Chieveley incinerator, 3-0 to the nimbies Options

[Richard Garvie]

Yes yes, but so we can grasp the concept you have to tell us how it compares to the BT Tower in Newbury. (this is not to be confused with spending cuts, which are to be compared in terms of numbers of teachers or nurses).

Twice the height apparently!!! I think the site has been very cleverly chosen, on the basis that Fairhurst Estates have surround the site with trees in the past, and they will no doubt claim that only the stacks will be visible. I have a number of concerns, but they are deeper concerns than just the visual impact of the site.

[Darren]

So other than produce less waste, and that requires an approach from all angles, how do we resolve our waste disposal problem practically?

Land fill?
Incinerate?
ship it overseas?

[Richard Garvie]

Produce less waste. Re-use & recycle.

Something we agree on.

[gel]

There's an oppportunity for West Berks to have cheaper energy

Green fanatics/ Greedy non elected Eurocrats will ensure we will never have access to cheap
energy...even if it is cheap to produce.

[Cognosco]

Green fanatics/ Greedy non elected Eurocrats will ensure we will never have access to cheap
energy...even if it is cheap to produce.

Even if it costs nothing to produce governments would find some way to tax it or make people pay through the nose for it anyway!

[Darren]

Something we agree on.

Long term (5-10 years) yes. But what in the short term (<5 years)?

[Ron]

Long term (5-10 years) yes. But what in the short term (<5 years)?

See post 18. This is a process that is going to be used in Yorkshire on a 25 year contract. It has the potential to produce a minimum quantity of product for land fill, with the minimum of impact on the surrounding area on an existing brown field site. No inceneration, no tall stacks, no very tall buildings.

[Richard Garvie]

See post 18. This is a process that is going to be used in Yorkshire on a 25 year contract. It has the potential to produce a minimum quantity of product for land fill, with the minimum of impact on the surrounding area on an existing brown field site. No inceneration, no tall stacks, no very tall buildings.

I like the idea, is it a proven technology?

[Ron]

I like the idea, is it a proven technology?

The basic technology is and has been for some time. The main problem has been planning, because no one wants an integrated 'rubbish dump' ITBY, no matter what the technology is.

[Darren]

The basic technology is and has been for some time. The main problem has been planning, because no one wants an integrated 'rubbish dump' ITBY, no matter what the technology is.

And there lies the problem. A bit like buying a house in Lower Way and complaining about the sewage works.

"Everyone else's turds smell, except mine..."

[Strafin]

Not really a good analogy - the sewage works are already there.

[Cognosco]

The basic technology is and has been for some time. The main problem has been planning, because no one wants an integrated 'rubbish dump' ITBY, no matter what the technology is.

Any links you can post that explains the technology for us to get a better view on this please Ron?

[Ron]

Any links you can post that explains the technology for us to get a better view on this please Ron?

The basic technology is typical materials handling equipment. The only unusual pieces are the autoclaves. Most autoclaves used in such plants as producing light weight blocks are static machines. These rotate, and feeding them with high pressure steam through a rotating, reliable seal took some engineering, particularly as you have to open both ends, one for charging and one for discharging. All this carried out at a fairly high rate to achieve the plant outputs

[wetpawprints]

Think you will find that Grundon already use this technology http://www.grundon.com/how/hydroclave.htm

[NWNREADER]

The Yorkshire Plan

After the Amey experience with WBC I hope they are not the technology owners!!!

Cannot find any designs for the facility, or cost comparisons. I (cynically) suspect the simple incinerator is cheaper to build & operate......


Perhaps the chimneys could be disguised as trees - like mobile phone masts?

[NWNREADER]

The Yorkshire Site website

Info in the FAQs about what the building will look like.....

The Anti website

With cgi pics of the proposal - big chimney!!!

[Ron]

No, the Yorkshire site is not Allerton. The system used by Grundon is a very small, low capacity unit and is part of the incinerator system, their main disposal being by incineration. The one I refer to has NO incineration, all disposal being done by anaerobics or composting. The only burning is of the generated gas in boilers for steam and engines to generate electricity.

[NWNREADER]

I admit I simply looked in Yorkshire for something like you described. I'm no expert, let alone in waste disposal. I usually create it!
See if you can find the project so others can see the options available

[Bofem]

Well, whatever the merits and pitfalls of these incinerators, as everyone's made their mind up it's a really bad idea, we shall never know.

TBH, Grundon might as well have burnt £50,000 instead of preparing such a contentious planning application 4 months before local elections. I think we just need BNP and UKIP to condemn it, and we've got the full set.

Here's the link to the invite plastered all over Chieveley.

[NWNREADER]

Well, whatever the merits and pitfalls of these incinerators, as everyone's made their mind up it's a really bad idea, we shall never know.

TBH, Grundon might as well have burnt £50,000 instead of preparing such a contentious planning application 4 months before local elections. I think we just need BNP and UKIP to condemn it, and we've got the full set.

Here's the link to the invite plastered all over Chieveley.

Have they? Are they the people who will make the decision?
Grundon will not have spent £50k on a non-starter....... They will be going through all the feedback and planning their path/tactics.