.


Jersey needs our waste, and lots more besides, so their incinerator runs at its optimum efficiency.

Island Wide Voting


So you are in favour of two very large incinerators about 25 miles apart? .. and where do you expect to find the £100M plus it would cost us ( if any company would care to tender )


I understand that the geniuses in Jersey built an oversized incinerator, Ted, so by some bizarre stroke of luck rather than judgement, when we peasants revolted against having one here, our geniuses made a practical, common sense decision, for once, albeit having already wasted millions on a plan that would never fly, by deciding to top up Jersey's instead.

The other option would be both islands having an over sized incinerator (come on, you know that we couldn't have one of a suitable size, too easy!) and have them both a. Importing waste from elsewhere or b. burning oil, as I beleive they are doing in the Isle of Man/Wight (apols, always get em confused!)

Yvonne Burford

As Deputy Ogier clearly points out in the article, no agreement has yet been made with Jersey regarding waste export. It remains on a shortlist of various destinations who all have significant spare capacity due to over-specification and/or falling waste volumes.

When an incinerator was proposed in 2004, 70,000 tonnes of waste was going into Mont Cuet. That has now fallen to 35,000 tonnes. If we had gone ahead with the Lurgi Incinerator we would now also have a massively oversized plant without the waste volumes needed to pay for it.

Guernsey now produces too little waste to have an efficient incinerator, even the Suez proposal at 45-57,000 tonnes was on the lowest end of the scale of feasibility.

By increasing recycling rates and stopping food waste from going into Mont Cuet our residual waste should fall to closer to 20,000 tonnes per annum

Recycling costs, on average, around £65 per tonne, whilst incineration costs two to three times that amount.


I'm still wondering why we can't use Torrey Canyon quarry as an option?

Does anybody have any sound ideas why it has not been identified as a solution?

I'm well aware it's not the largest of quarries but what other use could it ever be good for? Definitely not for water storage.


All this IBAA will have to be stockpiled somewhere, as I can't see there will be much building in our slowing economy in the future!

a voter

As much as I love the idea of Jersey being our rubbish dump I would like to know how they are going to separate our ash from theirs.

Is a special vacuum that can distinguish between the two or are they going to just have Guernsey rubbish burning days and a shut down of the incinerator and clean out each time?

Surely once an incinerator is started it is uneconomical to shut it down, allow two or three days for cooling and clearing and then burning extra fuel to start the process again?

Perhaps someone in the know can explain the process of the ash separation.

If Jersey is going to export its ash for treatment, as has been mentioned, wouldn't it be better if they exported ours as well and split the cost?

guern abroad

Burning it is not ideal but at least Guernsey will be driven to continue to reduce the volume of the final waste stream whereas Jersey has a furnace that has to be fed to make it economical and less toxic.

An incinerator is like a big carpet that people use to sweep the whole issue of waste management under. So far I have noticed that those in favour of burning tend to be least bothered about acting on waste minimisation.

Dave Jones


It never made any sense at all, not even for a second to build two 100 million pound incinerators twenty odd miles apart.

Had we gone down that road we would have spent millions on a facilty that would have been far to big and at a time when our re -cycling tonnage was climbing and the amount of actual waste was falling.

We can work together and in time we might need a small heat treatment facility in Guernsey of some sort but it won't be one that will produce hundreds of tons of toxic ash as the mass burn ones do. Our share of ash from any Jersey deal will have to be sent for treatment but it will still be the cheaper of the other options.


Basic fact: Jersey needs Guernsey's waste so that our overlarge incinerator can function efficiently. Therefore, if I was in your position, I would stick out for the incineration of the rubbish being done for free. The only cost would be the transportation. Jersey will also have to treat it's own waste and therefore could treat Guernsey's at the same time. If Jersey can find a Market for the final product, it could either be returned to Guernsey as building materials at a reasonable cost, or sold to other markets at no cost to Guernsey.

Whatever comes about, I think Guernsey would be mad to go down the incinerator construction route!

As an aside, there would appear to be an opportunity for a new small company to undertake the shipping along with other cargo and possibly a few passengers.

Iron Knee

Odd this whole send our rubbish to Jersey to burn!! it now ok for me to get my neighbour to burn my garden waste on his bonfire again as he's got one going? To suggest it is responsible to get someone to clear up after you at the expense of their own environment doesn't cut it whether it makes economical/political sense or not. I also wonder how large a building would be required at Longue Hougue to store all this putrid waste prior to export when we have winter seas like this putting paid to sailings on a regular basis?

We must continue the recycling efforts and include legislative measures to improve the uptake and to force manufacturers to package goods with far less unwanted material. We must then look more favouably at the landfill/reclamation options and a sufficently appropriate digestor/incinerator/generator perhaps at the current tip site..why move the whole process away from a low populated area?

In meantime I await the various votes from Jersey's politicians/and their electorate on Guernsey's current proposals with interest.


Actually that is a good idea. I will ask my neighbour to burn my rubbish at the same time He burns his. Solves my recycling problem in one go.


It would be interesting to see some stats on projected costs regarding building a plant and running, including recycled energy vs shipping to Jersey, plus dealing with return ash. along with any environmental impact of both options.(oh yeah and one that does not cost 10 million)

guern abroad

Please read post 5 Firestorm.

Guernsey current volume of final waste is already below effientcy levels and falling.


I have this may be true at present that the volume may have decreased but will this continue with say population increase. Also they say Recycling costs, on average, around £65 per tonne, whilst incineration costs two to three times that amount. Does this also factor in any electricity that can be produced from burning waste.

If waste is shipped to Jersey how much will this cost, How much to return the ash and deal with it and the biggest ? If a deal is struck with Jersey and we are committed how long before burning costs and shipping costs increase? Only it seems every-time Guernsey commits to a large project it ends up costing the island millions more than first anticipated/estimated.


Firestorm. The EU resolutions of May 2012 have a whole section dedicated to resource scarcity and a recognition that the economies that will succeed in the future will be those that do their utmost to preserve resources. Gone are the days when it seemed like a good idea to constantly destroy resources and make new things from virgin materials. With that in mind, the EU are developing policies that will encourage the re-use of everything. The aim is to have NO materials either burnt or buried by 2020 if they could be recycled. And manufactures are to be incentivised to make all packaging recyclable.

The document calls on the Commission to 'bring (the EU's) residual waste close to zero'.

We are aiming to be part of that movement so we have to ensure that our 'residual' waste does not increase.

got the T shirt

Building material for building on non-existant land: Material that should be used for land reclamation, as it is and has been used for many years overseas. This has been pointed out many times by writers in the Guernsey Press.


Wot? Are you seriously suggesting that we should dump mixed black bag waste into the sea for land reclamation?


And imperil marine biodiversity accordingly ?!

Got the T shirt, although we may be experiencing a rather unfavourable situation as a result of a lack of land, but surely it would be more judicious to ensure that no further issues arise as a result of ignorance towards the natural environment ? Ensuring that marine biodiversity continues to flourish unhindered is of tantamount importance to engaging in practices that will enable humans to prosper.



What a load of rubbish. Don't humans welfare come higher up than some fish in Belle Greve? (that can easily go and live somewhere else)

Get your priorities right Ed.



It depends what perspective you view this situation from. Fish and other marine organisms are fundamentally why we are in existence today. I do acknowledge that fish are capable of migrating, but the rule of thumb is that for every fish that migrates, ten remain- ten more fish that will perish as a result of uncessary human activities.

Know about dynamic equilibria, Gaia hypothesis and global homeostasis ? I won't explain, but they serve to illustrate why such policies should not be carried out.


Jeepers creepers... I didn't realise there were still people around who don't consider the value we get from environmental services.

Here is a book soon to be out that maybe you need to read...


Chris - yes, but in order to have good human welfare we need a sustainable environment. There are plenty of examples where environmental mismanagement (or downright abuse) have adversely affected human welfare.

Island Wide voting

Pepe Le Pew

... and one of the worst examples is the multi million pound gobbling useless wind farms dotted around the UK countryside


It may not be fashionable to state the truth that these 'enviromental' issues are rubbish but it is the truth. We are crippling our economy with green this or green that, and enviromental taxes. The rest of the thw world are powering ahead economically as they don't give such weight to the enviroment as western countries do.

Point two, this gaia garbage is a new age myth, no scientific basis whatsoever. Next thing you'll be telling us of fairies down the end of the garden.

I suppose you would be happy if we all returned to the middle ages, horse and cart, no electic, etc. Ooops, I forgot the coal and wood you would burn to keep warm pollutes more than present day heating. Oh well, that's life eh?

pepe le pew

Pepe Le Pew?! A smelly romantic skunk...or a reference to my regular church attendance?

Well you know what they say, if the name fits......


(a voter) Totally agree with your sentiments, exactly!

got the T shirt

Strange how self styled environmentalists can find all kinds of reasons to further their pet foibles. Where I live now these people have succeeded in banning the taking of seaweed from the beaches because it houses essential food for fish. Fortunately for them, not the fish, the awareness of the value of seaweed as fertiliser in the garden has become diminished. Yet fish are not plentiful in these parts though, as I remember, they were plentiful in Guernsey in the days when seaweed was harvested by the ton. I know that, in Guernsey, seaweed is not used so much nowadays and I also know that the beaches don't produce anything like the fish harvest they used to do. I know this proves nothing - but who needs proof!

And Rosie!? I said nothing about bagged anything! If you think about it: Anything that goes into the sea soon anchors weed and brreds all sorts of marine life, whether that something be furnace waste, sunken battlesships or wired together motor tyres>!


got the T shirt. Apologies. I thought the phrase 'as it is' referred to the rubbish, as it is, untreated. I presume now that you were referring to the ash 'as it is', untreated. I'm afraid that I don't find the idea of dumping toxic ash into the sea much better than dumping black bag waste. I have put a post to Chris with a link to a book that shows how abusing and taking the environment for granted does not save money in the long run. It stores up huge costs for the future because of the many unintended consequences.



Are you getting royalties for this book? That's three times you have plugged it already.

I think we get the message (if not the book).


Robert. Hmmmm. Sorry. Overkill I agree!



no human welfare is not more important than fish or everything else, I would run into the road to save my dog but I would watch you being run over.We are all creatures sharing the planet, humans are just another creature, we can live as part of it or consider ourselves to be the lords of it as you seem to. This attitude has proved to be not so good. With luck Ebola may break out and three fifths or so of us will be wiped out. Survive that and the world would be a good place to live in. Hope you don't make it!

Island Wide Voting

Dogs can catch aball but can they catch ebola?


Troll alert !



Perhaps we have arrived at a stage where we are 'crippling our economy' by investing capital into climate change mitigation because of the short-sighted, injudicious individuals of the recent past- many of whom shared sentiments identical to yours. Unfortunatley, since the human race is inclined to be ignorant, indolent and greedy, we have been manoeuvred into a situation wherein environmental conservation and climate change management ( if we haven't reached the 'tipping point' already) are big prerequisites. If, maybe, humans acted wisely initially and hadn't destroyed natural habitats, disrupted the dynamic equilibrium of most of the natural systems that exist then we may have been able to afford the excuse to carry out policies such as the reclamation of land on a small-scale.

Incidentally, the Gaia hypothesis that you claim to be bunkum and a product of New Age philososphy does contain several elements of truth. Although theory that the Earth is a single organism with a conscious will is at its best questionable, the Gaia theory contains other ideas such as dynamic equilibria that can be corroborated by other scientific works.


You share ample common ground with a voter; you both don't appear to realise that we've advanced since the Stone age. You ought to align your world view so that it is compatible with the interests of an ever-changing society. It is the short-sightedness and narrow-mindedness of certain members of this species that is fundamentally why we are being hindred from embracing the new phase of Earth's evolution- one that is largely driven by the activities of humans. Therefore, if we wish to relish prosperity, we must appropriate both the abiotic and biotic components of the Earth so that environmental changes during the forthcoming decades and centuries work to our avail rather that to our detriment.


This just gets better ROFL



I'm going to stop now before I end up insulting you and getting myself banned. I wonder where you're coming from if you are for real.

I'll leave you with a further thought, climate change is bunk. I'm a climate change denier, wow, isn't that as bad as a holocaust denier??

Climate change is perpetrated by those that have a vested interest in obtaining grants to do further research rather than doing a proper job, and by big business making big bucks out of it (wind turbines aren't cheap are they?)


got the T shirt

What happened during WW2 when all those ships, containing how many millions of tons of toxic wastes, were sent to the bottom? Were the oceans polluted beyond redemption?

Did the fish all die?

And after the war: All the stuff that was dumped in the sea - not just from the Islands but from many other places.

And all the household waste that was taken out to sea from New York in barges to be dumped? All those things are not likely to be repeated -we hope.

Using furnace ash in land reclamation doesn't make any appreciable difference at all. And no self-styled environment expert can convince me otherwise because I have seen it for myself - and fished those waters.



Can you extensively corroborate this theory of yours ?