Jersey still keen on taking Guernsey's waste

JERSEY does have the capacity to burn Guernsey’s waste, its Traffic and Technical Services minister has confirmed.


JERSEY does have the capacity to burn Guernsey’s waste, its Traffic and Technical Services minister has confirmed.

Kevin Lewis was speaking after Guernsey’s Public Services Department included Jersey in a shortlist of five energy-from-waste plants in an enabling report for a new waste strategy.

Any agreement for Guernsey to send a predicted 28,000 tonnes of residual waste per year to the island would have to be approved by the States of both islands.

Jersey is on the cusp of signing an agreement with a third party to receive fly ash produced by its plant.

Public Services has conducted its investigations on the basis it would not be prepared to receive waste back from the chosen jurisdiction.

It has a shortlist of Jersey, two sites in Holland, plus others in Sweden and Belgium, although the department will conduct an open tender if given the go-ahead by the States next month.

Comments for: "Jersey still keen on taking Guernsey's waste"


Is there also enough room for a few deputies

that are a waste of space?


How can it possibly be more environmentally friendly to ship waste to Holland or Belgium or Jersey for that matter, than burn it here in our own incinerator which would produce electricity for the island. This whole idea is barking mad and will cost us much more than if we had just built the incinerator in the first place.

Yvonne Burford

Hi Castiel

The size of incinerator we would need would be at the very lowest end of the technology and the efficiency and electricity production would be compromised by this, added to which a greater proportion of the electricity generated would be needed for the parasitic load of the plant.

Furthermore, if it is environmental friendliness you are concerned about, you need to take into account the life cycle carbon footprint of the construction and decommissioning of such a plant which is significant.

Another issue is that we would have to build a plant for the volume of waste we have now which would mitigate against a waste reduction program over the life of plant. Being able to reduce our residual waste by reduction and recycling improves the environmental impact.


So what happens with the ash?

What happens when the boats cant leave? We have nowhere to store anything.

We need to cut our waste down by putting prisoners and unemployed benefit recievers on a conveyor, incinerate the small amount left over.

We cannot rely on sending our waste away as we will have absolutely no back up if the boats break down and need maintenance or there is bad weather like currently.

Guernsey is becoming a dependant child that goes hungry and cant keep its room tidy when its parents (boats cant come in) arent around.

We need to be as self sufficient as possible and having no on island method of dealing with rubbish is as ridiculous as not being able to generate our own electric. We can be held to ransom at the drop of a hat and just 1 week cut off by the boats and its chaos.

How many tons go in the tip each day? Do we have an area that can deal with a couple of weeks worth without contaminating the water system? Our waste is growing all the time.


Is not "Locals" idea a bit drastic?

"We need to cut our waste down by putting prisoners and unemployed benefit recievers on a conveyor, incinerate the small amount left over."

Non of the arguments for/against are new. A lot of work has gone into getting a scheme which will, I am sure (with a tweek here and there)work. Lets just get behind it and do what needs to be done when it starts later this year.

Yvonne Burford

About 90 tonnes of waste go into the tip each day, and the good news is that our residual waste is not growing all the time. In 2004 around 70,000 tonnes of waste went into Mont Cuet. In 2013 the figure will be less than half of that.

There will be provision for storage of baled waste.

Much of the reduction is now exported as recyclables and has been for some years. This export is subject to the same vagaries of boats and weather but it has not proved to be a problem.

Self sufficiency is a great idea, but realistically we cannot recycle our own plastics or paper. The best way to reduce the amount of residual waste that is exported is for everyone to get behind recycling, which for nearly every stream is cheaper to deal with than residual waste.


Alan, what happens when the boats cant travel because of bad weather or break down?

What happens when Jerseys incinerator breaks down?

We need to have a contingiency plan and having a "holding area" wont do it. Once this holding area is full what then? Ok, the boats come back and start taking it all again but they will never catch up and there will always be a massive pile of rubbish that will get blown all down the east coast littering the shore, just like the poor North headland now!


Yvonne, what happens with the ash?

Jersey have been pumping their own in their sea and this has caused their fisherman having shellfish they cant sell because it is so loaded with heavy metals from the ash.



Dep Luxon has said several times that the ash won't be coming back here because dealing with it will be part of the contract with whoever tenders.

An incinerator on the continent would have less of a problem in case of a breakdown as they would be able to ship onto the next nearest incinerator. ( I gather that many of them are in need of additional waste to burn.) I presume that that will mean that Jersey would score badly on the 'breakdown' point which means they will have to score extra high on other aspects to still be competitive.


Then what happens during weather like we have at the moment or our boats break down?

There will be a stock pile of rubbish that unless more boats come we wont be able to shift, depending on what the capacity will be on the boats we get. A stock pile of baled rubbish wont stay entirely in situ either. Loose bits will get blown all down the sea front which will look lovely. Just like the Mont Cuet headland.

We habe invested in the capacity to generate our own electric on island as we ave seen how vulnerable we are depending on off island solutions.

It is ridiculous we have no other way of dealing with rubbish on island for when we are cut off, ither than burying it in the ground and poisening our water supply and the enviroment or making bales that we will just stick in a corner. If no one could take your rubbish from you. You would never dream of burying rubbish in your garden or just making a pile. You would burn it.


And who's strapped for cash in Jersey?

~~~ not their incinerator surely!!

Did we not go down this route with them once before and got little positive response from our southern isle


Why does it have to be sent off island at all, why couldn't another hole in the ground be used? Torrey Canyon would be good for a few years.

Yvonne Burford

The Torrey Canyon quarry is tiny in terms of volume for waste and to install all the leachate and gas collection systems that would be necessary for the volume available would make it an expensive option, not to mention all the other issues associated with landfill.

Island Wide Voting


Since Mr Luxon appears to be reluctant to explain the downside of legal landfill other than to say something to the effect that it is no longer fashionable, are you in a position to mention all the other issues associated with this multi million pound saving method of disposing of the waste residue after all the recycling has been carried out?

Yvonne Burford


After Suez was thrown out, the long process to bring forward a new system ended in 4 short listed options: A, B, C and D.

D was essentially modern landfill and was (and remains) my preferred option for many reasons including cost. However, the last PSD Board reduced the shortlist further and presented A, B and C to the States, recommending B, export of residual. The States approved this and directed PSD to get on with working towards it.

The issue with D is which quarry would be used for it as Les Vardes is earmarked for water, and that is a big issue. But I am not sure it was an irreconcilable one.

I know that D was some £3m to £5m cheaper per annum than A and B.

Scott Ogier waas elected in 2004 and had the 70,000 tonne Lurgi incinerator cancelled, and thank goodness for that with our waste now down to around 30,000 tonnes, but I cannot imagine the idea of proposing another change ten years on would be wildly popular.

Island Wide Voting

Thanks YB

After the 194M Suez monstrosity rejection it seems that all these cheaper but still fancy proposals were worked on and agreed before the money finally stopped sloshing about

A good government wouldn't be too proud to lose face and have a final rethink ( requete) before signing in blood to commit millions every year forever to ship out something we can easily manage in-house

If Les Vardes has been earmarked for water storage is that because some old leftover fart from the defunct Ag & Hort Committee believes that

the tomato industry will suddenly spring forth again or perhaps Tourism a la 1960's is expected to return?

OR could it be an insurance against the hordes of extra 'plastic Guernseymen'we will have to endure under the proposed population rules?

Yvonne Burford

The thing is that the current solution could be much cheaper if everyone gets behind recycling. At the end of the day the waste transfer station is about £5m, (compare that with the £80m+ cost of the Suez incinerator) so what is needed is for everyone, commercial and household to recycle all that they can.

Our recycling figures include green waste (garden clippings etc) which to my mind should not be in the numbers, but apparently it is industry practice. So we have a long way to go.

The average 4 person house puts out 18kg of waste a week. Probably only 3 to 4 kg of that cannot be recycled.

Shane Langlois


“ … the current solution could be much cheaper if everyone gets behind recycling.” That may be so but by only addressing export in the latest States report the PSD has done nothing to back that assertion.

From the report, 33,000 tonnes was deposited into Mont Cuet in 2012 of which 2,000 tonnes will always be disposed of on-island. If an average cost for export is £125/ tonne it would cost £3,875,000 to collect and export the 31,000 tonnes. To that one could add the cost of collecting and processing the current tonnage we are recycling through the bring-banks, etc.

That ‘base-line’ total could then be compared to the cost of initially exporting 28,000 tonnes as the PSD anticipates (£3,500,000) plus the cost of the new recyclables system, including the kerbside collections, for the remaining tonnage. Similarly other comparative totals could be derived on the basis that recycling rates increase in the future, for instance through the collection of food waste.

Only then would islanders have a clear idea of how much the States commitment to increasing recycling rates beyond 50% will save (or cost) them.


It is rumoured that Ronez are in the process of re-quarrying the present green site at Chouet.

Ronez are also interested in acquiring the storage area vacated by Lagan for tools and equipment.

Does that mean that the Vardes is free for other uses?.

With recycling the then residuel waste can then go to the Vardes saving millions in transporting off island.

I suppose its what Ronez purchasing price is going to cost The States of Guernsey for the Vardes.


I was at the green waste site on Sunday, if Ronez were doing any quarrying, then it must have been very discrete to the point of being non-existent!

The storage area I believe you refer to is Longue Hougue which is States owned land and which I believe is earmarked for the rubbish baling/transfer station required for the shipping of the resdidual waste to Jy, so I don't think Ronez will be parking its trucks there andy time soon... therefore, how can Les Vardes (or any tiny part of it) become vacant? I think you need to refer to YB's post above ref the future usage of Les Vardes to gain some perspective on the residual waste disposal issues.


A report recently stated that Griffiths Yard in St Sampson would be used for waste transfer/processing. This is the site which for many years has been used by M&G for boat storage. Seems a good solution, being States owned and adjacent to the docks.

guern abroad

The brilliant and forsight to cancel on island incineration is that ultimately it does leave Guernsey with flexibility to make changes to how the residual waste is delt with.

So yes let us now export this ever shrinking pile off island, but who is to say in 10 years or 15 from now that another option wont be better, the beauty is Guernsey is in a better place to make reaction changes to waste management.

Jersey, as do other incinnerators, actually need our waste in order to keep the incinneration process econonmic and less horriffic in it's pollution. So Jersey is straddled with feeding the beast so the more Jersey recycles the more they will need to import rubbish to burn, hardly a sensible and looking forward model.


guern abroard.

Quite so. With this new system, our costs will be variable and dependant on how effective we are at reducing and recycling so we will have incentives to do the right thing. With the incinerator we would have had a huge fixed cost that we could do nothing about and a good proportion of that cost would have gone straight off island.

And yet, some posters on here still seem to hanker for our very own incinerator despite all the evidence.


and lower carbon emissions than an incinerator.


I have My own solution to recycling. I would describe it as a dustbin with holes at the bottom and a lid with a chimney in the top. A family incinerator £25.00. Perfect for one family recycling.



So that is £25 you are paying over and above the compulsory refuse rate that you will still be required to pay, obviously home economics is not your forte. Not to mention of course the time you will spend tending your mini-incinerator, disposing of the possibly toxic residual ash and trying to placate the neighbour whose washing you have just ruined with your smoke. All to save a couple of quid a week, just pay up like everyone else.


If they are keen.How much are they willing to pay?

Oh Dear

I think they're keen because they will charge us for the "service".

Dave Haslam

Of course they are keen, they haven't got enough rubbish of their own to keep it burning efficiently, exactly the same problem we'd have had.

They took on the white elephant and will struggle with the consequences for some time, whereas we can move forward with a 21st century solution..... eventually.


Burning waste is linked to cancer so they are being very helpful.


Everything is linked to cancer!

Do you live in a home that is made of granite? If not granite walls, you will have granite in the concrete under your feet and do you know that grante gives off Radon which can also cause cancer?

We cannot get away from Radon in Guernsey as Granite is everywhere. In the tarmac on the roads, on the beaches we lay on in the summer, in our own homes and work places. Those men who work in the quarrys and block layers are breathing this in every day.

Id rather burn waste than bury it in the ground to poison and litter our Enviroment, wildlife and water supply.