Waste strategy in 'tatters'

Those responsible stated that you could not buy an incinerator (waste-to-energy plant to use the correct term) of the nominal 18,000-20,000 tonnes per annum the island requires. When, in front of other people attending, the department was challenged on this statement they continued to deny that such a plant was available. My profession does give me an insight into waste-to-energy incineration and I knew this to be wrong but my comments were rejected out of hand as if I had no idea of what I was talking about.

During and since the current States elections (in which I stood for St Sampson's), I decided to check my knowledge was correct and after three phone calls and an email I was speaking to the UK sales manager for a company that manufactures waste-to-energy equipment. In short, the outcome of a very interesting 20-minute conversation was that:

1. Guernsey is known within the trade and thought of as slightly eccentric, to be polite.

2. A plant of the size we require can be manufactured and installed but the larger the plant, the lower the cost per tonne to process.

3. Not only could current waste be incinerated to produce energy but in addition, a percentage of the total waste burnt could include old waste; this could reduce the current Mont Cuet residual landfill mountain. It is an idea being very seriously looked at by another island to slowly reduce their current waste mountain.

4. In September, the Swedish government are planning to discuss the introduction of a tax on imported waste as some EC countries do currently; do our current deputies and civil servants know of this? When our contract comes up for renewal after three years what will the new costs be, can we afford it, how will it be paid for; I expect the poor taxpayer will be hit with yet another stealth tax.

5. It is not known what effect the UK leaving the EU might have and if there would be an additional tax for non-EU waste being imported for incineration.

6. One myth exposed is that the majority of the residual ash can be used in the manufacture of concrete blocks or low-grade, sub-surface concrete, but unfortunately some of it is highly alkaline and has to be disposed of as a contaminated product.

If we produce electricity from waste incineration it cannot be relied on as continual base load because the plant would have downtime for maintenance. However, it would reduce the amount of electricity we have to buy from France.

I accept that the costs of on-island waste-to-energy incineration may be a price we cannot afford and we must not build an oversized plant which requires more waste than we produce, such as is occurring in Jersey and is not helped by the general European price of electricity.

It is a matter of extreme importance that the waste strategy is reviewed including the actual means of disposal of waste, because in the current climate nobody knows what in the medium to long term the costs will be and the only ones to suffer are bound to be the taxpayers.

I do wonder if the responsible deputies and civil servants of the last States were completely incompetent, had a private agenda against waste-to-energy or were badly served by the consultants employed.

Whatever the reason, I do believe it is vital that the Scrutiny Committee investigate the matter and give the public answers – or the transparency of government, which all deputies and States CEO Paul Whitfield talk about, means nothing.

The old norm that deputies and civil servants are considered to be beyond reproach and have no responsibility for their actions will yet again prevail.

I am quite willing, as an on-island consultant, to offer my services and limited knowledge on incineration to the States for free; but even if I did charge a fee it would not be going to some offshore consultant, I would be paying taxes and spending the money locally.

MICHAEL BEAUMONT,

Catalina, Rue de la Carriere,

St Sampson's, GY2 4BG.

Editor's footnote: Deputy Jeremy Smithies, States' Trading Supervisory Board, responds: The waste strategy is a very complex programme, which is comprised of various different elements that were approved by the States in 2014. The implementation team has been busy progressing all of these since then and as a result is now in the final stages of delivering a full business case to the Policy & Resources Committee.

The team would not have said that you cannot build a small incinerator of the size your reader has identified. What they will have explained is that it is not the scale at which most plants of this type operate. Of the seven reported to be in construction or being commissioned in the UK during 2016, even the smallest one is more than four times larger – and on average they are more than 10 times the size.

Why this matters is because the advantages associated with this technology – proven track record, electricity generation, etc. – do not necessarily apply to the same degree when you are operating on such a small scale. That is the point that the team attending the exhibition in January would have made – not that you cannot buy one. And as your reader himself points out, in relative terms the smaller the plant, the more expensive it is to operate – and, generally speaking, the less efficient it is.

There is also a serious question over how attractive the island is to companies with a track record for supplying proven reliable systems, given our history as far as energy from waste plants is concerned (something to which your reader himself alludes). That would be a significant additional risk.

However, the key point is we cannot keep endlessly debating whether to have an incinerator or not. We have been down this road twice before and have nothing to show for it. Meanwhile Mont Cuet continues to fill up and the island now needs to get on and implement a long-term solution, which is the strategy that has been agreed.

To address some other points your reader raises. We have acknowledged that the uncertainty regarding the immediate future of kerbside collections is unhelpful and we are addressing this. The Policy & Resources Committee is currently considering a proposal to extend the current interim kerbside scheme until more-permanent arrangements are introduced.

As for Sweden, that is the destination Geminor UK, our preferred bidder for the export contract, has identified. However the group has contracts with more than 70 facilities in Europe, including Norway (which is outside the EU and is where Geminor's parent company is headquartered). The arrangement therefore provides many options and contingency. The operator of the facility chosen will be responsible for dealing with whatever is left after processing.

The Swedish government has commissioned a report that will consider the merits of an incineration tax, but it is far from definite. Norway previously had such a charge but scrapped it some years ago so it would be more competitive in waste imports. No other EU country currently imposes such a tax. That is something Sweden, whose national energy policy is dependent on energy from waste, will no doubt consider very carefully. And as I have already said, there are other options.

With regard to Brexit, Norway is a non-EU country and currently imports waste.

Similarly, Jersey is not in the EU and has expressed interest in receiving our waste.

The time taken to deliver the strategy reflects the fact it is a complex and challenging programme. It is not down to incompetence on the part of deputies or civil servants and nor have there been any private agendas. Such assertions are completely unfounded and, in my opinion, offensive.