Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Waste incinerator: 'Time to find a solution is fast running out'

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 04 May 2009
IN today's throwaway society, and with most goods bought from the supermarkets coming with unprecedented amounts of packaging, dealing with the city's growing mountain of waste is an increasing challenge for the city council.
Currently Edinburgh is faced with the problem of disposing of somewhere in the region of 250,000 million tonnes of household and commercial waste a year. Despite making massive inroads into disposing much of it in a green manner – largely through enc
ouraging household and community recycling – its aging facilities such as Powderhall frankly do not have the capacity to deal with it.

The matter is complicated further by EU directives on how such mountains of waste are to be disposed of and the five Lothian and Borders councils face fines in the region of £18 million a year from 2013 if they don't significantly increase recycling levels and reduce their reliance on landfill sites. With this in mind the councils got together with the idea of building a massive incinerator to handle half of the region's waste. But this scheme fell apart after the goalposts were moved by a new government waste strategy which stipulated no more than 25 per cent of municipal waste could be disposed of in this way by 2025.

Following the collapse of the plan, Viridor, a private contractor which already transports millions of tonnes of the city's waste by train to a landfill site near Dunbar, offered an alternative collection solution when it proposed opening a massive waste depot near Portobello.

With Powderhall due to close in 2015 it must have been very tempting for councillors to look sympathetically at the application, considering the position they face regarding future plans for the disposal of their own waste. But rightly they turned it down – after 700 objections were submitted – on the grounds that it would have meant hundreds of lorries a day thundering through densely populated areas.

That still leaves the council with a problem. By 2013, only 50 per cent of 1995 levels of waste will be allowed to be sent to landfill, and by 2020 the target will be 35 per cent.

Even if recycling targets are met, there will be a need to incinerate a substantial amount of rubbish.

It is with this in mind that Edinburgh and Midlothian councils have now opted to work together to provide build one facility.

The plan to build it at Millerhill seems sound. Although there will be substantial increase in traffic it is in an isolated brownfield site and near to major roads. Doubtless there will be objections but it is to be hoped that they can be overcome.

Time to find a solution to our growing waste problem is fast running out.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 04 May 2009 8:26 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Environment
 
1

Unimpressed one,

04/05/2009 09:59:22
"The matter is complicated further by EU directives on how such mountains of waste are to be disposed of and the five Lothian and Borders councils face fines in the region of £18 million a year from 2013 if they don't significantly increase recycling levels and reduce their reliance on landfill sites."

This is the root cause of the UK's waste 'problem' - generated by the usual unaccountable EU. There is no shortage of holes in the ground, there's only a surplus of eco-fundamentalist who wish to dictate to the rest of us policy based on their own skewed beliefs.
2

Dunaskin,

Edinburgh 04/05/2009 12:12:19
Errr.... 250,000 million tonnes per annum? I don't think so. A quick check suggests that 250,000 tonnes is about right.
But mince from Unimpressed one. Regardless of the EU directives, we all need to reduce consumption and waste. There is a shortage of suitable holes in the ground. We can't site landfills where the seepage into ground water cannot be contained. Landfills need to be accessible by suitable transport methods. Landfills need to be located away from housing, etc, etc.
3

Unimpressed one,

04/05/2009 12:59:40
"Regardless of the EU directives, we all need to reduce consumption and waste."

Is this just regurgitation of the usual green mantra or is there real logic behind this statement? Do you have any idea of the transportation costs associated with recycling rubbish? Most of this is now being stored in warehouses because their is no market for it. Previously it was carted half way across the world for processing - a case of 'out of sight (site?), out of mind'.
4

Pilrig,

Livingston 04/05/2009 16:25:31
2 Embra's waste to be disposed ootwith Embra in other words.
5

Dunaskin,

Edinburgh 04/05/2009 19:33:14
Unimpressed one... Of course there are transportation costs associated with rubbish. We all expect the Council to remove our rubbish from our doorstep. We expect the Council to find some cost-effective way of getting rid of it. Some of your rubbish may be sent overseas. That isn't a costly process - as the ships that bring you cheap goods from China and SE Asia will take it as a back-load, otherwise they'd sail empty. But it stands to reason that if Tesco, et al, simplify the packaging on food, then costs should reduce and we'd have less waste. What is wrong with that?
6

Tim Webb,

Newton Village 11/05/2009 11:39:51
This is all rather odd. Up until a few weeks ago, we had a plan for thousands of new houses in this area; the so-called South-East Wedge. Now it seems that all along there has been a plan for a massive incinerator in the neighbourhood, which has gained publicity following Miller Homes' decision to pull out of their 40% stake in the housebuilding. Clearly the two plans are incommensurate, so what's going on ?
7

Davy,

16/05/2009 12:25:34
In days gone by we used to burn most of our own rubbish. But alas no more coal fires
8

Davy,

16/05/2009 12:36:32
Power stations should be modified to burn household waste.
Problem solved.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.