Waste not want not - States Assembly

More documents

Recommendations

Info

7.28 The Government needs to ensure that there is an economic environment that provides adequate incentives for the development and take-up of these new technologies both to provide more alternatives to landfill for managing residual waste, and to offer England a wider variety of waste management options for the future. 7.29 However, there are a number of potential barriers to the take-up and development of new technologies: ● higher costs relative to landfill; What could it achieve? 7.33 New technology opens up potentially cheaper and/or cleaner ways of managing waste. Recommendation 21: DEFRA and DTI should take forward a programme of advice on and development of new technologies including pilots for more innovative waste management practices in partnership with industry and local authorities. ● ● local authority purchasing rules; and risk aversion. 7.30 Some of these barriers can be addressed through other recommendations in this report (e.g. a rise in landfill tax). The Government has a role in ensuring that there are no major barriers to development so that local authorities can have maximum freedom to develop the most appropriate waste management systems for their area. A Mechanical Biological Treatment (MBT) plant in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada – photo courtesy of Edmonton City Council, Alberta, Canada 7.31 New technology development can be addressed in a number of ways to tackle the barriers set out above. These include: ● ● ● financial support to reduce risks; pilot or demonstration projects; and co-ordinating or disseminating expertise and advice. 7.32 The availability of EU funds to support new technology should be investigated. Other member states have funded small-scale capital investment in this way. Given the long lead times in planning and acquiring new capital, this should be taken forward immediately by DEFRA and DTI. STRATEGIC INVESTMENT MEASURES 97
WASTE NOT, WANT NOT Figure 18: Summary Review of Available and Developing Technologies for Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Management Waste Description & Economics Design to Biodegradable Municipal Environmental Management development commissioning Waste (BMW) diversion role and health issues Technology status timescales and environmental benefits Landfill containment and stabilisation – employs proven technology UK landfill tax low. Siteengineering & conditioning plan requirements raising costs substantial consented UK void space, problems in some areas no direct role – indirect from methane combustion. Future need will increasingly focus on MSW reprocessing residues concerns: health effects & vehicle movements. Sub-optimal resource recovery option BIOLOGICAL Composting aerobic degradation of organic material – commercially developed low-medium cost. Windrow technology exhibits clear economies. In-vessel technology is more modular plants designed today should be on-stream by 2006-10 potentially significant role – returns biomass and nutrients to soil, reduces soil erosion, acts as a carbon sink and displaces natural peat & manufactured soil conditioners concerns: Animal By- Products crosscontamination issues, odours and vehicle movements Anaerobic Digestion biological process in the absence of oxygen. Whilst, trialed, not yet commercially proven in the UK on MSW low-medium cost. Plant is somewhat modular requiring step-change for capacity increase with right incentives, could be on-stream by 2006-10, subject to securing planning potentially significant role – returns nutrients to soil, displacing manufactured fertilizers, acts as a carbon sink and produces a renewable energy concerns: likely to mirror those for composting. Renewable bio-gas offers CO 2 neutral combustion Ethanol production waste fermentation followed by distillation. Commercially proven in non-MSW applications medium-high cost. First commercial MSW plant under construction – may become a test-bed not as yet known where MSW is concerned – probably similar to process engineering facilities potentially significant role – ethanol is a renewable energy source which can be used in existing hydrocarbon infrastructure, resulting in CO 2 neutral combustion public concerns likely to mirror those for any process engineering facility, or as per composting 98
Page 1 and 2:
Waste not, Want not A strategy for
Page 3 and 4:
WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 2
Page 5 and 6:
The report shows clearly that a dif
Page 7 and 8:
Key points (continued) The aim of p
Page 9 and 10:
WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 8 There are sev
Page 11 and 12:
WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 10 The second p
Page 13 and 14:
WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 12 that cause e
Page 15 and 16:
● 50% of households carrying out
Page 17 and 18:
Box 1: Tackling waste in the devolv
Page 19 and 20:
● Chapter 3 describes why tacklin
Page 21 and 22:
Box 2: Types of waste: (continued)
Page 23 and 24:
authority makes arrangements to rec
Page 25 and 26:
Box 3: Instruments used in other co
Page 27 and 28:
There are sound economic and enviro
Page 29 and 30:
Current policies are failing to tac
Page 31 and 32:
● setting up the Waste and Resour
Page 33 and 34:
4. BARRIERS TO MORE SUSTAINABLE WAS
Page 35 and 36:
4.7 As well as DTI and DEFRA, the E
Page 37 and 38:
that only 7% of the public identify
Page 39 and 40:
Box 6: Common waste ‘myths’…
Page 41 and 42:
● time series data on the costs o
Page 43 and 44:
Summary (continued) ● funding for
Page 45 and 46:
Figure 7: A more detailed version o
Page 47 and 48: Box 8: Roles and Responsibilities (
Page 49 and 50: Having set out the principles and t
Page 51 and 52: ● ● ● options open and reduce
Page 53 and 54: ● ● ● ● reducing the rate o
Page 55 and 56: Box 11: Scenario 1 - Do nothing - h
Page 57 and 58: Box 13: Scenario 3 - Doing even bet
Page 59 and 60: Reform of the economic and regulato
Page 61 and 62: Box 15: An example of incentives to
Page 63 and 64: Box 17: Measures to tackle fly-tipp
Page 65 and 66: Box 18: The UK Producer Responsibil
Page 67 and 68: Option (a): developing markets for
Page 69 and 70: Building regulations 6.26 One of th
Page 71 and 72: minimisation targets for office was
Page 73 and 74: Recommendation 9: DEFRA together wi
Page 75 and 76: Figure 12: Landfill tax rates and p
Page 77 and 78: 6.53 Lessons from the introduction
Page 79 and 80: management strategy in reducing was
Page 81 and 82: Box 26: Department of Health eviden
Page 83 and 84: 7. CHAPTER STRATEGIC HEADINGS INVES
Page 85 and 86: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT Figure 14: Four
Page 87 and 88: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT Figure 14: Four
Page 89 and 90: What could a reduction in waste gro
Page 91 and 92: Box 27: current collection infrastr
Page 93 and 94: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT Figure 17: Two
Page 95 and 96: Industry: what’s needed? 7.19 Sin
Page 97: Priority 4: improving the research
Page 101 and 102: 8. Funding and Delivery Summary Spe
Page 103 and 104: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 102 Pressures f
Page 105 and 106: scheme to tackle priority areas for
Page 107 and 108: Figure 19: A new framework for the
Page 109 and 110: will be required and then translate
Page 111 and 112: Recommendation 31: DEFRA and ODPM s
Page 113 and 114: Recommendation 34: ODPM and DEFRA s
Page 115 and 116: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 114 2. Strategi
Page 117 and 118: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT Summary of key
Page 119 and 120: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT Recommendation
Page 141 and 142: ANNEX A. THE ROLE OF THE STRATEGY U
Page 143 and 144: Lester Hicks - ODPM, senior officia
Page 145 and 146: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT The conclusions
Page 147 and 148: WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 146 3. Commerci
Page 149 and 150:
WASTE NOT, WANT NOT Annex C: Summar
Page 151 and 152:
WASTE NOT, WANT NOT Annex C: Summar
Page 153 and 154:
WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 152 Community s
Page 155 and 156:
WASTE NOT, WANT NOT 154 Licensed si
Page 157 and 158:
Waste Strategy 2000 - Government vi
show all

Waste not want not - States Assembly

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?