Which all will not agree with in part a smaller scale network of modularised gasifers; its a large step forward in accepting large scale, PFI 25-30year funded EfW/CHP facilities are not the answer.

Peter is a strong supporter of 50,000Tpa size Anaerobic Digestion decentralised network of modules creating CHP from separated food waste, alongside maximised recycling/composting. Many might suggest huge common ground here.

Of contention, “gasification”. Gasification systems have moved a long way from Novelis to smaller Energos type modules. Whilst the products of gasification (syngas, CHP) are of value; waste chars /emissions quality might still be an issue for many; along with the % of waste that could still be easily recycled at the kerb, or separated mechanically. Areas for discussion. Recycling /composting is not enough and WDA targets should be looking at 60% or 70% + targets before contracting on set tonnages to smaller goalkeeper technologies such as MBT/MHT and plasma modules.

For myself, I’d be reasonably happy/reassured if Peter were to shift slightly technologically by substituting small gasification modules with the next generation of gasplasma (gasification with plasma polishing of syngas) or plasma gasification modules to ensure BAT,cleaner emissions and syngas quality, still local DE CHP; but zero chars. 50,000Tpa modules sound about right. A local network of AD and plasma modules for CHP sounds are far more pragmatic and acceptable solution than the current PFI financed EfW/CHPincinerator led centralised model/contracts entered into by Defra/WDAs and large waste companies.

Rob Whittle, NAIL2, Norfolk