Brunner Mond submits power plant plan (From Northwich Guardian)
Send us news, start your message Cheshire News and your send photos and videos to 80360
Brunner Mond submits plans to build waste-burning power station in Northwich
5:50pm Wednesday 10th March 2010 in News
BRUNNER Mond has officially submitted its plans for an incinerator at its Lostock site.
The soda ash manufacturer, which also has a site at Winnington, says it wants to build a power plant that will burn bio-mass and pre-treated waste to provide electricity for the two factories.
Because the plant will generate such a large amount of energy, it by-passes regular planning laws that would see the final decision lie with Cheshire West and Chester Council (CWAC). Instead, it goes directly to the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), with CWAC involved only as a consultee.
Since it revealed its intentions in October, Brunner Mond has held a series of public exhibitions – which it says showed 92 per cent of attendees understood why the plant was necessary.
Managing director John Kerrigan said: “We have always committed to keeping local people as updated as possible.
“We are pleased with the outcome of the exhibition and will continue to engage with the community over the coming months.”
But action group CHAIN has accused the company of ‘going through the back door’ by getting the application in before the newly-formed Infrastructure Planning Committee (IPC) took over on March 1.
Chairman Brian Cartwright said: “I call it a planning application by the back door. “They have done it to avoid the IPC. The new system involves a much longer consultation process and it’s got a huge backlog so they would have had to wait.
“And Brunner Mond has not fulfilled its obligation. It’s not answered questions from groups such as CHAIN, that represent the public.
But Mr Kerrigan claims CHAIN in fact turned down the offer of a meeting with the company on March 2.
He said: “We are aware that CHAIN has expressed some concerns about our proposal by asking a number of questions “As soon as we were in a position to answer those fully, we invited representatives of CHAIN to meet with us. “Unfortunately, they refused our invitation and as a result we have now responded in writing.”
Comments(48)
Sue Statham
says...
11:16pm Wed 10 Mar 10
I was one of those CHAIN members demonstrating outside the "exhibition". I was demonstrating against the building of a waste incinerator which will have nothing but a detrimental effect on the town and it's residents. I don't just do words.... I do actions as well!
redviking
says...
1:05am Thu 11 Mar 10
The waste for energy plant will not have a detrimental effect on the town, that is your opinion which is not backed up with hard facts....you need to read the latest information on modern incinerators....also
, why are CHAIN not protesting to Eon, they are the ones who will develope and build the power station?
Sue Statham
says...
11:16am Thu 11 Mar 10
You may also be assured that CHAIN will be taking all action necessary to try to protect our town and it's residents
Liam Byrne
says...
12:51pm Thu 11 Mar 10
It is clear that the TATA owners nearly 5000 miles away in Mumbai are ready to give up against cheap Chinese competition but, not to worry, there is a lucrative exit strategy if the authorities can be persuaded to go along with it. What you do is build a totally unnecessary giant garbage incinerator supposedly required to deliver cheap power. Then, when it is up and running; surprise, surprise the factory cannot compete in world markets and, sadly, must go. (NB TATA/Corus in Middlesborough ,1800 jobs) But, never mind, there would be the the waste incinerator, one of the largest in Europe, to sell on for a nice profit which would help ease TATA's pain.
If TATA/Brunner Mond dispute this theory they could help dispel it by giving a long term job security guarantee, at least 10 years, to their current workforce.
Brunner Mond have got form going back years on threatening job losses
if they do not get their way. Some readers will remember the threats made in the nineties when the crazies wanted to build a coal fired , yes coal fired fired, power station in Winnington. Thank goodness, common sense prevailed and the power station never got built. Oh, and the jobs threat was forgotten.
In case people forget, the TATA/Brunner Mond waste incinerator would mean shipping in garbage from all over the UK to be incinerated at the rate of 150,000 lbs every hour just half a mile from
homes and schools non stop for the next thirty years.
Hibernian
says...
1:36pm Thu 11 Mar 10
Regg
says...
1:59pm Thu 11 Mar 10
Juror
says...
2:01pm Thu 11 Mar 10
There is much opposition throughout the Country to incinerators.
The common denominator in most areas is strong opposition by both the local Councils and the local newspapers.
Here , all are quiet.
Form your own opinion
Regg
says...
2:22pm Thu 11 Mar 10
I dont think so!
We're expected to oppose beacause other councils and newspapers are opposed????
I dont think so!
IF and WHEN there is evidence to support their opposition THEN we will form our OWN opinion
Juror
says...
2:57pm Thu 11 Mar 10
I recommend it you and would note two of the conclusions.
" The present limited method of risk assessment by which the safety of proposed installations is judged , is inadequate, cannot be relied upon and should be reviewed "
" We recommend that no further waste incinerators be built "
As Hibernian said " Why does anyone support it ?
RIJ
says...
3:08pm Thu 11 Mar 10
Read about the large scale evacuations caused by incinerator fires and accidents, the multiple breaches by plants in Scotland , the impact that incinerators have on human health EVEN WHEN WORKING AT NORMAL TOXIN TOLERANCES .
Another simple FACT is that the output of this plant will require 52000 extra HGVs in Northwich just to feed it - think about that when you are gridlocked in Northwich every day .....and do not let them feed you the transport by rail argument .....rail is far more costly and has limited infrastructure .
There are plenty of facts available on the impact these plants have in terms on health , environment and safety - I would urge the people of Northwich to read up on the subject and educate themselves .......do not wait too long however or you will be experiencing the pain first hand ,
Sue Statham
says...
3:13pm Thu 11 Mar 10
Don't leave it too long. Do the research BEFORE you give Tata/Brunner Mond's incinerator the big thumbs up The word "hindsight" springs to mind!
underwhelmed
says...
3:25pm Thu 11 Mar 10
Whilst redviking and Regg are happy to shout about a lack of evidence to back up claims of doom and gloom, there is insufficient evidence in another more important area.
To date no one has been able to adequately demonstrate to the people of Northwich the need to build this incinerator. I mean, what exactly is the requirement to build it in the first place, and secondly to build it on that site?
All other questions are moot at this stage as until anyone can demonstrate to us that we have no option other than to build an incinerator in Northwich then we should assume that it unnecessary.
Can anyone put forward any good reasons???
Dot Gamble
says...
5:32pm Thu 11 Mar 10
Are these foreign companies earmarking Northwich as the incinerator capital of the world because we already have the highest levels of dioxins in the north west?
We should err on the side of caution -future generations of children deserve our protection and have the right to expect to breathe clean air. EU legislation decrees this. More research into the health hazards is urgently needed before permission is given for any more of these incinerators. We will not be able to turn the clock back if a huge mistake is made in granting Brunner Mond and RRS permission to build.
CutWaste
says...
11:40pm Thu 11 Mar 10
Another gripe - OK, plastic containers take up a lot of room in the bin, and only PET and HDPE bottles are recycled. There seems to be a common practice amongst those with open fires of burning the unwanted plastic. This is bad news for anyone concerned with people's health: burning plastic produces cancer-causing chemicals. There are air quality monitors dotted around, monitoring pollutants. So every item cast on the fire is a vote for a cleaner (but still not perfect) method of burning - an incinerator!
Regg
says...
1:36pm Fri 12 Mar 10
The U.K. Health Protection Agency concluded in 2009 that "Modern, well managed incinerators make only a small contribution to local concentrations of air pollutants. It is possible that such small additions could have an impact on health but such effects, if they exist, are likely to be very small and not detectable."
Every ton of MSW incinerated, prevents about one ton of carbon dioxide equivalents from being released to the atmosphere.
Ash from modern incinerators is vitrified at temperatures of 1,000 °C (1,830 °F) to 1,100 °C (2,010 °F), reducing the leachability and toxicity of residue.
It is often imperative that waste be subjected to the high temperatures of incineration to destroy pathogens and toxic contamination it contains.
Landfill sites produce methane gas which is about 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide and leachate often contaminate nearby underground streams
"The Dustbin of Europe" was how the UK was described in 2007.Britain was reported as disposing of more rubbish in UK landfills than any other EU state.
In Britain it was reported that the area given over to landfill space was about the size of Warwick. Not just that, but we would run out of landfill space by 2016!!
So there is a REAL need for a SAFE, EFFICIENT and COST EFFECTIVE alternative to landfill sites and an URGENT NEED to generate energy for THE FUTURE
Hibernian
says...
2:24pm Fri 12 Mar 10
Regg
says...
4:25pm Fri 12 Mar 10
Its suppose to burn large amounts of waste, so we dont contaminate our earth with huge amounts of it!!!
It will replace the need for landfill whether it be here or in another part of the country
Damage to the environment is not confined to those areas where pollution is produced, it affects all areas
Do you get it???
Liam Byrne
says...
11:30pm Fri 12 Mar 10
As far as Northwich is concerned the facts are clear and incontrovertible.
The TATA/Brunner Mond waste incinerator, of which you are such an admirer, would burn 150,000 lbs of waste every single hour of the day , 365 days a year for the next 30 plus years. All of the waste, which would include human and animal excrement, slaughter house waste, rotten food, soiled pads of various descriptions and other disgusting stuff would be imported from outside Cheshire. Literally, it would be the well to do towns and cities around the UK sending their crap to Northwich for disposal. Nice.
It is not disputed that the incinerator chimney, which would overlook the town, would emit deadly dioxins and particulates which would descend over surrounding areas.
The incinerator buildings would be located within half a mile of schools, homes and many retail outlets including Tesco.
I suggest that there these are enough facts to be going on with. Perhaps you are one of those sad people who get a kick out of living in a dangerous environment. My guess is that you are not a parent or grandparent with children who live in places like Rudheath or Lostock or Kingsmead or, indeed, anywhere in Northwich who would really be in danger if TATA/Brunner Mond are allowed to get their way.
Time you contacted your heroes in Mumbai and asked for a new script.
Hibernian
says...
12:56pm Sat 13 Mar 10
Regg
says...
1:49pm Sat 13 Mar 10
Hibernian- the gases from this incinerator according to The U.K. Health Protection Agency (Not some bloke from CHAIN!) are likely to be very small and not detectable
Liam Byrne- These incinerators ARE SUPPOSED TO BURN large amounts of waste in order to eliminate the HUGE POLLUTION RISK of using landfill- see my comments: 'The Dustbin of Europe' was how the UK was described in 2007.Britain was reported as disposing of more rubbish in UK landfills than any other EU state.
You say that all waste will be burned including 'human and animal excrement' but these are not transported for incineration! some medical waste is! and that is why ash from modern incinerators is vitrified at temperatures of 1,000 °C (1,830 °F) to 1,100 °C (2,010 °F), reducing the leachability and toxicity of residue- unlike tipping it in a landfill site for it to leak into surrounding watercourses.
LANDFILL IS FAR MORE POLLUTANT THAN INCINERATORS!!!
You cannot come up with any valid or constructive alternative, you're argument has no basis in fact
The truth is- you are opposed to any kind of waste disposal that generates energy from combustion
So what do you suggest? we carry on burying our waste? that will still require lots of lorrys and produce lots of toxic gases and pollutants which will have a big environmental impact right here in this county!
So please stop banging the scare drum and accusing people like me (who incidentally do have kids and friends who live and work in the town, and can look at things rationally and sensibly) of being losers
redviking
says...
4:31pm Sat 13 Mar 10
Regg wrote:Totally agree with this statement, CHAIN are doing nothing more than scaremongeirng. They have no soild facts and cannot PROVE what they are saying. If this was happening 15-20 years ago I would agree with them, but incinerators today are so far advanced that the output of dioxins and polutants is very small, no more that a single vehicle produces per day!
Liam Byrne & Hibernian- you are both shouting so loud that you cannot hear anyone else who has an opinion different to yours and you ignore the facts I have already put forward! Hibernian- the gases from this incinerator according to The U.K. Health Protection Agency (Not some bloke from CHAIN!) are likely to be very small and not detectable Liam Byrne- These incinerators ARE SUPPOSED TO BURN large amounts of waste in order to eliminate the HUGE POLLUTION RISK of using landfill- see my comments: 'The Dustbin of Europe' was how the UK was described in 2007.Britain was reported as disposing of more rubbish in UK landfills than any other EU state. You say that all waste will be burned including 'human and animal excrement' but these are not transported for incineration! some medical waste is! and that is why ash from modern incinerators is vitrified at temperatures of 1,000 °C (1,830 °F) to 1,100 °C (2,010 °F), reducing the leachability and toxicity of residue- unlike tipping it in a landfill site for it to leak into surrounding watercourses. LANDFILL IS FAR MORE POLLUTANT THAN INCINERATORS!!! You cannot come up with any valid or constructive alternative, you're argument has no basis in fact The truth is- you are opposed to any kind of waste disposal that generates energy from combustion So what do you suggest? we carry on burying our waste? that will still require lots of lorrys and produce lots of toxic gases and pollutants which will have a big environmental impact right here in this county! So please stop banging the scare drum and accusing people like me (who incidentally do have kids and friends who live and work in the town, and can look at things rationally and sensibly) of being losers
They also state that there could be hundreds of HGV's on the roads as a result, worst case senario is there will be approx 105 extra per day. But the majority of the waste WILL be arriving by rail which will equate to about 35 HGV's per day
I can see why CHAIN might be upset because the incinerator will be built in Lostock, but please dont go down the health scare road as there is no evidence to back your comments.
I wonder how many CHAIN members are being supplied their electricity from Eon? They are the ones who will be developing and building the incinerator, but I am yet to see any protest directed towards them!
The fact is the government are all for incinerators, and now that Brunner Mond and Eon will foot the bill for this, it WILL be built.
Liam Byrne
says...
8:00pm Sat 13 Mar 10
professional help with his strange fetish about waste incinerators. It must be the horrible smell that attracts him.
The scary thing in what he writes are his last four words 'it WILL be built'.
How bloody arrogant!
Those of us campaigning against the Brunner Monstrosity believe what we have been told by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) that they will carefully consider all protests submitted by the public and use them in deciding whether or not to hold a public inquiry about the Northwich waste incinerator. We also expect that if a public inquiry is held that the Inspector appointed by the
Secretary of State will be fair and objective in reaching a decision.
'redviking's' words are offensive to members of Cheshire West and Chester Council and to DECC and I hope they will take notice. Perhaps, they are understandable coming from the mouthpiece of one of the largest corporations in the world which is used to getting its way.
If 'redviking's' motives are to try and deter people from protesting against the TATA incinerator because it would be a waste of time, he has failed. They will have the opportunity to register objections over the next few weeks and CHAIN is organising a campaign to enable the voices of the people of Northwich to be heard down in the HQ of DECC in London.
Look out for more information on
www.anti-incinerator
.org.uk
Sue Statham
says...
11:04pm Sat 13 Mar 10
It's all about money, BIG money, for Tata/Brunner Mond...... and advantages for local people? You'll need plenty of time to think about that!
Regg
says...
11:53am Sun 14 Mar 10
Sue Statham- I'll give you 5 benefits for having an incinerator:
1. It will reduce the need for landfill
2. It will SAFELY dispose of waste
3. It will produce much needed power
4. It will be cost effective and efficient
5. It will substantially reduce CO2 emissions
6. It will generate some badly needed local jobs
What is your alternative???? well here's 5 to get you going
1.We carry on burying our waste in the ground?
2.Where are these landfill sites going to be located, around Northwich?
3.Continue to contaminate vast areas of land with toxic gases and leachates?
4.Continue to pay millions of pounds in fines to the EU for disposing of our waste in landfill?
5. Continue deep sea waste tipping that destroys our marine life?
We've got to be FORWARD thinking, REALISTIC and consider the impact on ALL LIFE !!!
Regg
says...
12:20pm Sun 14 Mar 10
Northwich is not a poorer part of the county and is well populated, we certainly don't need an MP who has absolutely NO EXPERTISE in these matters to come out with such unqualified and clearly incorrect judgements!
Its interesting to see such restored faith in one of our Members of Parliament when they appear to criticise the site for any proposed incinerator plant, bit of a pity about the rest of them eh??!!
redviking
says...
12:34pm Sun 14 Mar 10
Liam Byrne: I'm not the one giving out daft rants, and I certainly do not have a fetish of any kind. I am not trying to deter anyone against the building of the incinerator, everyone is entitled to their own opinions and wishes. What I am against, is people not giving true facts and trying to frighten people. CHAIN do not want the incinerator, thats fair enough: but please dont tell people that their health is at risk when its not been proven, dont tell people that huge amounts of cancer causing dioxins will be released when there is no proof anywhere that modern incinerators do this. Please dont give out figures saying hundreds of HGV's will be on our roads when there wont be. Dont put out pictures of totally out of scale drawings saying the incinerator is going to be so big. It is things like that which annoy me, I do not have a problem what so ever about people protesting against anything they dont agree with, but at least back it all up with hard evidence
Sue Statham
says...
1:49pm Sun 14 Mar 10
Your championing the safety of incinerators is of great concern to me. I refer you to the comment on this site from Juror on 11th March. You must read this report.
Final comment for Regg, my name is Sue Statham, by the way.
You are wasting your talents trying to persuade me that burning waste that has travelled from who know which county is an environmentally friendly deed. Best to go to source of said waste in you quest to extol incineration, and everything that goes with it!.
I continue to stress that CHAIN's aim has been to "tell it like it is " to local residents. The M.P. who stated that "incinerators tend to be built in poorer parts of counties or where there is least opposition" was merely stating a fact. I certainly wouldn't class us as the poorer part of the county, and CHAIN will not allow us to be the place where there is least opposition!
Regg
says...
4:03pm Sun 14 Mar 10
redviking has very patiently and repeatedly asked for hard evidence to back your claims and you continue to ignore, but instead, quote some anonymous MP who is not qualified or has any proper knowledge of these matters!
Who do we believe- The U.K. Health Protection Agency or some vote hungry MP?
We need to dispose of rubbish safely and if we can do that whilst generating power it will benefit everyone including the people of Northwich
You should go along and ensure that this company will build and run this incinerator properly and safely instead of dismissing an opportunity to clean up and generate power from OUR RUBBISH for future generations
Regg
says...
4:09pm Sun 14 Mar 10
Sue Statham
says...
4:52pm Sun 14 Mar 10
Just a joke!
I am sensing a hint of hysteria in your recent communications. I stick by all that CHAIN says and neither you, nor redviking have given me any reason to think otherwise.Your comments are seeming a little repetitive to me, rather like when I was a child and we had to say our "times tables". I DO get your message, it's just that I DON'T believe it. You need to do more research on the effects on health of incinerators. I'm more concerned about keeping people safe than making millions for Indian company Tata/Brunner Mond.
I really MUST go and do my French homework!
Are you sure you don't work for Tata/Brunner Mond?
redviking
says...
6:30pm Sun 14 Mar 10
"The Health Protection Agency has reviewed the latest scientific evidence on the health effects of modern municipal waste incinerators.
The Agency report any potential damage from modern, well run and regulated incinerators is likely to be so small that it would be undetectable.
The evidence suggests that air pollution from incinerators makes up a fraction of one percent of the country's particulate emissions. Industry and traffic account for more than fifty per cent
Also I have no connection what so ever with Brunner Mond
Sue Statham
says...
7:35pm Sun 14 Mar 10
As for total traffic, do remember that there are other waste disposal sites in close proximity. Also the outcome of the Cheshire waste contract has yet to be decided. All Cheshire waste, after recyclable elements have been removed, is heading our way, either to Lostock or Wincham. You need to look at the bigger picture, as CHAIN is doing.
As for the health risks, I contradict YOUR information, just as you contradict CHAIN's.
redviking
says...
7:54pm Sun 14 Mar 10
Liam Byrne
says...
8:37pm Sun 14 Mar 10
There are many alternative modern technologies for processing waste other than incineration which is a 20th ( or 19th) century way of addressing a 21st century problem.
None of the waste that TATA want to burn in Northwich would be generated in Cheshire so a TATA incinerator would have no impact on the amount of landfill in Cheshire. Period.
TATA want to build a incinerator just four miles from the potential site of another one in Middlewich and a relatively short distance away from another two in Runcorn and near Frodsham. There is not, repeat 'not', a shred of medical research which covers such a concentration of large waste incinerators yet the people of Cheshire and, particularly, Northwich, will be used as guinea pigs in a deadly experiment if the owners of TATA in Mumbai in India
and their partners E-on in Dusseldorf in Germany get their way.
So, the message to Mumbai and Dusseldorf and their pyromaniac mouthpieces continues to be "Don't dare dump on the people of Northwich!"
Hibernian
says...
12:33pm Mon 15 Mar 10
Regg
says...
3:17pm Mon 15 Mar 10
But what the public are entitled to is a BALANCED and UNBIASED debate supported by credible facts
The plant will help to solve waste disposal issues whilst generating much needed power and there is CREDIBLE EVIDENCE from The UK health protection agency to support this
IF this plant is deemed uneccessary and dangerous then it shouldnt be built and operated!
But there has been NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE to back this claim
Why would any local want to carry on with the tipping of waste, contaminating the ground and sea and pay £millions in fines to the EU?
Surely we all need to find a solution to waste disposal and power generation and until there is a BETTER alternative then it should be given careful consideration
I thought it was to be built on the site of an existing rusting industrial eyesore, so I can't see it affecting house prices or spoiling the view!!!
lyndajones48
says...
4:35pm Mon 15 Mar 10
dparents, aunts and uncles to say NO to this before it is to late..
Hibernian
says...
5:05pm Mon 15 Mar 10
Regg
says...
12:27pm Tue 16 Mar 10
You are happy for future generations growing up with landfill as a means of chucking our highly pollutant waste to contaminate the food chain with toxins and highly dangerous methane gas- this is well proven to harm the health of all living things and thats why we are in trouble with the EU for continuing this shameful practice and why OTHER EU COUNTRIES SEE UK AS THE RUBBISH DUMP OF EUROPE NOT BECAUSE WE PROPOSE TO BUILD INCINERATORS but beacuse in Britain it was reported that the area given over to landfill space was about the size of Warwick!!
That is an appalling FACT but one which dosent have the same 'caring and environmentally aware' local residents shouting NO!
Lindajones- You dont have any facts!!! you go along with the mass hysteria that If its a big building with chimneys in the picturesque setting of Brunner Monds chemical works it will ''be big black and scary and oi be afraid of it''
Could CHAIN be possibly right and the rest of Europe and America have been misinformed and therefore got it wrong??!!
Hibenian-READ THIS: the gases from this incinerator according to The U.K. Health Protection Agency (Not some bloke from CHAIN!) are likely to be very small and not detectable.
Which bit of this FACT do you not understand??
Ash from modern incinerators is vitrified at temperatures of 1,000°C, reducing the leachability and toxicity of residue- unlike tipping it in a landfill site for it to leak into surrounding watercourses and contaminate the habitat for miles around.
Which bit of these FACTS do you not understand??
It proves the emissions are not a danger to life (unlike those from landfill) but you still bloody well argue, without proof, that it could be??
Hibernian
says...
1:43pm Tue 16 Mar 10
Sue Statham
says...
2:22pm Tue 16 Mar 10
CHAIN does listen, and as I have said on many occasions, if you have any irrefutable facts that guarantee the safety of incinerators, we will certainly do more research.
It was really great to see the 'No incinerator' signs across the road from Tata/Brunner Mond's site. Although I would like to think that I am a very responsible adult, I did give 2 very loud beeps on my car horn!
Regg
says...
4:41pm Tue 16 Mar 10
.
.
.
.
Sue- you sound like a bit of a hell raiser!! beeping loudly, did anyone hear?
lyndajones48
says...
5:01pm Tue 16 Mar 10
redviking
says...
6:37pm Tue 16 Mar 10
I know of the dangers regarding landfill sites and huge amounts of toxins, gases etc that these produce, I know about them because of the evidence that is widely available.
I am not here to be ridiculed or even told that I am all for incinerators. I was also called arrogant by your spokesman for my views and opinions. Having an anti-incinerator group, headed by an ex incinerator director is more arrogant than anything!
Liam Byrne
says...
10:56pm Tue 16 Mar 10
As a reminder, here is the relevant part of my previous email:
'It is clear that the TATA owners nearly 5000 miles away in Mumbai are ready to give up against cheap Chinese competition but, not to worry, there is a lucrative exit strategy if the authorities can be persuaded to go along with it. What you do is build a totally unnecessary giant garbage incinerator supposedly required to deliver cheap power. Then, when it is up and running; surprise, surprise the factory cannot compete in world markets and, sadly, must go. (NB TATA/Corus in Middlesborough ,1800 jobs) But, never mind, there would be the the waste incinerator, one of the largest in Europe, to sell on for a nice profit which would help ease TATA's pain.
If TATA/Brunner Mond dispute this theory they could help dispel it by giving a long term job security guarantee, at least 10 years, to their current workforce.'
It would be bitterly ironic if Brunner Mond workers in Northwich were to spend two or three years watching
the construction of a giant garbage incinerator that would effectively become the funeral pyre for their employment. They dare not say it, of course, but many of them must be praying that the campaign against the Brunner Mondster will be successful.
Regg
says...
1:20pm Wed 17 Mar 10
I do NOT work for TATA/BM -or in any related way
.
I live and work in Northwich
.
I am not a scientist or qualified in this subject, but I have quoted from The UK health protection agency and EU reports, I have'nt quoted from a single unqualified, anonymous MP
.
I wrote:
.
IF this plant is deemed uneccessary and dangerous then it shouldnt be built and operated!
.
There is a REAL need for a SAFE, EFFICIENT and COST EFFECTIVE alternative to landfill sites and an URGENT NEED to generate energy for THE FUTURE
.
Redviking wrote:
.
CHAIN stood outside demonstrating. Why didn't they go inside and ask the questions they want, infront of the public?
.
Why did CHAIN not attend a meeting that Brunner Mond requested?
.
I just think CHAIN should tell the truth or at least back up their comments with evidence
The above comments are NOT from 'eager pyromaniacs' who only 'rant & rave about their own opinions' we want FACTS from BOTH sides in order to understand who's best placed to come up with a solution to the urgent need for effective, safe waste disposal and power generation
We advocate a proper and balanced discussion of these proposals supported by FACTS- NOT the pedalling of fear and exagerated claims of NIMBY's or even desperate attempts at pretending to be 'offended' by plain speaking and truth seeking members of the public
Beep Beep!
Williams96
says...
1:15pm Tue 6 Apr 10
Reducing landfill can be done by thorough recycling of wood, paper, plastic, metal and material components of waste and by composting all the garden and food waste.
Investment in recycling is what is needed to reduce landfill. To completely remove the need for landfill, manufacturers need to alter their products (and packaging) so that everything becomes recyclable. Ideal state being zero waste: http://www.defra.gov
.uk/news/latest/2009
/waste-1013.htm
Burning waste is literally a waste of resources. Especially plastics, which are produced from oil. If you incinerate a plastic bottle, it takes far more energy to produce a new plastic bottle from crude oil versus producing the same bottle using recycled plastic
The current EU legislation to increase tax on landfill is fuelling the increased numbers of incinerator proposals across the UK. Incineration is seen as a quick fix solution. Then the incinerator (EfW) companies push the idea that the energy produced is somehow green because they are only producing a bit of poison with their modern facilities versus the bucket loads from old incinerators
Genuine green energy is 100% renewable, produces zero toxins & for example comes from solar panels & wind farms, not burning trash
As a Cheshire resident I would welcome any wind farm development (so I'm not a NIMBY) and would happily sort all my household waste into individual bins/bags/boxes (not lazy either). Much preferable to 'a bit of poisoning' from a modern EfW plant
redviking says...
8:47pm Wed 10 Mar 10