Share this
Mister Wong
Digg
Del.icio.us
Slashdot
Yahoo
Technorati
Newsvine
Googlize this
Blinklist
Facebook
Wikio
Export PDF
Print
E-mail
I didn't think it would take this long for us to realise the impacts of climate change and move from the physical evidence, supported by a few scientists, to a common understanding supported by national and international action. I am sure that even today we will still get a number of people arguing that we, as humans, are "not causing climate change" or equally as bad that "we can't do anything about it, it's too late". You may have guessed that I take a different line - straight through the middle, the shortest path and often the one of least resistance.
You see, I believe in climate change but I don't need to, to realise that there are benefits in combating it, and I don't mean a green wash! Climate change could be part of the planet's natural evolution based on its marriage to the sun and solar flare activities, or equally a result of industrialisation and man's impact, or perhaps even a combination of the two. What I do know is that man's activities do contribute to the problem and as such we can and should contribute to a solution, partial or otherwise.
Considering the issue from a macro perspective, we can use the fight against climate change as an opportunity to review how nations operate within the resources that they have.
Transport, waste treatment and power generation are widely recognised as three of the main sources of Green House Gasses (GHGs) that are emitted by all countries, no matter what their size or demographic make-up. In the UK we are now in a situation where, having recognised these key contributing sources, we now have the opportunity to set about solving them, within the context of our local or national resources. Our Credit Crunch Britain has a golden opportunity to succeed with our green agenda, and in doing so trade our way out of the current downturn. This is not new thinking, but let's just say that it is only now that it is being listened to!
So why do we do what we do? I'd like to briefly take you back to 1999 when I met a man that was both a ships' captain and a pilot, who had worked on the Fletcher's Ice Island T-3. The Island was over 2000 years old and had melted due to "climate change".
As a pilot back in the 1960's he had noticed that smog on the US West Coast was confined to the area around Los Angeles. By the late 1990's, when flying overhead he realised that the whole of the US West Coast, as far North as Alaska, was shrouded in smog to 10,000 feet.
Having seen this manmade problem manifest itself before his eyes he was driven to look for a manmade solution. His commitment to the reduction of Green House Gases had already seen him produce a design for a waste to energy plant that would revamp a moth-balled, coal-fired power station and used waste and coal for energy - reducing GHG associated with coal power, landfill emissions and mineral extraction. The design was going nowhere, burning waste was and still is seen as a negative, but burning a commodity - gas, coal, trees, well that seems to still be OK!
Needless to say I was inspired by the passion, the knowledge, the science and the sheer simplicity of the solution - make waste a commodity and realise the value it represents. This is a concept which is certainly a familiar practise in developing nations, but seems alien in practise in the western world. Don't get me wrong, every council in the country promotes recycling and re-use, but at what cost to the environment?
So what's our view? - Firstly, as a society we must take responsibility for our waste and not leave it up to the future, or the developing world, to deal with. We should take responsibility now, because only when we do this will we be able to not only recycle our waste, but also recycle the value of the waste in our local community.
Secondly, we need to realise the value in such a way that the benefits are more far reaching then creating jobs sorting rubbish into an export commodity.
The PREL energypark proposals recognise the potential value that could be achieved, by creating a local facility taking residual waste from all aspects of the community, along with agricultural residues, to produce a biomass fuel for energy production. The non-biomass is separated prior to combustion and either sent for standard recycling or for recycling within the park's plasma units for glass, light bulbs and batteries. The Plasma units then serve a double function, recycling the matter but also being used to recover the energypark's own air pollution control residues, ensuring that no waste for landfill is produced by the facility.
This alone means there is a carbon dioxide saving by displacing landfill gas - methane mainly and fossil fuel power. However, we need to make sure that displacement of alternative power generation is a reality, and this means designing an energypark to operate 24/7, 365 days per year. With this done the next step is to provide a landfill and power alternative that is economically attractive to drive people away from burying waste... The energypark design allows waste to be treated at a less than landfill cost and power to be generated at a price that competes with coal and gas.
With this all in place, you can start to realise the benefits within the local community- stabilised long term waste fees, low carbon / carbon free energy supplied by ESCO, combined heat and chilling from waste heat and new industry based around the carbon free outputs of the park, including the ability to produce clean hydrogen for fuel cells. These benefits sit alongside the ability to support an electric highway, meaning that energyparks can be also used as a catalyst to the wider use of electric day vehicles. In addition energyparks include development carbon sequestration technology and MMC buildings that can be visually of low impact (15m eves - check out the size of a small waste to energy plant!).
In the wider but equally important context, energyparks provide long term job opportunities, direct benefits for the community they serve and offer support for further education and innovation within the sector to ensure that economic growth is fuelled by continued environmental research and development.
Science, intent and innovation are always ahead of the development, however change is happening and the realisation of climate change is finally ingrained in us all as a society and as individuals. We have finally mounted enough pressure to make Governments and individuals alike look for credible solutions for using waste as a resource and an asset. We can make this happen.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
David, you are correct that is it hearts and minds and scale needs to be discussed in the full context of the problem. Most of the pubic do not see the waste problem - they hear the Climate change warnings and take stock of the changing weather patterns but do not connect the pieces which is fully understandable they have other things to do in life! But with the issue of waste treatment using any option from AD, composting, recycling, EfW - if we look at solving the entire problem you either need lots of small plants or fewer large ones - ONCE you have shown the people the scale of the problem - it is still true to say that most people only have a waste problem when the bin is not collected. what we found in peterborough was to explain openly and fully the reasoning behind why a facility for housolders waste only would not improve the local "green standing" if 3 times as much commercial and other wastes were still be shipped through the streets to landfill - a solution needs to deal with the whole problem not just the easy fraction. Secondly you need to get across the benefits of the scale. At this point I will admit that a standard type incinerator is visually big regardless of the tonnage with limited benefits that the public can see- so when scaling up for environmental benefits you need to look at all the downsides in particular public perception (be they based on valid science or not) at this point science has little to do with it if you have a disgruntled neighbour. So to create the scale to achieve the benefits we had to redesign significantly so that visually we look no worse than a medium sized warehouse with far less traffic. Now people can compare and ask the question what is the difference between a waste treatment / waste as resource facility and a warehouse? Along with all the engineering and design work nothing is better than full on open consultation with the public - over 15 months with the latest application before it was submitted -with all groups including and especially the groups that don't want it. Understanding the fears, perceptions and reasons for saying no is vital for both side. In Peterborough we were lucky enough to work with a cross party group called Peterborough for Responsible Waste management forum. This included representatives from the green party, friends of the earth, local residents and other interest groups. The process of talking, learning (on both sides) shaped our proposal to be for the better and I believe helped get an true understanding of the proposal from the group.
So a long way round the answer to your question which is spend time with people understand their points, and discuss the merits but equally don't hide the issues. Planning for any facility takes time but time spent upfront is well worth it - Had we done it this way in 2004/5 we may be operating now?!
