The Daily Telegraph, 5/3/2007, p.11
Source: Erisk Net
Category: Archive
Archived material from historical editions of The Generator
-
Brits study Australian waste transfer
The environmentalists are interested because the Lancashire plant’s operator is Global Renewables Limited (GRL). The firm is a subsidiary of an old Australian mining company that decided several years ago to investigate whether the techniques it was using to extract diamonds, gold and tin from the earth could be applied to remove recyclable commodities from the mountains of waste that were dotted across its vast nation. (When it comes to rubbish, the Australians are in a field of their own. Only the US throws out more household waste than Australia. The colossal garbage tip south of Sydney, which is 50m high, provides a more spectacular view than even the Sydney Harbour Bridge.)
The Australians found that where there was muck, there was, indeed, brass. Working on the age-old mining principle that the more reusable materials it could separate out, the more profit it could make, it built the southern hemisphere’s largest waste facility – Eastern Creek – where it recycles virtually all of the waste it receives and – here’s the groundbreaking bit – incinerates none of it. It is considered by many environmentalists to be the first firm to view waste as a mineable resource rather than something to be destroyed.
This is the kind of technology that counties and cities the length and breadth of Britain desperately need. All the recent talk on recycling has been focused on stepping up our kerbside recycling efforts (we recycle or compost 23 per cent of our waste compared to 53 per cent in Germany and 70 per cent in Flanders, Belgium). But what about the 77 per cent of material that we cannot recycle ourselves? So much of it still goes to Britain’s 1,986 methane-emitting landfill sites, which are filling up fast, that Britain looks unlikely to meet limits set by the EU that will hit us 2010. To bring the country into line, the Government has announced that councils are to be fined £150 per ton if they exceed pre-agreed targets from 2010 and that, along with the offer of Private Finance Initiative cash to build facilities to replace landfill, has started a mad scramble among the councils.
If your local council has not already signed up to some kind of PFI-funded facility then it soon will, and most of those to date involve incinerating waste. If the initials MBT (mechanical biological treatment) accompany your council’s plans, then it’s good news, according to many environmentalists. It means your local plant has the technology to separate out recylables from the rubbish inside your binliners, and incinerate a fraction of it.
But many others work on different technology, through which the waste is incinerated and heat and/or electricity captured. Advocates of these Energy from Waste (EfW) schemes, which involve burning waste to generate electricity and hot water, argue they are the best option. But any kind of incineration is environmentally disastrous, according to Greenpeace and FoE. FoE has commissioned research that shows that some incinerators emit 33 per cent more carbon dioxide than gas-fired power stations.
There is also a fear that firms which incinerate the waste are less interested in driving up kerbside recycling, as they need a minimum of calorific rubbish such as plastic and paper to operate. Hence the green lobby’s interest in GRL, which has established a UK corporate base at Salford Quays, Greater Manchester, from which to bid for UK contracts like Lancashire’s.
In its search for profit, the firm has commandeered the best mechanical mining devices to extract recyclable contents from inside binbags: giant magnets remove metals; the plastic film that covers magazines and newspapers is literally "blown" out of waste heaps by heavy-duty cyclone machines; a giant vibrating conveyor belt separates out small pieces of glass. In some cases, the UK markets for some of these products is still to be established. For instance, GRL is investigating who might have a use for recycled plastic film, which the Japanese and Swiss convert to biodiesel.
Once GRL’s initial sorting process is complete, the really sophisticated technology begins. Warm water is fed into the waste mass through a network of underground pipes, creating a chemical process that results in a highly acidic liquid being produced. This is the stuff which, in the bad old days, used to leak from tips into groundwater, but within GRL’s system it can accelerate the decomposition of the waste. The pipes also collect biogas (methane and carbon dioxide), generated by rotting organic matter, some of which is used to power the plant.
After several days, the waste has decomposed into another vital, sellable asset: compost, or OGM (organic growth media) as GRL calls it. Rules governing the use of compost made from waste mean that it cannot be spread around fruit and vegetables in this country but can be used to remediate colliery spoils, former industrial sites, landfills and quarries. In Sydney, where GRL processes 11 per cent of the rubbish, the firm sells back 30,000 tons of organic compost a year. After the composting, GRL will still be left with a small volume of Lancashire’s waste – up to 15 per cent of the original volume – which can’t be used as compost and will be returned as stablised, non-methane-emitting landfill.
David Singh, GRL’s development director, believes that the technology is more likely to be called on in areas, like Sydney, where large volumes of waste can be collected within a reasonable travelling distance of the plant. "We came to the waste business from mining background, which means we treat it as an asset to extract something from rather than something to dispose of," he says.
Dr Michael Warhurst, FoE’s waste specialist, believes the technology should be considered everywhere. "London and the South-east need just as much compost – if not more – for remediating land. The alternative to this is incineration, which is simply putting more fossil fuels into the atmosphere. In our dash to find an alternative to landfill, many parts of Britain are jumping for a solution that simply brings another form of environmental destruction. If there are alternatives, we should at least look at them."
-
UK builds 180MW wind-farm
Construction on a 180-megawatt (MW) UK offshore wind farm development for the Lynn and Inner Dowsing sites in the Greater Wash is under way, marked by Centrica’s investment for 54 3.6-megawatt (MW) wind turbines from Siemens Power Generation.
"This investment underlines our commitment to supplying British Gas customers with an increasing proportion of renewable electricity in the years ahead."
— Sam Laidlaw, Centrica, Chief Executive
The development is expected to cost approximately GBP 300 million [US$578 million] in total.
Construction work is scheduled to commence in spring 2007 for the offshore site, three miles off the coast; onshore work is under way to connect the power generation cable in Lincolnshire. The project, which will supply clean electricity to around 130,000 homes, is scheduled for completion by the end of 2008.
Centrica, which has a large portfolio of undeveloped offshore wind sites, is a 50 percent partner in Barrow Offshore Wind, the UK’s equal largest offshore wind farm. In January it applied for planning consent to develop the 250 MW Lincolnshire project, also in the Greater Wash.
Centrica also announced it will become a 50 percent partner in the onshore Braes of Doune wind farm located in central Scotland, which recently generated its first power, bringing the UK’s total installed wind capacity above 2000 MW. Braes of Doune is in its commissioning phase, with completion expected during spring 2007.
Sam Laidlaw, Chief Executive of Centrica, said, "This investment underlines our commitment to supplying British Gas customers with an increasing proportion of renewable electricity in the years ahead."
-
The Dire Strait
By John Damien
03/07/07 "ICH" — — The most valuable piece of real estate in the world is not to be found in New York, London or Tokyo. The world’s most valuable real estate is comprised of two imaginary boxes. These boxes are two miles wide and twenty five miles long. They are the international shipping lanes at the apex of the Strait of Hormuz. Each day, tankers carrying 16 million barrels of oil worth $800 million pass through these boxes. If oil is the blood supply of the industrial economy, the Strait of Hormuz is the jugular. In any conflict between the US and Iran, control of those shipping lanes will instantly become the focus of the entire conflict. The main job of the US Navy would be to ensure the Strait remains open. That implies pre-emptive action against any Iranian facility or emplacement capable of launching anti-ship missiles against targets in the area of the Strait.
The use by Iran of "the oil weapon" has been widely discussed and examined. What has attracted less attention is the ability of the Untied States to use the oil weapon against Iran. By occupying three key islands on the Gulf approaches to the Strait, the US could deny passage to any ship it pleases. America could thus close Iran’s only major route for oil exports, while ensuring safe passage for the rest. Although 20% of the world’s oil trade passes through the Strait, Iran accounts for only 2.5 million bbl/day of world exports, or just over 15% of the traffic in the Strait. Because of their disputed legal status, it would be possible to extend a US presence indefinitely. Occupation of these islands could thus deliver to the US a strategic coup great enough to justify a war with Iran in the first place. The US has two Marine Expeditionary groups in the area capable of such an operation.
It is no secret that the US Government wants regime change in Tehran. Their problem is the inability of us military, economic or diplomatic power to deliver. As discussed in a previous article, there are urgent reasons for the US to escalate the war to Iran that have nothing to do with regime change. However, for a lasting strategic re-alignment in the region, regime change is highly desirable. One must assume that even the most hawkish agitators in Washington and Jerusalem don’t believe bombing alone will bring down the Iranian government. The only feasible means of damaging the political stability of the clerical regime is by attacking the Iranian economy. Despite the oil money flowing into the country, the economy is shaky. Unemployment and economic dissatisfaction run high. This represents the only significant point of contention between the regime and its citizens. A blockade of Iranian oil exports would bring the fragile economy to its knees in a matter of weeks. If, and its a big if, the citizens of Iran blame their government for the economic ruin, there is a possibility of regime change.
Stopping Iranian oil exports is an easy thing to do militarily. One simply destroys the export facilities. Unfortunately, it could take years to rebuild those facilities. If a new government were to take power in Tehran, a lack of ability to export oil would become acutely inconvenient for everyone. Better to find a way that allows the US to turn the exports on and off at will. Interdicting Iranian bound tankers would be ideal as virtually all Iranian oil exports pass through the Straits. 200 Marines and 10 Blackhawk Helicopters would be sufficient to impose US directives on all the traffic in the area. However, parking an aircraft carrier in the Strait would be inviting disaster. No nearby bases are available because of the political problems a US presence would bring. Occupying several key islands astride the shipping lanes themselves would be ideal.
Three such islands exist. Tunb al Sughra, Tunb al Kubra and Abu Musa are small islands astride the shipping lanes on the Gulf side of the Strait. Abu Musa rises to a height of 100m, giving an excellent view from Bandar-e Lengeh on the Iranian coast to Dubai in the south. Abu Musa and al Kubra have airstrips. The islands are claimed by both the UAE and Iran. Iran has occupied the islands since the 1970’s. The issue is an ongoing concern of both UAE and the Gulf Cooperation Council. The UAE has taken the matter to the World Court and the UN. The GCC included a statement on the islands in the communiqués of its December 2006 summit. Iranian occupation of the islands is therefore disputed at best and illegal at worst. That legal uncertainty presents an opportunity to the United States. In a wider war between the US and Iran, the US would undertake operations against a series of Iranian islands and mainland locations in any conflict over the Strait. The US Navy and Marines would have to flush out possibly thousands of anti-ship missiles stored in the surrounding area. Those operations would involve landings by Marines and special forces. But they couldn’t stay, and they wouldn’t want to. However, in the case of the Tunb islands, it can stay if the UAE invites it to do so. There are no hostile locals to police and none of the complications found in Iraq. If imperial dreams still haunt the sleep of George Bush, then permanent US control of the Strait of Hormuz is in the cards.
John Damien lives in Toronto and can be reached at john.damien@rogers.com
-
Coalition can’t answer Green questions
Aqua-ammonia solvents failure report quashed? "Why does the government continue to this day to suppress a report that demonstrates that the government’s much hoped for breakthrough with aqua-ammonia solvents in post carbon capture has been a complete failure? Will the government now produce a comprehensive list of research tasks and reports from that CRC so that the public can see what else the government is trying to hide about the promise of renewable energy and the problems with carbon capture and storage? Will you now release that list and the rest of the modelling?"
Renewable Energy Development Initiative grants: Minchin said: "There were lots of questions there and I will have a look at the Hansard and see what information I can supply to Senator Milne, particularly with respect to the CRC. For the record, I remind Senator Milne that a company, Solar Heat and Power—as she is pursuing the issue of solar thermal technology—was successful in gaining a Renewable Energy Development Initiative grant of $3,254,028 in December 2005. To date, the government has paid 64 per cent of that grant. The company stated will retain the intellectual property developed so far and continue with Australian management.
"We are supporting alternative sources of energy": We are supporting that, but it is not at the proven stage. We are supporting alternative sources of energy, but the clear facts which for ideological reasons the Greens are incapable of recognising are that, for Australia to retain high living standards and jobs, the two main sources of zero emission technology available to produce baseload power are clean coal and nuclear, and it is about time they woke up".
Reference: Commonwealth of Australia, Senate, Hansard Proof, 27 February 2007, p. 20-21.
This document is available on http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/dailys/ds270207.pdfErisk Net, 1/3/2007
