Poolbeg Incineration the Fallacy of Need

by JimO'Donaugh - N/A Sun Jan 11, 2009 21:43

Interesting comments Marie.

How about the financial analysis.

Presumably this is still a PPPP (Private Finance Design Build and Operate) Project?
Let's assume that the tonnage is 800,000 tonnes per year.

I have heard it stated that the budgeted Capital Cost is €267million. (Is this correct, as it seems very low compared to elsewhere around the World?)
I have assumed that the minimum delivery period is 25 years as it stands.

There are some interesting calculations here...
1] Expenditure to fund and operate the plant.
Assume that thecompany borrows €267million at 6% interest in a 20 year payback option.
Then 1, these equate to Annual costs €21.0million.
2] Assume that the Operations and Maintenance Costs are 20% of the Capital cost per year.
Then 2, these equate to Annual costs €53.4million.
3] Waste Disposal Costs for the residual Toxic Burnt Ashes and the Captured Flue Dusts.
This we suggest would be a minimum of 15% of the tonnage destined to the plant for treatment.
Toxic Waste has a disposal cost of €200-00 per tonne.
Cost becomes 15% of 800,000 tonnes x €200-00:
Then 3, these equate to Annual costs €24.0 million.

Against this there are some income streams.
4] Gate fees.
Assume as Fiasco stated that this was €83.3'
Then 4, these equate to Annual Income of €66.67million.
5] Electrical Energy...
We know from the best and most ideal Incineration Plant in the World that the maximum Eletrical Energy expected is 6.5 MWh per 100,000 tonnes of waste.
We do not have any deals stated so lets assume that DCC Subsidises the rate to €00--125 per KWh.
Income becomes 800,000 at 7MW/100,00 x €125/MWh x 365.25 [days] x 24 [hrs]
Then 4, these equate to Annual Income of €56.98 million
But Outgoing Electrical Energy costs are 20% of this at €00-045 (€4.10 Million)

From this crudest of assessment it can be seen that the public will be paying around €2,500 to 3,000 million minimum over 25 years for the programme which means €800-00 + per man woman and child per year in Ireland. Or to put it another way each Tax Payer inIreland will be paying the bill of €3000--00 per year for Incineration just for Dublin Alone.

So you are right in the assessment We cannot afford this. Importantly though with the programme weighted this way the only beneficiaries are the Contractor and the Consulting Engineering Advisors MCO'S.

This must be stopped on financial grounds alone as it is the equivalent of the 'proverbial mill-stone around our necks' and a financial burden fo us all.

by SeamusO'Rourke Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:28

So Marie: Look at the internet and view the news about the financial deal between Covanta and Dong Energy.
Now we read in the Internet that Covanta and Dong Energy have agreed that this is now valued at a minimum capital cost of €324 million! That represents an increase before any work has commenced of €57 million excluding consultants P Ruddens at RPS, McO'Sullivan, KirkMcClureMorton.
Doesn't this reinforce what has already been stated before, that the eventual Capital Cost will increase to nearer €500 million before the project starts.

by Joe Connolly Thu Jan 22, 2009 18:46

Isn't there supposed to be a court challenge to the Poolbeg decision?

I can't seem to find any information about it.

by Seamus O'Rourke - N/A Fri Mar 13, 2009 20:49

An interesting thought. There is its called a Vote of Confidence in the Government. But the TDs who are against the Poolbeg project won't declare their muscle to bring down the Government on this item. The only available challenge then left is the Approval of the Budget wherein the full cost implications of projects have by law to be declared and upon that being stated the Budget can be voted down and the Government has to follow suit with a Vote of Confidence, and that Vote of Confidence can attract a codicil which embargoes certain expenditures.
As you will know from the various scripts written by the various authors in these Indymedia discussions the references to the Dublin Waste Incineration project has been manhandled in a way that has obfuscated the publication of the real costs here. By exploring the web site through Google Search Engine you will find that Covanta and Dong Energy have ''apparently'' managed to find funders for this project which shows that it is already costed at over €300million. With new Laws already agreed in the EU and on their way to us in Ireland to force incineration plants to adhere to even higher Environmental Standards to protect Human Health this will increase costs. It has already been stated that this initial cost will already be upstaged/exceeded in 2017 by at least a further €80million. Then with the impending Carbon Tax on Incineration plants set there will be a further cost. And all of this will be borne by the Tax Payers - you and me.
Let's face it and wake up to it everyone. There is no such thing as Government Money, it is tax-payers' money, and for most of us it is hard earned.
Look everyone we are in a recession here and we are all having to tighten our belts over finances and there are means to tighten it here with an alternative. It has been described elsewhere.

by Carol Horner - None Fri Jul 24, 2009 17:28

May I refer you to an article in the Euractiv files published today under my title...I have been given access to forward this through a colleagues computer.

As below.....but please read my second response as it refers to Incineration and Dublin.
Is it a lost cause? JUst read and see.

Carbon capture and storage: The realities
Posted by Carol Horner on July 6th, 2009
Organization: None
In reaction to the EurActiv article:

EU mulls �7 billion subsidy for carbon capture
Sir,

Regarding ‘EU mulls €7bn subsidy for carbon capture‘:

Is heralding the move towards large scale programmes in particular those for CCS (carbon capture and storage) and the very large organisations who are proffering these the right approach?

One of the major hypotheses promoted for CCS is the transference of oxidised carbon (namely - carbon dioxide) into the ground near to existing oil wells and gas reserves (both of which are fossil fuels) so as to extract the last vestiges of these commodities from rapidly-depleting reserves, thus extending their operational life. We disagree with this notion outright.

This use of CCS is a façade and an absolute nonsense.

It is a mechanism that would use the CCS as a ‘trojan horse’ with the sole aim of making even more money for the oil companies, rather than dealing with the fundamental issues of climate change and the role of greenhouse gases.

The European Union has fallen into the happy and welcoming arms of the mega companies to support this.

We think that the time has come for the mentors within the EU and the guardians of the EU purse-strings to think again about this, since there are many other ways to solve this issue, including using existing and real alternatives to fossil fuels in the manufacture of renewable liquid fuels from non-food biomass and macro-algae farming that could absorb much of the world’s anthropogenic greenhouse gases emitted from coal-fired and oil-fired and gas-fired power stations and incineration plants with an economic and local source solution.

Think it again, EU. You are barking up the wrong tree and falling into the hands of the oil companies and the power companies by subsidising them yet again. Look what has happened before! These so-called green grants have been passed straight back in to the hands of the company shareholders and the costs incurred for carrying out such work have been passed on to consumers.

Is it any wonder why there is so much scepticism about global warming and the role of green-house gases when the benefits are only going to these mega-rich companies?

Carol Horner

Climate Change, English, Uncategorized
Comments [RSS 2.0]

4 Responses to Carbon capture and storage: The realities »»
fabrizio fabbri
Comment by fabrizio fabbri | 2009/07/10 at 12:35:02
I do very share your view. I’ve been sitting in the council during the negotiation of CCS directive and I can tell with certainity that in fact it is a gift to oil and gas companies. As you may know, the directive doesn’t allow CCS for enhanced oil (or gas ) recovery, but nonetheless this is still a gift to the above mentioned subject because the almost depleted wells in northern sea will soon became the cemetery of CO2 from all around Europe (Commission impact assessement foresees the construction of over 11,000 km of CO2 duct) as depleted oil and gas reservoirs have been identified as most suitable place for CO2 burying. The supporter of CCS are falsely claiming that it will be a transition solution toward a fossil fuel free world. that would be very hard to see as CCS will not help coping with chinese growing of coal fired power station but instead will allow EU to make more use of that fossil fuel. This is attractive because of the still large reserve of coal (rouglhy 200 yrs) and its cheap price. But even more importantly this will allow to use the power grid like it is now while investing on renewables means to change distribution system as this one cannot support a massive energy produced by reneables. I’ve been confeorted in hearing a clear condemnation of CCS from the President of Club of Rome who has rightly pointed out hwo more beneficial would be to spend such hige amount of money to assist young women in Asia to reduce the birth rate.

steve
Comment by steve | 2009/07/17 at 10:11:17
I share your views partly.

Ccs is advanced technology, and could be put to good use in Asia also.

However, the renewables require several techniques, which are usually complex to implement there.

William Sackinger
Comment by William Sackinger | 2009/07/23 at 18:06:07
The idea of getting more oil out of an oil reservoir, considering the societal investment in the oilfield development equipment, is a sound idea. The use of an oil company to undertake the extraction of the final amount of oil, using a CO2 injection approach for tertiary recovery, is also of benefit to society. The issue raised is whether the profit from this incremental oil will be as great as the profit obtained in the development of conventional oil, and whether the shareholders of the oil companies should receive the lion’s share of that profit, or should the profit to them be limited, and should some of the profit be passed along to the general public through some alternative strategy. There are at least two such strategies, one being that the price of the CO2 when it is made available at the injection wellhead, can be set in such a way as to limit the profit on the incremental oil recovered by the CO2 injection process; another way is simply through a taxation of the incremental oil recovered through the use of the CO2 injection process. One would hope that the profit flowing to the general public, however it is done, would be passed through towards funding and attacking the problem of greenhouse gas reduction in global terms, and would focus on CO2 from all types of fossil-fueled fixed installations, be they fired by coal, gas, oil, or even biomass.

William Sackinger

Carol Horner
Comment by Carol Horner | 2009/07/24 at 14:59:53
Sir: It appears that I am not alone with this contentious issue as Fabrizio Fabbri and others have also realised.

Our Dear Leaders in the EU and indeed elsewhere should stop this charade in its tracks now! This is a true obfuscation of the intention of the UNFCCC and a total misuse of EU Funds which you should be aware IS NOT EU FUNDS BUT OURS THE PUBLIC’s and THE TAX PAYERs’ and hard earned money. It is not intended to line the pockets of the Mega-Rich Oil Corporations or the Power Generation Companies. The intention here is to Off-set the emission of Green House Gases (GHGs)at source and not continue to produce them. Pumping them into the ground under the auspices of CCS has become fashionable and seems to be the result of good intention - a bright idea - but the Public suspects that the proposers are paid by these Mega-Rich companies!

Now we have the same with the use of Clean Coal and so-called ‘Natural Gas’! What is going on here? These are Fossil Fuels, and they produce GHGs when burnt to make electricity. The whole ethos of this issue [which is now a full-blown debate here] is to reduce the dependency of the World from using Fossil Fuels. It is the Mega Rich Power and Oil Companies who are being encouraged to develop these so-called ‘New’ sources of Fuel who are the very benefactors in the Support Funding mentioned here. Talk about being self-propagating. You are giving away Our Money to these Companies only for this to bottom-lined as Profits. Only a small proportion of this EU [or other] money will benefit Us or assist the Targets and Aims of the UNFCCC. Come on EU what is going on here? You are spending Our Money [the Tax Payer's Money] here not the EU’s and it is going to the wrong cause. No Sirs: Snrs Barrosa and Dimas and Others in the EU you must think this through again. Why? Well there are precedents around that herald what happens, and you should take note and be reminded of them in this continuing debate.

A few years ago it became fashionable to talk about Renewable Energy and Fuels on the back of reducing the emission of GHGs. Targets for these have been promoted and in time these have been upgraded. Seeing a need there has been a mad rush to exploit the issue. Wind Turbines are but one of these: yes it is perfectly understandable, but the benefits are dubious. Whilst there are ‘Green Tariffs’ for producing Electricity from such a source these benefits are not the only source of financing of such Wind Energy Electrical Power Plants as the various Business Plans for same show! A large proportion of these Programmes rely on up-front EU financial support be it as a Direct Grant to Build - sometimes more than 50% of the Business Plan Capex and/or by EIB/EBRD Banks and EU Member’s State Bank Preferential Low Interest and Soft Loans and in deferred Capital Gains riding on the back of Environmental developments by and off-setting Taxation etc! Such benefits are now so good that Companies can actually build these plants and make a profit from doing so without even making Electricity. Producing Electricity from a Wind Energy Power Plant is a bonus! If it was not so lucrative a business then the question has to be asked ‘why is there such a good trade in buying and selling these installations?’ There is more to this than meets the plain-speaker here!

I suggest though that this issue is even bigger than this. Consider the issues where a Project or Programme meets a need for two areas of Environmental need. In this I would like to address the issues of the Waste Directive and Renewable Energy Electricity. It is well-known that, irrespective of the efficacy of the basic Environmental credibility of the Incineration debate, that the proponents of the system milk the Institutions of Government for finances in the face of reality. The current examples and the often cited and and published debates about the issues in the European Union through Bulgaria France Ireland UK for example and into the supported programmes in places such like Mauritius are good examples to refer to and are but the tip of the ice berg in terms of how the Mega Rich Companies are benefiting at [Yes you've got it again] the PUBLIC’s and TAX PAYERs’ EXPENSE.

Consider the various programmes where. through reason of EU Member States’ indifference, and slow approach to the issue of diverting the Biodegradable matter in Municipal Solid Waste away from Land Fill [to limit the emission of GHGs arising therefrom] they now have to deal with the consequences of potential punitive EU fines for not meeting their GHGs emissions and Land Fill Targets. This lax approach by Member States has now reached the stage where many have been alerted to the facts that they should Urgent Action to avoid such penalties. Along come the plethora of consultants and experts proffering the most expensive and least favourable environmental solution which sits at the wrong end of the Waste Hierarchy. Such solutions are expensive and without heavy financial support and subsidy would not even be considered. The question of Environmental Credence is also an issue here as in putting these schemes forward the experts know that the Public will fight ‘tooth and nail’ against them.

In order to get these programmes accepted only the largest companies are able to propose a solution. These projects are large, and with a capital costs of €uro hundreds of millions cannot be afforded or purchased directly by Municipalities [or Governments in some instances.] They then look for imaginative financial management solutions like the Finance Design Build and Operate programmes PFI (Private Finance Initiative in Britain) and PPP (Public-Private Partnership in Ireland etc.) and the many other variants. Essential to all these contracts is the need to Sell a Service making Revenue stream: and so here is a convenient Green Tariff for producing Energy [Electricity or Heat.] Even within this there is a controversial twist for regardless of the Electricity made if there is a need to support and sustain the plant with bought in Electrical Energy the Service Provider is allowed to buy this in at a Subsidised Rate rather than use the energy made on the site! This though is not enough and other subsidies/incentives are needed like increasing Treatment/Gate Fees by as much as 50% [in the UK/Ireland/France etc] This is a major area of contention for Us the Public and Tax Payer from projects as widely apart as Dublin to Mauritius and Malaysia.

But this is still not enough, so along comes the EU and its Member States with further Financial Manipulations. We see the UK PFI Credit one of these offering up to 40% ”low interest” long term grants to the Companies, but there are others!. Amongst these are the use of EU Banks [EIB/EBRD] and Member States’ Banks [most of which are Partly Owned by Governments] who offer extremely Low Interest Loans and Bonds to soften the effects on the Local Public - but all this does is pass on this debt to the Public and Tax Payer. We need to go no further than watch the programmes placed throughout Europe to take a snap-shot of such projects and how the Public and Tax Payer is being hood-winked by a combination of vested interested parties in the Large Companies that have secured or are securing projects in the UK [as Belvedere or Manchester and South Staffordshire Bedfordshire or York] paralleled in Ireland [Dublin] and beyond to Mauritius and Kuala Lumpur.

These programmes are so large financially that without these Heavy Subsidies they would not be bought: they are totally unaffordable as well as being environmentally suspect.

So why do these organisations get away with it? They do so and continue to proffer these despite the Public and Tax Payers objections and despite the fact that there are other newer and better methods around that can be built at a Quarter of the Capex and Opex costs for the same quantity of Waste. The main issue seems to be as stated earlier is it is Big Business here in these projects and just as before the driving force is not to meet the aims of the UNFCCC and those Targets as accepted by the EU and other Countries but to manipulate this for Company Gain.

Sirs I may have taken up too much time with this rhetoric but I wish to make the point here that as the EU We are as the Largest Financial Institution in Europe being manipulated on all fronts by Big Business under the cover of the UNFCC and Climate Change. Our credence as an organisation is now being called in to question and it is no wonder that at the Elections over the past two cycles we have seen such disaffection by Us the Public and the Tax Payer and your Bank Roller. In these times of Financial Prudence we must look at this system again and make adjustments to bring into the fray the exciting developments that have been lauded across the World for addressing the needs here, and the fact that they are being generated from Small often Start-Up Companies. We are still thinking inside the barrel here and not outside. As steering members of the Administration the Executive of the EU You Sirs, and the Directorates General must get to grasp with this issue before we are steam-rollered yet again to incur costs that are entirely unnecessary.

by Dublin Voter Fri Jan 22, 2010 02:57

Unpublished/Under Review by Irish Times. Jan 16, 2010.

* Letters to the Editor
+353 1 675 8000,lettersed@irishtimes.com

Dear Sir/Madam,

"Massaging of reports by Matt Twomey, which were later, in their edited versions, released publicly, is a strong indicator to me of unacceptable influence in a process supposedly carried out in the public interest," - Judge McKechnie. [Section 173, Judgement Part 3, Page 13 of PDF file unapproved judgement p3.pdf ].

Mr PJ RUDDEN, Director, RPS Group (as opposed to Dublin City Council), stated in a letter to the January 12, 2010, Irish Times:

"There is no credible evidence that modern incinerators impose any risk to health."

Has this bare opinion by Mr Rudden been peer-reviewed? The phrase is curiously similar to the repeated phrase by the eight CEO's of the Tobacco Industry before the US House of Congress/Senate, before they were fined literally hundreds of Billions of dollars. Replacing the wording 'modern incinerators' with 'filtered tobacco' confirms the intersecting universes. Incineration exposes Ireland's taxpayers at a rate of $8 million per premature death now that the signature of each micro-particle is traceable to its site-specific source. That could be $2,400,000,000 per year for Dublin.

Is it Mr Rudden's opinion and the opinion of RPS and of Dublin Council that the British Society For Ecological Medicine, Prof Vyvyan Howard, Dr Stefano Montanari and others are not credible?

Have any of Mr Rudden's other opinions published in your newspaper on 12/10/2010 been peer-reviewed by a credible source?

Mr Rudden's usage of the phrase "modern incinerators" implies effective management of the facility, otherwise there will be dangerous pollution causing premature deaths across Dublin.

* The neighbouring DCC managed sewage facility is still producing hostile chemicals, a sign that DCC facility management can not be trusted.
* Water leakage rates in Germany are 3%; in Ireland the reported rates are something like 47% (Cork City).
* The EPA stood by while Cork Harbour was polluted with Chromium-6.
* The Rutgers Law Centre reports the proposed USA-operator chosen by DCC has been fined for dioxins releases at all of its incinerators in its home state, New Jersey. Its "old" incinerators trading as Ogden have been fined literally thousands of times.

Why should any Dublin resident trust Dublin Council with their health and the management of a dangerous facility - especially with DCC's observably kaotic facility management record and their judged massaging of the whole truth?

A fully truthfull answer, without omissions or spin is appropriate, especially following Judge McKechnie's unapproved judgement concerning the 'massaging' of RPS reports by Dublin Council's team concerning the Poolbeg waste-to-toxins/incinerator.

Regards,

Etc.

'Objector' at An Bord Pleanála and EPA Oral Hearings, 2007, 2008.
Member, Sandymount & Merrion Residents Association.

http://groups.google.com/group/sandymount/web/dublin-co...eview

__________________
Content is not free for reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast on the internet and elsewhere by Dublin City Councilor, including DCC agents or partners, including RPS, Covanta and DONG.

by maire Sun Jan 24, 2010 16:55

"If Incineration was so beneficial then it should exist without subsidies. If Incineration is so beneficial on Public Health Grounds then the Proposers should lodge now monies for future legal prosecution for unlimited damages as a result of potential latent medical effects twenty thirty and fourty years down stream. There are already cases being viewed in the USA Canada and the EU for such damages and they will be punitive."

The alarming letter from An Bord Pleanala to Indaver recently released to the public, which a spokesman for Indaver interpretes as considering granting planning for both the transfer station and the 100,000 tonne hazardous waste incinerator subject to receipt of additional information within three months, certainly leaves the public feeling very short changed. What was the point of rushing to meet An Bord Pleanala terms under the SIB when the Bord itself is making such overtures to a private developer to ignore their inadequate EIS to put forward plans to build on a sea flooding site where one side borders an eroding coastline, and the site is shared with a facility that last month had an explosion and fire.
Nowhere in Europe is a TOXIC incinerator placed beside a school.

There must be a public enquiry sooner rather then later into who will fund damages from potential hazards particularly to health, to the public and a requirement for a large fund by Indaver to be lodged for future claims if they insist on building on a sea flooding site, an eroding coast line and do what no one in Europe has done so far, build a toxic incinerator next to a school. Will the Bord take on this responsibility, because Indaver will have long gone in twenty or thirty years time.

by Smog Sun Jan 24, 2010 23:38

The capitalist system uses poor third world countriies to dump its toxic waste. Since we are heading that way, I guess someone somewhere thinks it will be easy to foist this kind of thing on us since we will soon get "desperate for jobs" and will sell out our own environment. Mark my words, this is not just for us. other people's waste will soon start appearing to make up the shortfall. All part of the plan folks. All part of the plan. Welcome to dumping ground Ireland. Of course the taxpayer will be liable for any respiratory problem class actions down the road as the private company will almost certainly be indemnified. Plus ca change. Wake up and smell the coffee folks. While you still can smell anything other than improperly burned toxic waste

by Maire Thu Feb 04, 2010 00:54

The recent ERSI report commissioned by Dublin City Council might have more weight if Dublin City Council had no vested interest in Covanta/Dong The contract with Covanta/Dong contains a Put and Pay clause which will cost them millions, in the future, if waste is not available for this company. who have a contract for an over capacity incinerator.
.
The basis of our waste management hierarchy places landfill and incineration at the bottom.
It would be remiss of Minister Gormley, not to cap that which can go to incineration, in view of his obligations to this hierarchy.

There are inherent dangers to the taxpayer and State in terms of the potential exposure, if the high level of waste envisaged by them cannot be filled and by allowing Covanta /Dong direct waste management through DCC. who have this vested interested, . DCC were asked on numerous occasions to change the contract and refused to so so, they decided to proceed against what the minister said. .

Future sustainable planning is essential, and debate in the dail or elsewhere should be welcomed.

by Seán Mon Feb 08, 2010 15:52

It doesn't apply to the supply of the full licensed capacity of 600,000 tonnes.

There's more than enough waste being generated to prevent the situation where there would be a shortfall.

MBT is not a panacea. It's a worthwhile part of an integrated policy but it still leaves residual waste that need to be treated by either disposal or incineration.

Take your pick of those two. There is no magic wand that will make it disappear.

by Maire Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:26

Sean, you are missing the point, Minister Gormley's intention is to follow the guideline of the hierarchy of waste which is to leave landfill and incineration at the bottom of this hierarchy and future plan to achieve recycling rates, with no obligation to import waste to offset costs because of the Put and Pay policy. Best Availabile Technology is required and that does change - think of phones.

The backing of Minister Gormley's waste policy by the government described in the Irish Times of the 12th of Feb. copperfastens national waste management.

EU Environment Minister Stavros Dimas,(speaking about Ireland's waste management"(Ref. K. Sinnott) Oct. 2008, is very different from the spin of DCC and Covanta and Dong.

"European legislation, including the recently revised waste framework directive, does not prescribe any quotas for waste incineration, nor does it oblige member states to build waste incinerators if they do not wish to so".

Member states are obliged to meet the requirements of proper waste management enshrined in EU legislation. They can meet these requirements without constructing incinerators.

In particular, directive 2006/12/EC requires member states to take the necessary measures to ensure waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment.

The conclusion that EU waste legislation obliges, or will oblige, member states to build incinerators is, however, incorrect and appears to be a misinterpretation of the obligations properly to manage Irish waste."