l'express du 15/03/2006
COMMENTING “LA CULTURE DU DOUTE” BY JEAN-MÉE DESVEAUX
It is a commendable act when a citizen assumes the responsibility of spokesman for his fellow countrymen and, in quest of enlightenment, pens down concerns pertaining to a project of national interest.
However, the article of l’express dated 8 March 2006 and bearing the title “La culture du doute” was clearly NOT written with any such noble intentions, and in fact contains statements that could qualify for legal action on grounds of libel. Attempting to understand the motivations that urged Mr Desveaux to transgress the law would require our intellect to wallow in mire. Therefore, we choose to make honourable use of newspaper space by sticking to a fundamental purpose – that of informing – indeed, since Mr Desveaux made several erroneous allegations in the above mentioned article that must be addressed, including:
1. “Il était déjà connu que cette technologie été très critiquée, là où elle s’était implantée ………..”. Nothing could be further from the truth. Modern waste to energy (WTE) technology has enjoyed wide acceptance for decades in a number or advanced countries around the world, including Singapore, Japan, Denmark, Germany, South Korea, and France, to name a few. In just the past year, after an extensive multi-year study of all available alternative waste management schemes, the Environmental Protection Department of Hong Kong has selected WTE as the foundation for the future disposal of solid waste as part of their integrated waste management plan. Countries that select modern WTE technology to meet their solid waste disposal needs often have limited land area available for landfills, and in all cases, have convinced themselves that WTE is an environmentally responsible, safe and preferred means of solid waste disposal.
2. “….un incinérateur opérant dans les conditions locales émettrait un taux de dioxine dix fois plus élevé que ce que permet la directive de l’Union européenne……” This is absolutely not the case. Modern waste to energy facilities of the type that we are proposing utilize advanced combustion control, dry scrubbers, and filters to ensure that dioxin emissions are contained within allowable regulatory limits. By way of example, dioxin emissions from WTE plants in the United States have been reduced 99% over the past 10 years and now form less than one half of one percent of the total dioxin inventory in the country. Some individual WTE facilities have achieved dioxin levels so low that they cannot be measured. According to the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), backyard burning of waste, metal smelting, land application of sewage sludge, coal fired power plants, and diesel trucks are all more significant emitters of dioxin than WTE facilities. In addition, it should be understood that dioxins are found naturally in the environment and dioxin emissions are associated with all forms of combustion, including volcanoes, forest fires, smoking tobacco, and burning of agricultural waste. Recently experts have concluded that dioxin emissions released from forest fires alone in the US equal those from all other EPA quantified sources combined.
All of that said, responsible governments recognize that dioxins above certain threshold levels are toxic and can be carcinogenic. To mitigate the potential adverse health consequences of dioxins, government toxicology experts in advanced countries set maximum threshold limits for dioxin emissions from WTE facilities and regularly monitor the WTE facilities for compliance. In our proposal to the government we have suggested they consider adopting the very strict dioxin emission standard established by the European Union and Japan (0.1 ng I-TEQ/m3). Further, detailed studies to quantify the potential dioxin emissions associated with our project will be conducted as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment process, and development of the project will not proceed until the government has been convinced that dioxin levels can be systematically managed at safe levels.
Claim these carbon credits
3. “Une proportion de ces detritus est en fait si toxique….” Overall, WTE processes reduce the volume of the original municipal solid waste stream by 90 % in volume, significantly reducing the ultimate amount of land required for landfill disposal. Potentially hazardous substances like volatile organic compounds and benzene that can otherwise be found in waste in a landfill are destroyed. Approximately 80% of the ash, known as the bottom ash, is typically considered non-hazardous and can be recycled for use in road bed and/or construction projects. In Germany 70% of the bottom ash is recycled in this fashion, and in the Netherlands 90%. In Singapore, WTE ash is utilized in an offshore landfill as part of a land reclamation project and in Bermuda WTE ash is used in concrete products for artificial reefs and shore abatements. In some instances where the initial waste streams have elevated levels of heavy metals, the fly ash resulting from a WTE project can be considered hazardous. In these instances the ash can be safely deposited in landfills specifically designed for this purpose. Since the fly ash is dry, future risk associated with emissions is very low relative to the risks of leachate leakage and gaseous emissions associated with a conventional landfill.
4. “Incineration is costly, and no justification can be found in these costs.” Traditionally WTE technology has often been viewed as an environmentally preferred but more costly method of solid waste disposal than landfill, available only to the most affluent societies. In fact, the original findings of Carlbro recommended a landfill on the basis of lower up-front costs, but recognized that waste incineration was an environmentally acceptable option that should be considered in Mauritius in the future once cost considerations could be addressed. Since the initiation of the original Carl Bro studies, fossil fuel energy costs have doubled and WTE capital costs have been reduced. While the original Carl Bro estimates for waste disposal ranged from $US 88 per tonne to $US 117 per tonne, our feasibility studies have established that disposal of solid waste via WTE can be accomplished today for less than half those amounts.
Based on evaluation of Carl Bro, these revised costs for WTE solid waste disposal are roughly comparable with those of a new landfill, especially considering the legacy aftercare costs associate with a landfill after it has been filled. It must be understood that potentially toxic leachate and gaseous emissions from a landfill can remain a concern for 50 to 100 years, and as such, the costs associated with managing these risks is impossible to establish with certainty.
Finally, unlike landfills which are significant emitters of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that has been attributed to undesirable changes in climate, a modern WTE facility is a net reducer of greenhouse gas emissions and as such can qualify for carbon credits under the Kyoto Protocol accords. As project sponsors we have offered to assist the government in establishing a claim for these carbon credits and capturing the associated monetary value.
Over the life of our project these credits could be worth as much as $US 30 million to $US 60 million, significantly offsetting the investment costs associated with the WTE project.
5. “Dans les deux cas, si le projet déraille, c’est le gouvernement, lié par un contrat de 25ans avec l’opérateur, qui paie les pots cassés.” Again, this is not true. Precedents for the contractual mechanisms for private sector investments in infrastructure have already been established within the government’s Independent Power Project program. Within these contracts, operating performance standards for projects are established, and failure to meet the performance standards result in penalties to the project sponsors. In no way is the government bound to “foot the bill” for projects that fail to perform up to standards.
6. “Si la valeur thermique de ce combustible n’est pas suffisante, au lieu de brûler le déchet pour produire de l’électricité, on doit brûler de l’huile lourde pour atteindre ce but ….”. While the project will conduct a detailed waste characterization assessment with the government before embarking on final project design, the waste characterization studies currently available have established the average net calorific value of waste in Mauritius to be 7.5 Mj/kg which is sufficient to support combustion without need for supplemental fuel. Further, segregation and composting of some fraction of the yard waste that currently goes into landfills also makes good commercial and environmental sense. As project sponsors we have proposed to assist the government in developing their plan for composting. A successful composting program would result in a net calorific value increase of 1.0 Mj/kg, reduce disposal costs, and provide a material that can be utilized to support agriculture within our country.
Benefits for many generations to come
Mr. Desveaux, in his article, refers time and again to Carl Bro International, as professionals in the field of waste management. Mr. Desveaux should therefore be reassured in the knowledge that these very same highly esteemed professionals, with extensive experience in matters of waste management, were hired as advisors for project analysis and in the preparation of its proposal for a waste to energy incinerator. In a report to Gamma dated December 2005, Carl Bro International concludes: “waste incineration with energy generation seems to be a realistic and advantageous waste treatment option in Mauritius.”
Beyond the waste disposal attributes of our WTE project, the electricity generation benefits should not be overlooked. By utilizing municipal solid waste as a fuel, our WTE project will deliver cost competitive electricity that is both renewable and indigenous. Fossil fuels that would otherwise have to be imported for electricity generation and the associated drain on foreign exchange reserves will be eliminated. Future fossil fuel price increases will also be avoided, the cost of electricity from our project will essentially stay flat over the life of the project. Diversification of energy supply in Mauritius will increase and security of energy supply will be enhanced. All of these benefits can be accrued without sacrificing the environment, in fact, in recognition of the performance of the WTE industry in the United States, the U.S. EPA has stated that today’s WTE facilities produce electricity “with less environmental impact than almost any other source of electricity”.
We fully believe that modern WTE technology provides the best available means of safe, environmentally responsible solid waste disposal and clean, renewable, and indigenous generation of electric power for Mauritius. In developing a world class WTE project for Mauritius we fully intend to embrace the principals of transparency and benefit for Mauritians, benefits that will be enjoyed for many generations to come. We welcome the support of like-minded Mauritians as we embrace the development of our country and its future.
Carl AH TECK
Chief Executive Gamma Civic
COMMENTING “LA CULTURE DU DOUTE” BY JEAN-MÉE DESVEAUX
It is a commendable act when a citizen assumes the responsibility of spokesman for his fellow countrymen and, in quest of enlightenment, pens down concerns pertaining to a project of national interest.
However, the article of l’express dated 8 March 2006 and bearing the title “La culture du doute” was clearly NOT written with any such noble intentions, and in fact contains statements that could qualify for legal action on grounds of libel. Attempting to understand the motivations that urged Mr Desveaux to transgress the law would require our intellect to wallow in mire. Therefore, we choose to make honourable use of newspaper space by sticking to a fundamental purpose – that of informing – indeed, since Mr Desveaux made several erroneous allegations in the above mentioned article that must be addressed, including:
1. “Il était déjà connu que cette technologie été très critiquée, là où elle s’était implantée ………..”. Nothing could be further from the truth. Modern waste to energy (WTE) technology has enjoyed wide acceptance for decades in a number or advanced countries around the world, including Singapore, Japan, Denmark, Germany, South Korea, and France, to name a few. In just the past year, after an extensive multi-year study of all available alternative waste management schemes, the Environmental Protection Department of Hong Kong has selected WTE as the foundation for the future disposal of solid waste as part of their integrated waste management plan. Countries that select modern WTE technology to meet their solid waste disposal needs often have limited land area available for landfills, and in all cases, have convinced themselves that WTE is an environmentally responsible, safe and preferred means of solid waste disposal.
2. “….un incinérateur opérant dans les conditions locales émettrait un taux de dioxine dix fois plus élevé que ce que permet la directive de l’Union européenne……” This is absolutely not the case. Modern waste to energy facilities of the type that we are proposing utilize advanced combustion control, dry scrubbers, and filters to ensure that dioxin emissions are contained within allowable regulatory limits. By way of example, dioxin emissions from WTE plants in the United States have been reduced 99% over the past 10 years and now form less than one half of one percent of the total dioxin inventory in the country. Some individual WTE facilities have achieved dioxin levels so low that they cannot be measured. According to the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), backyard burning of waste, metal smelting, land application of sewage sludge, coal fired power plants, and diesel trucks are all more significant emitters of dioxin than WTE facilities. In addition, it should be understood that dioxins are found naturally in the environment and dioxin emissions are associated with all forms of combustion, including volcanoes, forest fires, smoking tobacco, and burning of agricultural waste. Recently experts have concluded that dioxin emissions released from forest fires alone in the US equal those from all other EPA quantified sources combined.
All of that said, responsible governments recognize that dioxins above certain threshold levels are toxic and can be carcinogenic. To mitigate the potential adverse health consequences of dioxins, government toxicology experts in advanced countries set maximum threshold limits for dioxin emissions from WTE facilities and regularly monitor the WTE facilities for compliance. In our proposal to the government we have suggested they consider adopting the very strict dioxin emission standard established by the European Union and Japan (0.1 ng I-TEQ/m3). Further, detailed studies to quantify the potential dioxin emissions associated with our project will be conducted as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment process, and development of the project will not proceed until the government has been convinced that dioxin levels can be systematically managed at safe levels.
Claim these carbon credits
3. “Une proportion de ces detritus est en fait si toxique….” Overall, WTE processes reduce the volume of the original municipal solid waste stream by 90 % in volume, significantly reducing the ultimate amount of land required for landfill disposal. Potentially hazardous substances like volatile organic compounds and benzene that can otherwise be found in waste in a landfill are destroyed. Approximately 80% of the ash, known as the bottom ash, is typically considered non-hazardous and can be recycled for use in road bed and/or construction projects. In Germany 70% of the bottom ash is recycled in this fashion, and in the Netherlands 90%. In Singapore, WTE ash is utilized in an offshore landfill as part of a land reclamation project and in Bermuda WTE ash is used in concrete products for artificial reefs and shore abatements. In some instances where the initial waste streams have elevated levels of heavy metals, the fly ash resulting from a WTE project can be considered hazardous. In these instances the ash can be safely deposited in landfills specifically designed for this purpose. Since the fly ash is dry, future risk associated with emissions is very low relative to the risks of leachate leakage and gaseous emissions associated with a conventional landfill.
4. “Incineration is costly, and no justification can be found in these costs.” Traditionally WTE technology has often been viewed as an environmentally preferred but more costly method of solid waste disposal than landfill, available only to the most affluent societies. In fact, the original findings of Carlbro recommended a landfill on the basis of lower up-front costs, but recognized that waste incineration was an environmentally acceptable option that should be considered in Mauritius in the future once cost considerations could be addressed. Since the initiation of the original Carl Bro studies, fossil fuel energy costs have doubled and WTE capital costs have been reduced. While the original Carl Bro estimates for waste disposal ranged from $US 88 per tonne to $US 117 per tonne, our feasibility studies have established that disposal of solid waste via WTE can be accomplished today for less than half those amounts.
Based on evaluation of Carl Bro, these revised costs for WTE solid waste disposal are roughly comparable with those of a new landfill, especially considering the legacy aftercare costs associate with a landfill after it has been filled. It must be understood that potentially toxic leachate and gaseous emissions from a landfill can remain a concern for 50 to 100 years, and as such, the costs associated with managing these risks is impossible to establish with certainty.
Finally, unlike landfills which are significant emitters of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that has been attributed to undesirable changes in climate, a modern WTE facility is a net reducer of greenhouse gas emissions and as such can qualify for carbon credits under the Kyoto Protocol accords. As project sponsors we have offered to assist the government in establishing a claim for these carbon credits and capturing the associated monetary value.
Over the life of our project these credits could be worth as much as $US 30 million to $US 60 million, significantly offsetting the investment costs associated with the WTE project.
5. “Dans les deux cas, si le projet déraille, c’est le gouvernement, lié par un contrat de 25ans avec l’opérateur, qui paie les pots cassés.” Again, this is not true. Precedents for the contractual mechanisms for private sector investments in infrastructure have already been established within the government’s Independent Power Project program. Within these contracts, operating performance standards for projects are established, and failure to meet the performance standards result in penalties to the project sponsors. In no way is the government bound to “foot the bill” for projects that fail to perform up to standards.
6. “Si la valeur thermique de ce combustible n’est pas suffisante, au lieu de brûler le déchet pour produire de l’électricité, on doit brûler de l’huile lourde pour atteindre ce but ….”. While the project will conduct a detailed waste characterization assessment with the government before embarking on final project design, the waste characterization studies currently available have established the average net calorific value of waste in Mauritius to be 7.5 Mj/kg which is sufficient to support combustion without need for supplemental fuel. Further, segregation and composting of some fraction of the yard waste that currently goes into landfills also makes good commercial and environmental sense. As project sponsors we have proposed to assist the government in developing their plan for composting. A successful composting program would result in a net calorific value increase of 1.0 Mj/kg, reduce disposal costs, and provide a material that can be utilized to support agriculture within our country.
Benefits for many generations to come
Mr. Desveaux, in his article, refers time and again to Carl Bro International, as professionals in the field of waste management. Mr. Desveaux should therefore be reassured in the knowledge that these very same highly esteemed professionals, with extensive experience in matters of waste management, were hired as advisors for project analysis and in the preparation of its proposal for a waste to energy incinerator. In a report to Gamma dated December 2005, Carl Bro International concludes: “waste incineration with energy generation seems to be a realistic and advantageous waste treatment option in Mauritius.”
Beyond the waste disposal attributes of our WTE project, the electricity generation benefits should not be overlooked. By utilizing municipal solid waste as a fuel, our WTE project will deliver cost competitive electricity that is both renewable and indigenous. Fossil fuels that would otherwise have to be imported for electricity generation and the associated drain on foreign exchange reserves will be eliminated. Future fossil fuel price increases will also be avoided, the cost of electricity from our project will essentially stay flat over the life of the project. Diversification of energy supply in Mauritius will increase and security of energy supply will be enhanced. All of these benefits can be accrued without sacrificing the environment, in fact, in recognition of the performance of the WTE industry in the United States, the U.S. EPA has stated that today’s WTE facilities produce electricity “with less environmental impact than almost any other source of electricity”.
We fully believe that modern WTE technology provides the best available means of safe, environmentally responsible solid waste disposal and clean, renewable, and indigenous generation of electric power for Mauritius. In developing a world class WTE project for Mauritius we fully intend to embrace the principals of transparency and benefit for Mauritians, benefits that will be enjoyed for many generations to come. We welcome the support of like-minded Mauritians as we embrace the development of our country and its future.
Carl AH TECK
Chief Executive Gamma Civic
