Executive Overview
There are 4 major reasons why incineration is the wrong solution
to our waste problem:
- a. Incineration, even with installations that comply with European
Legislation, still produces pollution which is dangerous to
our health.
- b. Incineration produces ash which is more toxic than the waste
that is burnt.
- c. Incineration will jeopardise future sustainable waste management
strategies.
- d. Incineration is extremely expensive, and does not produce energy
very efficiently.
-
a. Incineration, even with installations that comply with European
Legislation, still produces pollution which is dangerous to our
health.
- The proposed incinerator may well meet standards on pollutants,
but that is not a guarantee that the pollutants will not cause
harm.
- The significant effect on our bodies is that pollutants will accumulate
over long periods of time in the body's fatty tissue. This process
is known as "bioconcentration". Whilst the proposed
incinerator may be within limits for the two particularly poisonous
and persistent groups of chemicals emitted - dioxins
and furans, they will still be emitted
and will end up in peoples bodies.
- Incinerators are known to produce particularly fine particulates
(known as PM10s because the particles are less than 10 microns
diameter). A major recent study found that there is a much stronger
statistical link between fine particulates and mortality rates
from lung cancer and cardiopulmonary diseases than with any of
the other major forms of pollution measured.
- The Environment Agency, whilst dedicated to its job, is severely
underfunded, handicapped by insufficient legal powers, and the
technical difficulties involved in constantly monitoring incinerators.
There have been numerous cases in the US, Germany, the Netherlands
and Denmark where the regulatory authorities have grossly underestimated
the pollution caused by incinerators.
-
b. Incineration produces ash which is more toxic than the waste
that is burnt.
- Incineration still produces ash. It can comprise about 25% by
weight and must be landfilled. Thus incineration means incineration
plus landfill. The ash is far more toxic than ordinary domestic
refuse, and is particularly expensive to dispose of.
- It is now accepted that even the most modern landfill sites leak,
so toxic incinerator ash will pollute land, ground and surface
water for many years.
- The incineration industry often claims that incineration will
result in a 90% reduction in volume of waste to be landfilled.
These claims are exaggerated and ignore some very basic facts.
Firstly, a large proportion of the waste material will not reduce
through burning. Secondly, ash will not compact in tips to the
same extent as domestic waste. Hence the true reduction in volume
is perhaps just 60-70%. When one realises that hazardous waste
costs up to 10 times as much to landfill as domestic refuse, it
is clear just what an expensive option incineration is.
-
c. Incineration will jeopardise future sustainable waste management
strategies.
- Incinerators are a very capital intensive investment which demand
a steady stream of waste to burn. To be assured of their viability
companies need long term contracts, in most cases 25 years, with
local authorities who supply the waste. This locks authorities
into providing high levels of waste for decades and thus discourages
waste minimisation.
- As well as encouraging continuing high waste levels, incineration
of municipal waste undermines recycling and re-use. Conversely,
if recycling and/or waste minimisation schemes are successfully
pursued by local authorities, this leaves incinerators with a
waste shortage and attendant operational and financial problems.
In the USA this very problem has led several authorities and
the private operators into financial and political difficulties.
- The presence of an incinerator, as well as undermining existing
recycling and composting schemes, could stop attempts to bring
to Devon major commercial recycling operations.
-
d. Incineration is extremely expensive, and does not produce
energy very efficiently.
- The figures for energy production from incinerators may seem impressive,
but given the volume of waste consumed, the loss of energy from
the inefficient exchange in the incinerator (about 25% efficiency),
and most importantly the loss of resources and the energy already
used to produce what is being burnt, the argument that incineration
can be justified by energy "reclamation" collapses.
- It has been estimated that three to five times as much energy
can be saved by recycling materials than by burning them. Hence
a proper programme of recycling in Exeter rather than incineration
would result in a net energy gain nationally and globally. Devon
County Council should carry out a full cost:benefit analysis to
establish the energy advantages of investing the £40 million
in recycling instead of incineration.
- We therefore call on Devon County Council to cancel its proposals
for an incinerator in Exeter. At the very least it should postpone
a decision on this proposal until such time as more facts are
known, and a more reasoned decision can be made.
|
Return to the Exeter Friends of the Earth Home Page