No New Monster Incinerator for Cardiff!

Weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin intend to build a waste incinerator in partnership with CoGen in a heavily populated area of Cardiff. It would be the second one, joining Viridor incinerator in Llanrumney.

 

I’ve just dug out my questions to Wales Online’ Chris Cousens from 2010 from the group I was a co-founder of Covanta Incinerator Objection Group (which coincidentally celebrated the 5th Anniversary of WINNING against the Brig-y-cwn Monster Incinerator proposed for Fochriw, near Merthyr Tydfil, on 24th October 2011.)

 

Obviously these Q’s have to be re-written for this new Cardiff application, but the proposed incinerator is the same Gasification technology and the same exhaust chimneys which we showed fail to filter PM10 nano-particulates and heavy metals.

I’ve sent the questions to Friends of the Earth Cymru / Cyfeillion y Ddaear Cymru and I would like to see them receive answers to similar questions put to Lockheed Martin Energy VP Frank Armijo and CoGen Limited CEO Ian Brooking.

 

(From 2010)

A. How do Covanta intend to ensure that they will not breach emission limits at its proposed Brig-y-cwm plant?

 

B. Why should the residents believe that Covanta will run their plant

safely, when their track record with numerous plants throughout America showing Covanta have been found complacent in breaching emission levels and have endangering public health on hundreds of occasions?

I am at the most basic level of competence to be able to carry out

research and yet there is a huge amount of evidence I have found to prove this, for example; WALLINGFORD – New Jersey based Covanta Energy, owner of

the trash-to-energy plant on South Cherry Street, has been ordered to pay a $400,000 fine and upgrade one of its incinerators as terms of a settlement with the state over emissions violations in summer 2010. ( http://www.myrecordjournal.com/…/article_a9b14a2a-af26… )

 

C. In Merthyr Tydfil borough, Recycling rates are running at an average of 30%, how do Covanta propose ensure that the other 70% of recyclable waste will not be incinerated, are they just relying on residents to recycle?

 

D. Why are Covanta proposing to build an old style “open grate

incinerator”, which goes against the Waste Hierarchy Directive,
(1) waste prevention
(2) preparing for re-use
(3)waste prevention
(4) other recovery, including energy recovery
(5) disposal – by not allowing sufficient process for recycling, which has a higher position in the Waste Hierarchy than energy recovery?

 

E. Why are Covanta proposing to build an old style open grate incinerator when there are better proven technologies such as established Plasma gasification plants in the UK (which the UK Government are keen to promote, National Policy Statements Debate 18 July 2011 ) which pre-recycle prior to the safer incineration process, which ensures only non-recyclable waste will be burned?

 

F. Do Covanta agree that Plasma Gasification Incinerators better meet the purpose of the EU’s Landfill Directive, Waste Framework Directive and the National Policy Statement? If Covanta don’t agree, why does their open grate plant better meet these Directives?

 

G. Is it true that Covanta are not in fact, a waste management company, but are primarily an incineration firm, as they undertake no pre-sorting or recyclings of any waste prior to its incineration?

 

H. Does Mr Chilton consider Open-Grate to be the “BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY”? Would he please provide evidence for this and cite references for this.

 

I. Does Mr Chilton and Covanta consider the lungs of American people to be different to the lungs of Welsh people, as the company pollutes American lungs regularly! Why should we believe that they won’t pollute Welsh lungs in the same way?

 

J. Can Mr Chilton confirm that Covanta has been approaching English county boroughs, such as the Royal borough of Windsor, for contracts to incinerate their waste?

 

K. How does this fit in with the Welsh Governments’ “Localism” strategy for dealing with municipal waste?

 

L. What other countries does Covanta intend approaching in order to ship waste to incinerate at the site? e.g. Ireland? France? further afield?

Causing a massive carbon footprint for the proposed plant.

 

M. Does Mr Chilton agree that we have some beautiful views of the Brecon Beacons to the North and through the Valleys to the South and West of Brig-y-Cwm as well as splendid views of the hillsides of the Eastern Rhymney valley and the mountain tops of Blaenau Gwent beyond?

How would this plant sit along side Tourism revenue?

 

N. If this incinerator proposal were to progress, has he considered

relocating his family to Pentwyn, or Fochriw, or Bedlinog, or Dowlais, or any other of the communities that will be within the polluting outfall of his blight incinerator plant?

---

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2016/october/mfc-101116-lm-and-cogen-to-build-energy-from-waste-plant-in-wales.html

Lockheed Martin Energy VP Frank Armijo and CoGen Limited CEO Ian Brooking sign a teaming agreement for waste-to-energy projects in the U.K., starting with a plant in Cardiff, Wales.
LONDON, Oct. 11, 2016 – Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) has signed a teaming agreement with CoGen Limited to develop energy-from-waste projects in the United Kingdom, starting with a new plant in Cardiff, Wales.
The Cardiff facility will convert waste into up to 15 megawatts (MW) of energy, enough to power about 15,000 homes and businesses in the local area. To generate energy, the plant will process approximately 150,000 tons of waste per year, significantly reducing the need for landfill use. Construction is expected to begin in 2018, with operations starting in 2020.

“This project will make a substantial contribution to Cardiff and will further showcase how bioenergy technologies can help reduce waste, decrease pollution and generate clean, renewable energy,” said Frank Armijo, vice president of Lockheed Martin Energy. “We’re excited to team with CoGen, and we’re looking forward to other projects where we can help businesses, manufacturers and U.K. municipal and regional governments address their critical waste and energy challenges.”

CoGen will serve as the owner and developer of the Cardiff project and Lockheed Martin will lead the engineering, procurement, manufacturing and construction of the plant. The facility will use Concord Blue’s Reformer® technology, which converts waste to energy through a process called advanced gasification. The technology can convert nearly any kind of organic waste into clean, sustainable energy.

In addition to the Wales project, Lockheed Martin and CoGen will jointly pursue other similar projects, and smaller-scale opportunities to develop energy-from-waste projects for commercial and industrial businesses throughout the U.K.

“CoGen is excited to be forming this partnership with Lockheed Martin and bringing the Concord Blue Reformer® technology to the U.K.,” said Ian Brooking, chief executive officer of CoGen Limited. “Cardiff will be the first of a pipeline of projects that over the coming decade will see local, smaller-scale generation play a bigger part in delivering the U.K.’s energy requirements.”

Based in England, CoGen is a leading advanced gasification energy-from-waste company within the U.K. The company develops, constructs, manages, owns and executes advanced gasification plants throughout the U.K., with five projects either generating energy or under construction, and six additional projects in planning.

Lockheed Martin Energy is a line of business within Lockheed Martin that delivers comprehensive solutions across the energy industry to include demand-response solutions, energy efficiency, energy storage, nuclear systems, tidal energy technologies and bioenergy generation.
For additional information, visit our website: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/energy

About Lockheed Martin

Headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland, Lockheed Martin is a global security and aerospace company that employs approximately 98,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services.

About CoGen

CoGen is at the forefront of the Advanced Gasification of Waste industry within the U.K. and develops, constructs, manages, owns and executes Advanced Gasification plants. Projects are selected to minimize the transportation of waste within the U.K. and to ensure local benefit is gained from community waste. For additional information, visit our website: http://www.cogenuk.com

---

Ban The Burn logo

George Monbiot | The outrageous, untold story of how big business dumps its costs on us

A Hole in the System

28th April 2015

The outrageous, untold story of how big business dumps its costs on us.- By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 29th April 2015

---

Wrapped up in this story is everything that’s wrong with the way our economy works. Corporations ream the land with giant holes, extract a stack of money, then clear out, leaving other people with the costs. There’s a briefer description: legalised theft.

This is an account, scarcely mentioned in the national media, of the massive unfunded liabilities emerging from coalfields throughout Britain, that opencast mining companies have been allowed to walk away from.

It’s comparable in terms of irresponsibility to the failure by the nuclear industry to fund its decommissioning costs. And it offers a solid argument, even to those who continue to reject climate science, for keeping fossil fuels in the ground.

As I write, Neath-Port Talbot Council in South Wales is considering a new application for an opencast coal mine. The mine is unpopular, but its proponents argue that it’s necessary. Why?

Because only by digging a new pit, they say, can the money be made to fill in an old one. How could this be true, when millions of tonnes of coal have been extracted? Where did the money go? You think you are inured to the worst of British politics? Read on.

When British Coal was privatised by John Major’s government in 1994, the company that took over in South Wales, Celtic Energy, was granted a 10-year exemption from paying a restoration bond, in return for offering a slightly higher price for the assets. That higher price disappeared into national accounts, doubtless in the form of one of Mr Major’s tax cuts for the rich.

After 10 years, the exemption expired, and Celtic Energy had to start putting up a decommissioning fund.

At East Pit, where the application for new mining is now being considered, the bond now stands at around £4m, while the restoration is likely to cost about £115m.

At another vast pit, Margam, near Bridgend, there is £5.7m in the kitty – against an estimated restoration cost of £56m.

In 2010 Celtic Energy sold the land rights, and the liabilities, at East Pit, Margam and two other mines, to a company in the British Virgin Islands called Oak Regeneration, for £1 per mine. Oak Regeneration then passed the liabilities to Pine Regeneration, Beech Regeneration and Ash Regeneration, none of which appear to have the assets required for restoration. Five senior executives at Celtic Energy walked away with benefits worth more than £10m.

The people involved in this transfer, including two directors of Celtic Energy and the former chief executive of Cardiff City Council, were charged with fraud. But last year the judge threw out the case, saying that, while some might regard their actions as “dishonest” or “reprehensible”, they were not illegal.

So all that is left, the opencasters argue, is to dig more holes. It’s like the old woman who swallowed a fly.

In a paper commissioned by the Welsh government, I was struck by the mention of the Ffos-y-fran opencast coal mine, on which I reported in 2007. This pit was justified as a “restoration scheme”, which would remove the old adits, shafts and spoil heaps left behind by deep mining. Local people were sceptical: one of them told me “you don’t go down 600ft and blast 5 days a week to reclaim an area.”

But the report finds that the bond laid down by Ffos-y-fran’s operators, £15m, “falls well short of a worst case restoration cost which could be in excess of £50m”.

The “restoration scheme”, this suggests, cannot fund its own restoration.

In some cases, villages and towns find themselves perched on the edge of sheer drops, overlooking running black sores sometimes hundreds of metres wide.

At Margam, for example, the pit is some 2km across and, according to the latest estimate I’ve seen, the water gathering there is 88m deep. In East Ayrshire, in Scotland, 22 giant voids have been abandoned by their operators. Restoration work there would cost £161m, but just £28m has been set aside. As the local MP explained, “they are so large they cannot be effectively secured from trespass… unstable head walls and extremely deep water bodies with vertical drop-offs make for dangerous playgrounds.”

An independent report found that the collection of restoration bonds by East Ayrshire Council officials was “wholly deficient and defective”, while the failure to appoint independent assessors was “completely inexplicable”. While officials took their eye off the ball, East Ayrshire councillors took gifts and hospitality from the coal operators, including a trip to watch Celtic play Barcelona in Spain, premier league tickets, lavish meals, food hampers and nights in hotels. When the two companies running the pits went bust, the council was left in a gigantic hole.

Nationwide, the unfunded liabilities counted so far amount to £469m. That’s likely to be just the beginning.

This is a price we pay for limited liability. Why should the people who own and run these companies be allowed to walk away with millions, while shrugging off the costs they leave behind? Limited liability is one of our social silences: a giant gift to corporations that we won’t even discuss.

And why are we digging coal anyway, when we cannot afford to burn it? Climate breakdown is the greatest unfunded liability of all, for which future generations will have to pay.

Yet in 2013, the latest year for which figures are available, the amount of coal for which companies in Britain have permission to dig rose from 12m tonnes to 24m.

Eight new opencast pits were approved in that year, and only three rejected. In which parallel universe is this compatible with the commitment to limit climate change?

Last week, lost in the election turmoil, the Welsh Senedd did something remarkable. It voted, by 30 votes to zero, for a moratorium on opencast coal mining. With the Welsh ban on fracking, this could have meant that Wales was the first nation on earth to keep its fossil fuels in the ground.

But the Welsh government refused to accept the decision, using the restoration argument. Past crimes are used to justify new ones.

Fire and forget: that’s the psychopathic business model we confront, and the forgetting is assisted by the press and political leaders.

To them, the victims are non-people, the ruined landscapes non-places. All that counts is the money.

www.monbiot.com

---