In a statement given to letsrecycle.com this morning (04 May), a spokesperson for the mayor said the Planning Inspectorate’s decision last month to approve the plant in Belvedere, south east London was “extremely disappointing”, and says the plant will suppress recycling in the capital.
It follows Sadiq Kahn’s longstanding opposition to developing any more EfW plants in London due to what he describes as the“detrimental impact” they could have on climate change, recycling rates and air quality.
‘Extremely disappointing’
A spokesperson for Sadiq Khan said: “The Mayor has been clear that no more waste incinerators are needed in London and called on the Government to refuse the application for this new incinerator in Bexley.
“Burning waste in incinerators worsens London’s already toxic air quality and hinders boroughs from boosting recycling performance in order to reach the Mayor’s 65 per cent recycling target by 2030.
“The secretary of state’s decision to approve the application for the Cory Incinerator is extremely disappointing. The Mayor’s team provided evidence and representations through the examination process to demonstrate that this facility is not needed to manage London’s waste and will have a detrimental impact on recycling, climate change and air quality”.
‘Not true’
In response to the mayor, a Cory spokesperson said: “The secretary of state has clearly recognised that there is need for more residual waste processing capacity in the UK, and has granted us permission to develop the Riverside Energy Park in accordance with its Development Consent Order.
“This followed an extensive public consultation process and assessment undertaken by the planning inspectorate where all parties had an opportunity to present they concerns for independent assessment.
“It is not true to suggest that energy from waste facilities suppress recycling rates. Instead, energy from waste not only complements
“It is not true to suggest that energy from waste facilities suppress recycling rates”
recycling but it also offers a more sustainable salutation than either landfill or the export of our non-recyclable waste, because it converts it into low-carbon energy to help power the national grid.”
The new Cory facility is to be built next to an existing EfW which Cory runs in Belvedere.
Alongside the EfW plant, an anaerobic digestion facility with an annual waste throughput of up to 40,000 tonnes per annum of green and food waste is also to be constructed, “enabling infrastructure for combined heat and power” (see letsrecycle.com story).
Dispute
Last year, Mr Khan called on the government to stop permitting the development of ‘archaic polluting waste incinerators’ as he outlined his oppositions to the new Bexley facility (see letsrecycle.com story).
The mayor said that with three incinerators already in the capital, “another polluting plant in the last thing we need”.
The Environmental Services Association clashed with the Mayor over his comments, labelling Mr Kahn as ‘ill-informed’ and stating that the emissions from EfW plants are among the most tightly regulated of any industrial installations in Europe.
I still find it frustrating that the people in the government, (including some in DEFRA), Local Authorities, the media etc. are still describing Energy From Waste (EFW) facilities as Incinerators.
They obviously do not know their facts or have other agendas to describe these facilities as Incinerators. So let me put the record straight.
FACTS:
EWF facilities are RECOVERY Facilities and are described in Annex II of the Waste Frame Work Directive as;
R 1 Use principally as a fuel or other means to generate energy (*).
* Providing that the energy efficiency formula is met for these operating EFW facilities, which I’m sure most if not all new EFW facilities do, in accordance with complying with Best Available Techniques.
Incinerators are DISPOSAL facilities and are described in Annex II of the Waste Frame Work Directive as;
D 10 Incineration on land.
Also, the majority of combustible high calorific value fractions that are combusted and converted into energy in EWFs are non-recyclable, contaminated or low value plastics, which there is no demand for their re-use or recycling. So what better way is there to RECOVER them in the form of ENERGY and eliminate them from the Environment.
I could prattle on further about the limited life span and re-recycling of plastics, sustainability, the waste hierarchy is not always correct etc., however, my main point is that EFW has a real benefit and should be recognised properly as a genuine and beneficial RECOVERY option.
Wise up and lets move on.
Regards
Joe
Hope Mr Khan will educate himself that ERFs offer lowest carbon footprint in relation to all other forms of collection, recycling and processing of waste. Also that ‘Recycycling’ for its own sake is for Dumbos.