Our recommendations are pragmatic and short-term and will contribute to a rapid roll-out of these very exciting technologies
Murad Qureshi, London Assembly
The comments came in a report entitled ‘Where there's muck there's brass – Waste to energy schemes in London' in which the Assembly's environment committee assessed energy-from-waste options available to London and the potential for their use.
The London Assembly – which is an elected part of the Greater London Authority convened to scrutinise Mayoral decisions – claimed that adoption of energy-from-waste technology in London could provide an alternative to existing treatment methods, as well as produce heat for 625,000 households and electricity for two million homes.
The report highlights that the capital produces around 22 million tonnes of waste annually, with the majority taken outside of London to be landfilled. However, these sites are becoming full and alternatives need to be sought.
Drawing on site visits undertaken by members of the environment committee to energy-from-waste facilities in the UK, the publication makes a number of recommendations on how London can utilise the treatment technology.
Murad Qureshi, chair of the London Assembly environment committee, said: “London's waste management is unsustainable and uneconomical. The Mayor must take the lead on further measures to help jump-start waste management step change.
“Our recommendations are pragmatic and short-term and will contribute to a rapid roll-out of these very exciting technologies that turn waste into a useful and valuable commodity.”
The document states that the Mayor needs to map possible locations for sites of energy-from-waste facilities, support the development of ‘unproven technologies' financially and work with operators and local authorities to explain the benefits of energy-from-waste to residents.
The recommendations are intended to help shape the Mayor's forthcoming Waste Strategy, which is hoped to be published in draft form for consultation by the end of 2009.
Technologies
And, the Assembly welcomed the decision by the Mayor to discount incineration projects from funding available from the London Waste and Recycling Board (LWaRB) – which Mayor Johnson chairs.
The London Assembly assessed non-thermal technology (such as anaerobic and aerobic digestion), mechanical biological treatment, advanced thermal treatment (such as gasification and pyrolysis) and incineration.
In its recommendations on how best to utilise the available options, the document states that the Mayor's Waste Strategy should map out the potential capacity and possible locations for non-incineration technologies across London.
And, it claims that the strategy should also set out what role the Mayor could play to coordinate the development of “an effective and cost efficient waste to energy infrastructure”.
In addition, the document states that a “vital piece of waste management infrastructure” is currently missing from the city – a mixed plastic recycling facility. The London Assembly claims that the provision of such a plant would ensure that mixed plastic was recycled and not sent for energy recovery.
Barriers
Assessing the potential barriers to adopting energy-from-waste, the London Assembly recommended a number of ways that the Mayor could overcome obstacles to developing an energy-from-waste infrastructure.
The document claims that one issue facing developments is the long length of existing waste contract, with nine of the 16 waste disposal authorities in London having contracts which do not expire until 2014. The London Assembly claimed the length of contracts made it difficult for companies which needed to secure feedstock for new facilities.
In a recommendation on how to remedy the situation, the London Assembly called on the Mayor to collate information on what contracts London boroughs have entered into and provide advice on how prospective developers can ensure a supply of waste.
Another key issue also addressed by the report is planning and the role that the Mayor should take. Facilities with a processing capacity greater than 50,000 tonnes-a-year can have their planning determined by the Mayor but the London Assembly claims it is also up to the Mayor to help coordinate the delivery of smaller facilities.
In addition, it was claimed that the Mayor should also strive to provide funding through LWaRB for unproven technologies – such as advanced thermal treatment – as banks may be averse to supporting high level risk investments, especially at this time of economic uncertainty.
Communications
The document did highlight the LWaRB commitment to the Recycle for London campaign for 2010 but was well aware of public trepidation surrounding the issue of energy-from-waste.
In a bid to combat this, the London Assembly called on the Mayor to work with the facility operators and developers to ensure that local concerns are dealt with and that people are informed of the facts and benefits of energy-from-waste.
And, it also stated that a formal opening ceremony by the Mayor of a planned an anaerobic digestion facility in London intended to treat 30,000 tonnes of food waste a year should be used to promote the treatment method.
Furthermore, the London Assembly saw it as important for the Mayor to add a requirement for heat utilisation his London Plan for spatial development – especially when considering the construction of new housing.
In addition, the document states it needs to be made simpler for London to connect its generated energy to the national energy grid.
Outlining the purpose of the document, the London Assembly environment committee states: “While we welcome these on-going steps, our report sets out arguments for the Mayor to take further steps to help jump start the necessary reshaping of our waste management system.”
Earlier this year, the London Assembly called for Mayor Johnson to do more to encourage Londoners to recycle away from home by suggesting a greater provision of on-the-go recycling facilities were needed (see letsrecycle.com story).
Mayor
In response to the report, a spokeswoman for the Mayor said that the Municipal Waste Strategy would address many of the concerns raised by the Assembly report and that the draft strategy would be open to consultation.
She added: “The Mayor wants Londoners to recycle more, send less waste to landfill and take advantage of the massive economic opportunities available to the capital if we start to manage our waste more efficiently.
“We know that currently 75% of London's household waste is either landfilled or incinerated, whilst around 90% of municipal waste could actually be reused, recycled or used to generate greener energy. By recycling as much as possible, and using the remaining waste to produce energy, we estimate London could save at least £100 million in collection and disposal costs.”
The spokeswoman also said that the Mayor is working to “exploit this potential” in his role as chair of LWaRB.
Subscribe for free