{"id":1530,"date":"2021-07-25T15:44:59","date_gmt":"2021-07-25T15:44:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ni4h.org\/?p=1530"},"modified":"2021-07-25T16:08:08","modified_gmt":"2021-07-25T16:08:08","slug":"deadline-extended-to-2nd-august","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ni4h.org\/index.php\/2021\/07\/25\/deadline-extended-to-2nd-august\/","title":{"rendered":"Deadline Extended to 2nd August"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Comment on the permit application for the proposed Horsham Incinerator now! <\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The consultation deadline has been extended to midnight on Monday 2nd August. Please share and tell others before it is too late. <\/h4>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

See the Guidance and Documents<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Online: <\/strong>https:\/\/consult.environment-agency.gov.uk\/psc\/rh12-4qd-britaniacrest-recycling-limited\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

View printed copies<\/strong>: <\/strong>in Horsham Library by appointment 01403 224353.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Please send your comments to the Environment Agency online, by email or post.<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Email comments to: <\/strong>pscpublicresponse@environment-agency.gov.uk<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Post comments to:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Environment Agency, Permitting and Support Centre, Environmental Permitting Team, Quadrant 2, 99 Parkway Avenue, Parkway Business Park, Sheffield S9 4WF<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Quote variation application number:\u00a0<\/strong>EPR \/ CB3308TD \/ V002<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Impacts of Waste Incineration<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nUnited Kingdom Without Incineration Network (UKWIN) comprises more than 100\nmember groups who oppose waste incineration. UKWIN opposes the incineration of\nwaste, including via gasification and pyrolysis, because incineration depresses\nrecycling, destroys valuable resources, releases greenhouse gasses, and is a\nwaste of money. Incineration has no place in the zero waste closed-loop\ncircular economy towards which we should be working.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On\n15 July 2021 UKWIN published good practice guidance for assessing the\ngreenhouse gas (GHG) impacts of waste incineration, providing recommendations\nfor assessing GHG impacts of waste incineration. It is intended to be used by\nthose carrying out such assessment as well as those reviewing or determining\nhow much weight to give those assessments. The guide was created due to the\ninconsistent quality of such assessments (including those used to inform\nplanning, permitting and policy decisions), and highlights areas where there is\na genuine risk that adverse impacts of waste incineration could be\nsignificantly understated or misrepresented.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Electricity from incinerators is worse than gas (CCGT) or renewables and so
energy from waste incineration should not be described as ‘low carbon’ <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n


The guide was created in response to the inconsistent quality of incinerator carbon assessments. It provides ten recommendations based on an extensive review of the approaches being used by industry practitioners and academics see below. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Building new incinerators costs hundreds of millions of pounds, locking us into burning waste for decades to come. It is therefore essential that those assessing proposals for new incineration capacity take account of the full climate impacts and opportunity costs.<\/p> Guide author Josh Dowen, Associate Coordinator of the United Kingdom Without Incineration Network (UKWIN)

<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Good Practice Guidance for Assessing the GHG Impacts of Waste Incineration<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Available to download from https:\/\/ukwin.org.uk\/climate<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

TRANSPARENCY AND OPENNESS TO SCRUTINY <\/h4>\n\n\n\n

1. <\/strong>Methodology\nand modelling assumptions, including underlying data and how it was derived,\nshould be transparent and verifiable. Scrutiny of environmental claims made to\nsupport waste incineration should be facilitated rather than frustrated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

IMPACT OF WASTE COMPOSITION AND TECHNOLOGY ON ENERGY AND GHG OUTPUTS<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

2.<\/strong> Key\noutputs such as power export and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are dependent\non waste composition and the processes used. When modelling future emissions it\nis necessary to ensure that outputs are internally consistent with inputs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3.<\/strong> GHG\nimpacts can be highly sensitive to waste composition. Waste composition\nassumptions should be justified and sensitivity analysis should be used to show\nthe impacts of future changes such as increased food and biowaste\ncollection.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

4.<\/strong> While\nheat export, carbon capture, and pre-treatment to remove plastics can\npotentially reduce overall GHG impacts of incineration, there are also\nuncertainties regarding deliverability and\/or overall impacts. Sensitivity and\nlifecycle analysis can be used to explore a range of possibilities and to\nreflect relevant uncertainties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE ROLE OF\nLANDFILL AS A BIOGENIC CARBON SINK<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

5.<\/strong> To\nproduce a valid comparison when comparing waste treatment options such as\nlandfill and incineration that release different quantities of biogenic CO2<\/sub>\nit is necessary to account for these differences, especially the impact of the\nbiogenic carbon sink in landfill.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DISCREPANCIES\nBETWEEN THEORETICAL AND REAL WORLD PERFORMANCE<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

6. <\/strong>The\ncarbon performance of modern waste incinerators is often significantly worse\nthan was predicted through modelling at the planning and permitting stages.\nThis discrepancy between predicted and actual carbon performance needs to be\ntaken into account when modelling, and robust sensitivity analysis is needed to\nensure that CO2<\/sub>e emissions from incineration are not significantly\nunderestimated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

7.<\/strong> Power\nexport underperformance, e.g. due to turbine or generator failure or during commissioning,\nis a realistic prospect for modern waste incinerators that needs to be taken\ninto account when modelling anticipated power output and associated climate\nimpacts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DISPLACEMENT\nOF OTHER SOURCES OF ELECTRICITY AND\/OR HEAT<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

8.<\/strong> When\nconsidering the carbon intensity of displaced energy it is necessary to take\naccount of the progressive decarbonisation of the energy supply rather than\nsimply assuming that a new energy source would displace fossil fuels. The\ncarbon intensity of electricity displaced by a new incinerator can be estimated\nusing the average BEIS Long-Run Marginal Emissions Factor (MEF) over the\nlifetime of the plant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

WASTE\nTREATMENT COMPARATORS\/COUNTERFACTUALS<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

9. <\/strong>When\nconsidering how waste would be treated if it were not sent to an incinerator,\naccount should be taken of the prospect that it might otherwise have been\nreduced, reused, recycled or composted. Account should also be made of how\nlandfilled waste could be bio-stabilised to reduce methane emissions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

LOW CARBON\nCLAIMS<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

10. <\/strong>Energy\nfrom mixed waste incineration should not be described as ‘low carbon’.\nIncineration involves the direct release of significant quantities of CO2<\/sub>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Comment on the permit application for the proposed Horsham Incinerator now! The consultation deadline has been extended to midnight on Monday 2nd August. Please share and tell others before it is too late. See the Guidance and Documents Online: https:\/\/consult.environment-agency.gov.uk\/psc\/rh12-4qd-britaniacrest-recycling-limited\/ View printed copies: in Horsham Library by appointment 01403 224353. Please send your comments to the Environment […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1531,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1530","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ni4h.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1530","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ni4h.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ni4h.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ni4h.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ni4h.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1530"}],"version-history":[{"count":22,"href":"https:\/\/ni4h.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1530\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1555,"href":"https:\/\/ni4h.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1530\/revisions\/1555"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ni4h.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1531"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ni4h.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1530"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ni4h.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1530"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ni4h.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1530"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}