Agency comments on bidders in Defra’s new technologies fund

As Defra named the 10 plants that have won funding, the Agency’s head of waste strategy, Martin Brocklehurst, said some of the applications received had been poor, describing them as reflecting a “young industry”.  And, he warned local authorities not to jump two-footed into mechanical biological treatment plants in the belief it is the “magic answer”.

Defra’s Demonstrator Programme aims to establish 10 new plants to divert biodegradable municipal waste from landfill using technologies as-yet unproven commercially in the UK.

The programme is aiming to set up the plants by the end of 2006 to alleviate fears of potential investors in similar plants and kick-start large-scale recovery operations to meet the demands of Europe’s Landfill Directive.

But speaking at the Composting Association’s annual conference in Solihull last week, MrBrocklehurst, said of the bids for the programme: “I have seen a number of the applications and the quality was very poor. They reflected a young industry.”

Plants
In answer to a question from Tory MP Bill Wiggin last month, Defra has now named the 10 plants that have won funding under the Demonstrator programme – subject to contractual closure and also planning, permitting and licensing requirements. The plants are:

• ADAS— In-vessel composting facility in Somersham, Cambridgeshire
• Novera Energy—Gasification situated near Frog Island, East London
• South Shropshire/Greenfinch—Anaerobic Digestion sited at Ludlow, South Shropshire
• Bioganix—In-vessel composting situated at Leominster, Herefordshire
• SITA/Golder—MBT/Anaerobic digestion sited at Packington Landfill site, Warwickshire
• Compact Power—Pyrolysis/Gasification sited at Avonmouth, Bristol
• Yorwaste—Gasification sited at Seamer, Scarborough, North Yorkshire.
• Premier Waste—Aerobic digestion sited in County Durham
• Energos—Gasification sited on the Isle of Wight.

Mr Brocklehurst said local authorities were being “unrealistic” in their approach to mechanical biological treatment, a range of processes that combine physical separation techniques with composting to treat mixed waste.

“MBT is seen as the magic answer, but it needs to be taken up with care. It is a family of technologies, not one and consideration needs to be given to the inputs and outputs of each one,” said Mr Brockelhurst.

However, Lee Marshall, chair of the Local Authority Recycling Advisory Committee, denied that councils see MBT as a miracle cure, despite industry publicity that has given such an impression. He said: “I don’t think local authorities see MBT as the ‘magic bullet’. It has been sold to us as that – the publicity around MBT is an issue.”

Mr Marshall added: “We have been to Europe, we have seen the technologies and we are taking it seriously. We can be innovative. We are matching Europe, although we might not be as consistent; take a look at Somerset, Shropshire and Cambridge.”