Incinerator for Warrington

[Horace]

I've not seen anything on here about the plan to have an incinerator in Warrington, which surprises me. We have had a huge public inquiry in Frodsham about a similar plan nearby. There was huge opposition, from local councils, the county council and from residents.

The supporters of incineration put forward a persuasive argument so I hope you don't fall for it

[McBain]

I've not seen anything on here about the plan to have an incinerator in Warrington, which surprises me. We have had a huge public inquiry in Frodsham about a similar plan nearby. There was huge opposition, from local councils, the county council and from residents. The supporters of incineration put forward a persuasive argument so I hope you don't fall for it

 

Not sure I follow you there Horace - if the developer puts forward a persuasive argument, why should we immediately discount it if I remember, the local organisation you are on about was "CHAIN" (Cheshire Against Incineration) - led by a bloke who used to work for an incineration company (hypocrisy?). I think it was the "Ince Marshes" scheme wasn't it? Or was that the one over in Ellesmere Port? There are so many.

 

Still, what is inherently wrong with incineration as an alternative to landfill

 

Is it the tenuous links between atmospheric emissions and carcinogenic effects on the local population? I must confess that I was not at all surprised by the finding that more people "up North" get cancer than those down south, but I am more ready to believe that this is due to inequalities in health care than any malign environmental factors that are unique to the North of England.

[observer]

Coincidentally, I was suggesting the same approach on another topic McB! Landfill, can be usefull for landform, and could be applied to securing levies to protect against fllooding. However, landfill produces gases which unless tapped for incineration (and energy production), merely leaks into the atmosphere. Local incinerators allows for waste to be burned and provides energy for local use - so basically a more efficient disposal mechanism.

[Horace]

I think the group you are talking about is RAIN - Residents Against Incineration. But the Ince Marshes incinerator is also opposed by Cheshire County Council, Vale Royal Council and various other bodies.

I know experts can always be found to differ and, in those circumstances, I prefer to adopt a policy of "If in doubt, don't"

Apparently in Lancashire no incinerators are planned and they plan to use a system known as accelerated anoerobic digestion (hope I have spelled it correctly!).

No-one has satisfactorily explained why this method could not be used, as far as I know. What's good for Lancs should be OK for Cheshire too.

 

I think Observer has a good point too. Landfill could be used to build up the land in areas subject to flooding - and the methane could be used for energy.

So I am afraid I am not persuaded!

[Geoffrey Settle]

Last time I visited the Gatewarth Landfill there was an incinerator in action and doing a good job. Plus there was plenty of evidence of the chimneys in action on the extensive landfill site burning off the gases. The tip has been managed well providing a good habitat for the wildlife.

[observer]

Rats and Seagulls!

[asperity]

So thats where Warringtons wildlife hang out on the days when they're not fighting and throwing up in Bridge street, or troughing in MacDonalds

[observer]

Ho you grumpy old cynic you!!!!!

[Gary]

The big debate will start when the council try and decide where to locate it - then the NIMBYS will be out in force.

[Peter T]

Rats and Seagulls!

and Scousers.

[Egbert]

In fact, the evidence is that most of the trouble-makers in Warrington town centre are from the Warrington area.

Not that this has anything to do with incinerators!

[Geoffrey Settle]

Rats and Seagulls!

and Scousers.

 

Obs shows how much you know or care about the wildlife of the Moore Nature reserve and its surrounding area. A great deal has been done to create a wonderful reserve.

 

As for Pete T's comment, a typical insult that we'd expect from his type.

[observer]

So are you saying Geoff, that there are no rats or seagulls?!

[McBain]

I know experts can always be found to differ and, in those circumstances, I prefer to adopt a policy of "If in doubt, don't"

 

What a pioneering outlook! Good job there are those who say "let's give this a whirl and see if it works" or we'd still be sitting in caves wondering if it might be an idea to try and grow something to eat instead of running around trying to hit it with clubs until it was dead

 

I think Observer has a good point too. Landfill could be used to build up the land in areas subject to flooding - and the methane could be used for energy.

 

I take issue with Obs point about landraising using landfill material - it would result in seriously unstable landforms which - if they did flood - have the potential to result in an almost catastrophic influx of fluid-borne waste materials into the water table, rivers, sewer systems etc. In essence, you'd be condoning the "washing" of huge piles of rubbish by flood water. Not only that, you cannot build on landfill so the land would be sterile from a development perspective. You might as well leave it alone, unpolluted and in a flood zone rather than balls it up in such a manner.

[observer]

As I,m sure your aware McB; the correct method of landfill, is to encase the "waste" in a clay seal, otherwise your point would apply to all existing landfill sites leaking toxins into the water table - and maybe some older sites do?! There are various types of waste in any case, building rubble, escavated earth etc that could be used for barrier defences along the rivers and the coast to protect low lying areas, and of course, they are not intended to be "built on", as niether is the flood plain, but that hasn't stopped Governments or Developers in the past. I don't advocate this as a primary disposal method, merely an added option for suitable types of waste; I'm happy to go with incineration or the new bio-breakdown systems, where a bi-product can be energy production. However, I find the current approach quite ludicrous, in that, we allow huge amounts of excess packaging to continue to be produced, then try to penalise consumers for it's disposal, much better to not create such waste in the first place.

[AlisonF]

There's many problems with incinerators, firstly they pollute the atmosphere and I can't blame anybody not wanting to live near one. Secondly, in areas of the UK where they have been built, there have been problems with getting enough waste into them to make them cost effective. This has led to recycling rates falling as waste is diverted to feed the incinerator - will look out some links later but, believe me this is the case.

 

I've also just googled Warrington incinerator and the only significant hit I get is for a medical incinerator which is totally different to the one discussed at Ince Marshes etc. Do you have any more details?

[Bill]

Alison

 

The medical waste incinerator was voted a none starter by the whole of the council following a huge public outcry about the proposed location in a residential area.

 

That was a couple of years back now and despite the fact that many said the company would bankrupt WBC if they continued to oppose their planning application it all seams to have just died a death.

 

Bill

[Horace]

I note no-one has commented on the accelerated anoerobic digestion system which I suggested some time back.

 

As for McBain's sarcastic comments, it is all very well having a pioneering spirit when it is clear no harm can come from it. But with incineration, I believe the clarity is not there.

[Bazj]

but what about the accelerated anoerobic digestion system which Horace suggested some time back?

[P J]

but what about the accelerated anoerobic digestion system which Horace suggested some time back?

 

I think they have one of those on The Archers. What are they?

[Dizzy]

It's actually spelt Anaerobic

 

'Anaerobic digestion' where micro-organisms are used to break down biodegradable material in the absence of oxygen.

 

It's used to treat wastewater sludges and organic wastes etc because reduces the volume and mass of what was originally input.

 

As part of an integrated waste management system it can reduces the emission of landfill gas into the atmosphere.

 

The process produces a methane and carbon dioxide rich biogas suitable for energy production helping replace fossil fuels.

 

And the solids left aftter 'digestion' are nutrient-rich solids and can be used as fertiliser.

 

The word accelerated just means they are adding a little something to speed up the natual process

 

Suped up micro-organisms and bacteria .. Mmmmm

 

Anyway throwing that worry aside it actually sounds quite good

[P J]

thank you Dismayed

[Peter T]

Nothing new. It's been used for years.

[Horace]

I never suggested this was a new system (however it is spelled!)

What I pointed out that, apparently, in Lancashire it has been decided to rely on it in preference to incineration.

If it can be done in Lancashire, why not here?

[Peter T]

Horace,

Common sense is not a job requirement. In fact you could be in trouble for using common sense, as officialdom don't know what it is..