Incinerators

For you information see below question submitted for February City Council meeting regarding alternatives to Poolbeg. The system I refer to is just one of several solutions available but having examined other solutions this one is, financially, the frontrunner. Just one number to consider – even writing off the €96m already spent (by the way this figure may be challenged as not being totally accurate) this solution would be €300m less in capital expenditure than Poolbeg – saving on borrowing to fund this€300m would be over €10m per annum alone! Also, this system generates electricity which can be sold to the national grid producing over €40m in revenues and there is the obvious saving in landfill charges.

Regards

Nial Ring

Q1. In relation to the current situation regarding the proposed Waste to Energy Project being considered by Dublin City Council, and having regard to the contents, details and questions arising from :

a. The Manager’s report to the City Council on the Waste to Energy Project (Report 400/2013 – November 2013).
b. The further information supplied regarding expenditure to the Finance SPC meeting of 16th January 25014 (item 7 on the Agenda),
c. The pending EU Commission findings regarding complaints regarding to State Aid and Procurement.
d. The report of the Dublin City Council audit Committee.
e. The Manager’s appearance at and information given to the Oireachtas environment committee and
e. The general public disquiet regarding expenditure to date on the project, can the City Manager indicate the following:

A. When will DCC make a decision on whether, or not, to proceed with the project in its current form?

B. If other Waste to energy processes have been or will be examined, given the advances in such technology in the period it has taken to get the Poolbeg project to this stage?

C. If he and the relevant executives/departments of DCC are aware of Energy Recovery from Municipal Waste processes such as the Irish Vaporolysis system which has already been granted planning permission by a number of UK Councils?

D. Have processes such as the above been evaluated given that a method such as the Irish designed Vaporolysis system is a relatively new energy recovery system that facilitates the full recovery of clean biomass fuels from Municipal Waste?

E. Is the Manager aware that such new systems remove any requirement for landfill or incineration, and could offer DCC a system that:
I. Reduces carbon footprint and is carbon neutral
II. Meets national landfill reduction targets.
III. Enables 90% recycling levels thereby ensuring that DCC targets are met.
IV. Can be constructed within 12 months as part of a fixed price contract and at a fraction of the budgeted cost of the Poolbeg project.
V. Can be located, if deemed necessary or recommended, in up to four different locations with a capacity of 150,000 tons per location.
VI. Would produce 13MW of electricity per hour per plant, equivalent to just under 100,000 MWh of renewable electricity per annum per plant for supply to the national grid, thereby creating a separate income stream of approx. €11.7M per 150,000 ton capacity plant for DCC based on the Government’s incentives available under the Renewable Energy Feed In Tariff scheme (REFIT 3),
and
VII. Could be financed either privately, on a joint venture basis or by way of a PPP arrangement

F. Given that the capital (plant cost, construction and commissioning) cost of each 150,000 ton capacity plant would be in the region of EUR 40m (excluding land cost for 1.5 hectares per plant) but would also have potential diverse income streams for DCC including electricity sale, gate fee (income and/or cost saved) which would offset the running cost of the plants, can the Manager undertake a cost benefit exercise (including saved funding costs)on such alternative system or other such systems?