Request
Deputation from Malcolm Stow
I realise this Heat & Power project has been many years in development and some of us have been here all through that time with regular changes and misinformation around the vision and view of NLWA that the existing incinerator from the 1970’s is well over 50 years old now, was due for decommissioning, and a new and larger Energy from Waste based on then existing understanding of the waste 'problem' would be required into the C21st.
However the original incinerator is still producing Energy from Waste albeit with improved filtering but still polluting air emissions at an increasingly low efficiency in terms of energy generation. Energy from Waste generation has been superseded by truly renewable energy and Energy from Waste is now seen as the worst polluting form of energy production. In other words Energy from Waste is out of date.
Climate change science and innovation has overtaken this outdated form of waste management and energy generation. Understandably it is difficult now to start to consider alternatives again. Yet, the project is now well behind schedule and the NLWA has an ongoing internal review over costs and construction (since around March this year) over the sole final bidder for the scheme Acconia.
Acconia has now stalled construction and is not co-operating with this NLWA internal review and seems likely now to be reneging on the contract for the new incinerator.
This is the time to consider in the new light of climate science and net-zero across all sectors of industry, including waste management, that alternatives are coming steadily on stream to mitigate climate change as far as possible, now we are in a critical time of both climate change and industry change.
NLWA has never seriously considered or adapted to this new environment and essential alternative. Despite likely NLWA/Acconia litigation there is an option to be seriously considered and the only alternative to the present stalled Heat & Power project.
This is to 1) continue the existing incinerator, further upgraded, only for truly residual waste (that cannot be recycled, yet); and then to 2) re-commision the existing half-built new incinerator building to 3) extend the Materials Recovery Facility and 4) commission truly renewable energy including green hydrogen for local energy generation and 5) to pursue local solutions such as home insulation and truly renewables such as the government is now encouraging through legislation and regulation on so-called waste, to become not waste but resource based Materials recovery and the project looking forward could pay for itself after minimal initial costs.
4 steps 1) Continue 2) Re-commission 3) Extend MRF 4) End EfW.
I realise this is a big ask and reversal of the current project plans; but these changes for net-zero are now essential and crucially have never seriously been considered by NLWA Heat&Power Project before.
In the light of impending lengthy litigation due to incompletion of the new build contract by Acconia (as has happened elsewhere, most recently in Australia, over large global infrastructure projects) I ask you again: In the light of this new opportunity presented by the now stalled building works and highly likely litigation with Acconia.
For this board to now challenge the NLWA management to begin immediately the alternative option outlined without a new oversized incinerator, but with a revitalised Enfield Ecopark and Ecoparks including and involving local residents across and within each of the 7 boroughs.
Response
Dear Mr Stow,
Thank you for deputation and continued interest in the work of the North London Waste Authority. There were a number of issues your raised in your verbal deputation which I would like to address, as well as those your sent in writing:
You claimed that NLWA does not publish the emissions data. This is incorrect. LondonEnergy Ltd makes all this information publicly available at: londonenergyltd.com/sustainability/reporting-our-emissions/
You accused NLWA's education programme as “greenwash”, which is not true. Our education programme has been designed by teachers, to link to the national curriculum and educate people about the importance of waste prevention, recycling and a circular economy. As well as running lessons in schools and at EcoPark House, we provide teaching resources on a number of important topics. You can find details of all of this on our website at nlwa.gov.uk/education-hub. My invitation for you to visit the EcoPark in person and find out more also stands.
Your deputation argues that NLWA should stop building the energy recovery facility, turn it into a sorting facility and retrofit the old energy from waste plant to keep it operational. None of this represents a good environmental, social or economic outcome for the council taxpayers of north London. NLWA is investing in keeping the current plant in operation until the replacement energy recovery facility is complete. However, this is the oldest facility in Europe. While LondonEnergy manages and maintains it excellently, the risk of failure increases year by year.
It was recently reported that Scotland does not have enough energy from waste capacity to deal with its refuse when the landfill ban comes into force at the end of this year. It is reported that they are urgently looking for contracts for hundreds of thousands of tonnes of waste to be transported elsewhere and disposed of at considerable cost. This, sadly, shows that ignoring capacity requirements does not make the waste go away. It increases cost and environmental impact to ship it miles away.
The current facility does meet all the emission requirements of its environmental permit, but the new plant will be far more efficient and include far better emission controls. The technology we’re installing will be the best of its kind and cannot be retrofitted onto the old plant.
The replacement energy recovery facility is half-built and has been designed for a specific purpose. If anything else were to be built on the site it would have to be demolished. Abandoning a half-built project now would be a huge waste of taxpayers’ money and irresponsible. For north London, not to have our own facility to dispose of north Londoners’ bin bag waste would dramatically increase the cost of waste disposal as it would have to be shipped to landfill, other facilities or even abroad.
NLWA has recently commissioned research into mixed waste sorting technology to understand what it could achieve in north London. The research shows that, with current technologies, mixed waste sorting would remove a small proportion of the residual waste, at a great cost to build and operate the facility, and would still leave more than 500,000 tonnes of waste per year to be disposed of. So even with mixed waste sorting, we would need the replacement energy recovery facility.
You also referred to green hydrogen power and home insulation. Our boroughs are taking great steps to insulate homes. But once again we come back to the point that the main purpose of the facility is to treat residual waste in the most responsible way. Home insultation does not contribute to achieving that aim.
