Combined Heat and Power (CHP) district heating systems are not very useful when they do not have enough waste to burn (as in Sheffield) or cannot reliably provide the heat (as in Nottingham).
According to an article in the Nottingham Post the Eastcroft incinerator, which is one of the few in the UK to actually provide any heat, has once again failed to deliver heat to residents when needed.
Local campaigner Nigel Lee comments:
The district heating system associated with Nottingham’s Eastcroft Incinerator is incredibly inefficient. Nottingham Friends of the Earth calculates that only a third of energy in the waste burnt in the incinerator is converted to heat or electricity. See: www.foe.co.uk/groups/nottingham/200.htmIt should also be noted that, for the purposes of the CHP Quality Assurance scheme, Enviroenergy claims all of the heat distributed through the system as useful output. But only 60% of this is actually sold to paying customers, the rest is used in the incinerator or lost in distribution. (Figures for 2007 show 161.1GWh heat distributed, but only 94.845GWh sold.) It is hardly surprising if people can’t get enough heat in cold weather. The incinerator pumps out around 150,000 tonnes CO2 p.a. of which around 50,000 tonnes is from ‘fossil’ carbon (e.g. plastics). Taking account of electricity produced as well as heat, that is more CO2 per kWh than from coal-fired power stations. And even just the ‘fossil’ CO2 emissions are higher than for gas.
“…The estimated 2012 inputs to Parkwood Landfill are largely unsuitable for the ERF with approximately 80k tpa of waste which is clearly unsuitable for ERF (including non-combustibles, sludges, soils, glass and other inerts) and around 136k tpa of residues from waste treatment processes (derived from waste across the UK) including some non-combustible residues and other residues which have historically been shown to be unsuitable for the ERF (eg due to its high Cv content). Much of this material is derived from other facilities/businesses operated by the landfill operator and, even if it is technically suitable for the ERF, is effectively not commercially available. Without considering the commercial issues and existing catchment restrictions, the RPS 2011 study which accompanied the 2011 Application to Vary Condition 3 of the Planning Permission estimated that only around 10% of Parkwood’s Landfill inputs in 2006 were suitable for the ERF….”
“…Prior to 2005 annual increases in the amount of waste produced was being experienced however in recent years this has been reversed and waste arisings have been fallen significantly. Although there is no one single cause of this it results from a combination of different actions, including the prevailing economic conditions, increased public awareness of waste issues from national and local campaigns (such as home composting, real nappy campaigns and reuse of certain wastes), and other initiatives such as those by supermarkets to reduce the amount of packaging on goods and schemes to reduce the weight of packaging material. Also, large producers such as the Council itself are committed to reducing their waste -using the example of the Council, there is a commitment to reduce waste by 20% by 2012/13 (a key action of the Sheffield Waste Strategy). Further initiatives, experience elsewhere in the UK, could include minimising food waste in the residual waste, increasing the reuse of bulky items and further reductions in waste packaging which is a significant tonnage in Sheffield residual waste bins…”
“…The VES Study ‘Availability of C&I Waste in Sheffield’ (RPS, Nov 2011) states that following recycling/composting approximately 130k tpa of waste potentially suitable for the ERF was managed by competing facilities in Sheffield (including VES’ own transfer station facility), Hague Plant Excavation (figures suggest that this facility derives approximately half its waste from outside Sheffield, including non permitted areas) and Salmon Pastures MRF which recycles substantial volumes of the C/I waste and exports some of its mixed municipal waste to the ERF. There are a number of important considerations, namely:
- It is unrealistic to expect to handle all Sheffield’s C/I waste – VES currently handles a substantial share of the C/I arisings but there is fierce competition from >32 competing facilities (based on 2006 EA data).
- There is evident internalisation of waste within businesses such as Viridor. This may result in waste being sent for disposal both within and outside the City Council boundary. This is a commercial decision which leads to volumes of potentially suitable waste being unavailable to the ERF. Further information in this regard is provided in response to the first question.
- Tonnages are often double counted through movement of wastes – eg transfer stations to landfills.
- Tonnages are likely to have reduced significantly since 2006 following prolonged the economic downturn and introduced minimisation and recycling initiatives…”