I welcome Mr. John Ahern, managing director of Indaver, and Ms Jackie Keaney, vice president of the Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants, and look forward to hearing their submissions.
Waste-to-Energy: Discussion.
Ms Jackie Keaney
On behalf of the Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants, CEWEP, I thank the Chairman, committee members, the clerk to the committee and his staff for inviting us to make a presentation.
What we hope to do over the next hour or so in our opening remarks and in the subsequent question and answer session is to outline to the committee why we are here, how waste-to-energy is relevant in the climate change and energy security challenge and what we would welcome from this committee in terms of impending developments which are relevant to our industry.
With regard to waste-to-energy, on the surface of it, the waste we produce and how it is managed may seem like a matter more appropriate to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government rather that the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security. Until recently, such an assumption would have been understandable. However, as the committee no doubt appreciates, climate change, what is causing it and how to address it, has forced a rethink across the board. Today climate change and energy security is firmly integrated into all policy areas from environment, energy, transport, economics, agriculture and more. We have seen this recently with the working group on renewable energy in the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. There are representatives from all these policy areas on that working group. It is because of this integrated approach that we are pleased to be here.
Even a cursory glance at this committee's agenda items and public hearings since it commenced sittings shows the range and diversity of the groups and organisations with which it has engaged. This alone is further evidence that climate change and energy security require widespread action and involvement.
The debate on climate change and energy security has, by and large, focused on the root causes of the problem. The scale of the task faced is immense and, at times, can seem almost insurmountable.
The facts and scientific evidence that prove the existence of climate change are compelling. Indeed, the scale of the evidence is such that even the most ardent cynics now accept we have a problem. Now we know there is a problem, the attention is starting to turn, albeit at times slowly, to solutions. Put simply, waste-to-energy is part of the solution.
The principle of waste-to-energy is simple, namely, turning the millions of tonnes of residual waste we produce into energy. When all that should be done has been done with the waste we produce — specifically recycling as much as possible — there is, and will always be, large quantities of residual waste outstanding. Traditionally at this juncture, we have chosen to bury the rest.
Rather than bury our waste in a hole in the ground and doing untold damage environmentally and economically, CEWEP members use waste that cannot be recycled to produce electricity and heat for industrial and household users. Waste-to-energy technology is widely used because, despite public perception, it is considered not only to be a hygienic method for treating waste but it also offers significant potential for off-setting greenhouse gas emissions, reducing energy imports, contributing to renewable energy targets and reducing reliance on landfill.
Across Europe, waste-to-energy is the method of choice adopted by governments, businesses and individuals. The 400 CEWEP member companies operating in 16 European countries treat approximately 52 million tonnes of waste each year. Figure 1 in the documentation circulated shows the European countries using waste-to-energy and the quantities of residual waste each country is treating by this means.
In real terms, waste-to-energy plants generate enough electricity to supply the entire population of Ireland, Switzerland and Denmark with electricity and to supply the entire population of Belgium, Hungary, Bulgaria and Norway with heat. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, established by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organisation, as a direct response to the problem of climate change stated that compared to landfilling, waste incineration and other thermal processes avoid most greenhouse gas generation, resulting only in minor emissions of CO2 from fossil carbon sources, including plastics and synthetic textiles.
Figure 2 shows how waste-to-energy can mitigate the production of greenhouse gas emissions by basically preventing the production of methane emissions from landfills. By diverting waste from landfills to incineration, one is preventing the production of methane which is 21 to 23 times more potent than CO2.
The Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change also states that post-consumer waste is a significant renewable energy resource whose energy value can be exploited through thermal processes, both incineration and industrial co-combustion, landfill gas utilisation and the use of anaerobic digester biogas. Of the original EU 15 member states, this state-of-the-art technology is now used in all but two countries, namely, Ireland and Greece. However, this is about to change and my colleague, Mr. John Ahern, will outline this in more detail.
We do not propose to dwell on the reasons it has taken so long for Ireland to move to waste-to-energy. We understand and appreciate that due process — politically, legally and through our planning system — is part of the democratic process. However, what all of us in this room and elsewhere now appreciate is that when it comes to emissions and waste targets, Ireland is failing to step up. We are not making sufficient progress in meeting the statutory targets that have been set in the fight against climate change. The number that demonstrate the scale of our failure are stark. If current trends continue, we are set to exceed greenhouse gas emission targets by 7 million tonnes and to exceed diversion targets for waste going to landfill dumps by 800,000 tonnes. These are not CEWEP figures but are figures recently published by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Figure 3 shows the quantity of waste going to landfill. That is waste deposits to landfill from 2002-07. In the past three years, the quantity of waste has increased rather than stabilised or decreased, as it should. Figure 3 also shows the biodegradable targets. If we are to implement the landfill directive and meet the targets, these are the quantities of municipal waste we are allowed deposit to landfill. Therefore, we can see that in less than two years, by end 2010, we must divert 800,000 tonnes of waste.
In what are uncertain times, the only certainty is that Ireland is only months away from having to shell out millions of euro in fines for failing to meet our environmental and climate change obligations. As the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government stated last week, such fines are dead money. Dead money is never palatable, but spending such quantities of taxpayers' money in what are extraordinary economic times is abhorrent.
This is why it is so important that our legislators do everything possible to support sustainable and efficient solutions to climate change. By and large, we believe such support is possible. However, the outcome of a process recently initiated by Government has the potential, if mishandled or misunderstood, to tax part of the solution to Ireland's climate change challenge. I would now like to hand over to my colleague, John Ahern, who will outline in greater detail the background to this process.
Mr. John Ahern
I thank the Chairman and the committee for the opportunity to make our presentation to the committee.
As Ms Keaney mentioned earlier, I am managing director of Indaver Ireland. Indaver recently commenced construction of Ireland's first waste-to-energy facility in County Meath. We have assembled a national and international team of respected experts to build our €130 million state-of-the-art facility and will be operational from the start of 2011. The Meath facility will manage 200,000 tonnes of residual waste per annum and generate enough energy to meet the needs of 20,000 homes, the equivalent of every home in Navan and Drogheda combined all year round. While we are not as large as a conventional power station, our plant still generates a significant amount of energy. In addition to Meath, we are also advancing plans to build a waste-to-energy facility in Ringaskiddy, County Cork, which when operational, will be positioned to supply the energy needs of the local industrial companies that are the main employers in this region.
Ms Keaney alluded to recent developments we feel are central to Ireland's climate change strategy. The reason we are here today is to draw the committee's attention to this issue. A process of critical importance is the regulatory impact assessment, RIA, sponsored by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, to levy waste facilities in Ireland. This is the first part of a legislative process which will ultimately lead to the publication of a Bill in the coming months.
The RIA, which is limited in its detail — I understand copies have been distributed to members — is motivated by the admirable and correct objective of using economic instruments to ensure we treat the waste we produce in an appropriate and sustainable way. We have all seen the example of the plastic bag tax and how it worked. These types of instruments have a place, but they can have unintended consequences if used inappropriately.
The focus of the RIA is to consider three key modifications which will be central to our climate change efforts: an increase in the landfill levy; the favouring of a mechanical biological treatment, MBT, waste management system using levies on other waste facilities; and the introduction of a levy on incineration. From a climate change perspective, economic instruments such as taxation can play a positive role. However such taxation measures, if they are to be introduced, should target the cause, not the solution. I will deal with each of these three modifications individually.
Taxing landfills is a no brainer. In waste management terms, landfills are the biggest source of greenhouses gases. Unless we tackle the main culprit, the rest is all window dressing. That is why a tax on landfill is common sense. Waste, like most markets, follows the well accepted economic norms of price sensitivity. If it is cheaper to bury our waste in a hole in the ground, despite all the damage it will do to our climate, that is what will happen. Despite the fact that in less than nine months from now, we will start to pay fines of over €100,000 per day for failing to meet our landfill directive targets, the amount of waste going to landfill is increasing. Faced with such grim realities, it is time for draconian measures if we are to meet our climate change commitments. That is the reason CEWEP is not alone in seeking the adoption of the highest possible levies on landfills. We believe the majority of people, including indeed landfill operators, realise the inevitability of such measures.
I should mention the issue of tax, given the focus on tax in yesterday's budget. The landfill tax is unusual in that it is ring-fenced within the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government — normally taxes go to the Department of Finance — where it can be used to subsidise recycling. The objective of the tax through the ability to recycle it into the home is to change behaviour. It is not meant to be a revenue generating exercise. People will have two bins at home, a black one for landfill and a green one for recycling. The objective of charging more for the black bin through the landfill tax is to encourage people to put recyclable waste in the green bin. A simple change of behaviour will mean householders do not have to pay a higher charge. However, if householders decide to be lazy and put everything in the black bin, they will pay more through the landfill tax for their household waste. The same is true in the case of the plastic bag. If people take a bag with them to the supermarket, they do not need to buy a plastic bag, but if not, they pay the price. That is how the landfill tax works. It is an unusual tax in that it is ring-fenced and stays within the system and cross-subsidises recycling.
The second part of the RIA is to favour MBT. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government proposes to give MBT technologies an advantage over incineration in the waste management system. This means that residual waste will be first treated using MBT and then buried in landfill. This approach gives rise to two specific energy security questions. First, at a time when our energy options are narrowing, when energy prices are fluctuating and when energy imports are rising, why would we bury an energy resource? Second, even after the MBT process, half of what enters an MBT facility will be left over and will need to be dealt with. Why waste large quantities of energy using a process that only deals with half of the problem? In effect, through the use of MBT we bury an energy source, leave behind half of the problem, fail to recover energy and increase our carbon footprint, all at enormous cost. With this in mind, it is worth noting the question put by the Environmental Protection Agency this year: "If most of the outputs of MBT are incinerated, is the preliminary treatment by MBT superfluous and does it add unnecessary costs to the price of waste services for no environmental gain?"
The MBT approach is not the best way forward for Ireland towards meeting our climate change targets. MBT is a generic expression for a range of technologies, some good and some bad. The Minister must start by defining what he means by MBT and outlining in detail what standards will apply to the mechanical biological system being proposed. MBT rarely lives up to its expectations. CEWEP does not suggest that all MBT is bad, but it results in huge quantities of leftover waste, waste that must be treated. To quote from the Intergovernmental Panel on Cimate Change, IPCC: "Compared with landfill, MBT can, theoretically, reduce methane generation by as much as 90%. In practice, reductions are smaller and dependent on the specific MBT processes employed". We need the Minister to give us the facts so that we know with what we are dealing and what type of MBT he has in mind. In comparative terms, MBT will in time realise the same outcome as we have seen recently with bio-fuels.
Only last month, the Government realised that bio-fuels can hinder as much as help our environment and recognised the need for a revised approach. The same will, ultimately, materialise with MBT, as it becomes clear that not only has it limited capabilities, it postpones addressing the root causes of climate change and enlarges the already growing carbon footprint our waste problem has created. The parallel between MBT and bio-fuels is uncanny. When we first heard about bio-fuels we were encouraged to use them and told they would be the great solution. However, we need to consider the type of bio-fuel in question. The use of bio-fuels can have both good and bad outcomes. We saw the impact of using bio-fuels in terms of food prices, which was not a good outcome. We may have new generation bio-fuels in the future, third generation bio-fuels, that will be better, but we have not got them yet.
The use of MBT technology is similar. It sounds like a great solution, but we need to examine it and see how it is utilised to know how good it is. Unless we do that, we do not know what we are dealing with when MBT is put forward as the solution to waste management. What type of MBT is proposed? What type of technology? What type of plant configuration? That has not been defined. If we rush into MBT we will have exactly the same problem as the Government had with bio-fuels. We will have to back away from it.
Why tax the solution? I refer to the tax on incineration. Taxing the cause of climate change is one thing. However, taxing waste-to-energy, one of the solutions to climate change, flies in the face of global best practice. If this RIA is to be followed through, as has been signalled, Ireland will in effect disincentivise rather than incentivise one of the measures we can take in the immediate term to address our climate change practices. Elsewhere in Europe, subsidies, not levies, are what governments are introducing to develop waste-to-energy. CEWEP and Indaver are not advocating subsidies for our facilities in Ireland, but we certainly do not want to pay tax on them. We are of course happy to pay our corporation tax, but here we are talking about a levy on the waste coming in the gate. We make this point because it encapsulates the full scale of the gulf between what the best countries are doing about climate change in terms of waste and what we are doing at home, where the Minister is talking about levying taxes.
I have reproduced a table from the IPCC report. I am sorry the quality is so poor. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a United Nations body which provides policy options and advice to governments. This is the table it has produced. We have highlighted certain aspects with arrows. The first is reduction of the biodegradable waste that is currently placed in landfill. Everybody agrees this is a bad idea and we should not do it. The graph states that we should reduce it. The next aspect is the promotion of incineration and other thermal processes for waste-to-energy. The IPCC says that governments should consider subsidies for the construction of incinerators, combined with standards for energy efficiency which the EU has now set for the incineration industry. The IPCC is saying it should be subsidised and the Minister is saying it should be taxed. There is a complete difference of approach in this policy.
The next point highlighted is tax exemptions, again to promote incineration — tax exemptions for electricity generated by waste incinerators and for waste disposal with energy recovery. All projects that have been proposed in Ireland include an energy recovery element. Again, the IPCC is saying we should subsidise it, provide tax exemptions and promote it, while the Minister is saying we should tax it. The next arrow points to landfill tax. I do not think I need to dwell on that. Everybody in the world knows we need to move waste away from landfill. The summary of the IPCC's recommendations is interesting. Nowhere can the initials MBT be seen, yet that is the direction in which we are going.
Waste-to-energy is often described differently, whether as incineration or thermal treatment. However, technology has changed the way this infrastructure is now categorised. Waste-to-energy and energy efficient incineration is regarded as recovery in the draft EU waste framework directive, as approved by the Parliament and Council of the EU as recently as June 2008. As referenced earlier, bodies of such stature as the IPCC, the United Nations, the World Health Organisation and the World Meteorological Association have stated categorically that waste-to-energy is a sustainable and efficient infrastructure which can help address climate change challenges. There is little I have said here that was not a quote from somebody else. These are not our opinions. They are the opinions of the bodies I mentioned.
The next graph is also taken directly from the IPCC report, again from the advice to governments. It is a little complicated but I have put in an arrow to indicate where members should look. It shows the different technologies used currently, from collection to landfill, and then the newer technologies — incineration, anaerobic digestion, and MBT in residual waste. The bottom line represents energy balance. The bottom right corner shows negative and positive energy processes, and states that MBT, which is anaerobic, is a negative process. In other words, treating our waste in that manner involves putting energy into it. Imagine taking something one is going to throw away and putting energy into it. It does not seem to make a lot of sense. A better form of MBT is anaerobic digestion. These are just technical terms; aerobic is with air and anaerobic is without air. Anaerobic digestion is positive in terms of energy production. This is usually carried out on separately collected brown bin waste — organic kitchen waste and garden waste. One can put it into digesters. It is a good technology and I do not have any problem with it. We can also see that incineration has the highest positive rating in terms of energy output. This is the most energy efficient technology for dealing with residual waste, according to the IPCC, and we are proposing not to promote it but to tax it.
The formulation of this committee was in itself an acceptance by all Oireachtas committees that when it comes to climate change and energy security, integrated thinking and action is a necessity. Indeed, the committee's terms of reference point to the need to consider, among other matters, the medium and long-term climate change targets and the key measures needed to meet these targets, and the level of power which can be generated from renewables or other power supplies. In this context, waste-to-energy is perfectly aligned with where we as a country need to develop. It is therefore imperative that, at a time of great uncertainty in so many areas, we do not do anything that will with certainty serve to prolong rather than solve our problems. It is with this in mind that we call on the committee to give consideration to the outcome of this regulatory impact assessment and subsequent legislative process over the coming weeks and months and to ensure the weight and influence the committee carries is brought to bear in favour of helping and not hindering efforts to tackle climate change.
We are here to seek the committee's support for an increase in landfill tax. We ask the committee to advise the Minister to move with caution with regard to MBT, to avoid rushing into it and to learn the lessons from bio-fuels. Finally, we ask the committee to ensure that a tax is not imposed on what is actually a climate change solution.
It is unfortunate that our meeting virtually coincides with the Minister's carbon budget, which is due in about 25 minutes. I ask the committee to excuse me if I leave early, possibly prior to the presentation of the next delegation.
I welcome Mr. Ahern and his colleague from CEWEP to the committee. He has given us a fair assessment of where he is coming from. It is always good to welcome the incinerator lobby into the committee rooms of Leinster House so we can engage in active discussion. I hope Ms Keaney will forgive me if I ask her directly who pays her salary and how much, if any, of it is paid by Indaver. That is a start to my questions.
Ms Jackie Keaney
I have no problem in saying that I am the project director with Indaver. I work on the Irish projects and I have done that for about ten years. Indaver is also a member of CEWEP. For each country that is a member, a vice president is appointed, and I was appointed as the Irish vice president.
That is good to know. I had not realised the link was so close. I suspected there was some link but not such an immediate one. That is well and good. It is important that we know these things.
My quibble with Ms Keaney's presentation is as follows. Her definition of landfill probably coincides with the definition of incineration held by the most fervent environmental campaigner. By that I mean that there are many types of incineration, including the nasty incinerators that were shut down ten or 20 years ago. There are large variations in the types of incineration used in some parts of Europe. By the same token, there is the kind of landfill we practised 20 years ago in this country whereby we put everything in a lorry and shoved it into a hole in the ground, and there is the modern, well engineered landfill in which there is systematic sorting and extraction of recyclables before the residue goes to landfill.
I am not sure exactly what definition the IPCC used in the diagrams and documentation before us but I doubt it is in accord with the higher standards that apply in some areas within the State at the moment. I paid a visit to Mr. Binman in Limerick three or four years ago, and that company was essentially taking the grey bins and extracting from them 80% to 90% recyclables. I visited him three or four years ago. The landfill equation is changing very quickly. I suspect that is one reason why Matt Twomey from Dublin City Council looks increasingly worried every time I see him making his media appearances. He wishes to get an incinerator built in the heart of Ringsend. In terms of waste management the playing field is shifting very quickly. I suspect the type of comparison Mr. Ahern is making with emissions from landfill is moving fairly quickly as well.
Mr. John Ahern
Chapter 10 of the IPCC report specifically talks about modern well-engineered landfills in its comparisons.
Does it include a percentage for extraction of recyclables from that?
Mr. John Ahern
Yes, it refers to all of the technologies used. It refers to a 50% recycling rate, and the residual waste and what we should do with it. The other issue about landfill is that it is not about the two of us having a debate about whether landfill is good or not. The European Union of which we are members has set down a landfill directive and has set targets for us to divert waste away. Ireland, Britain and Greece are the last countries to meet their targets. That debate about whether we should use landfill is not in the gift of the Deputy, me or even the Government.
By the same token we must start on a very scientific basis with a clear definition of the kind of landfill or incineration about which we are talking. It is meaningless to talk about one word in isolation to a definition. The definition of landfill in Ireland now is quite different from where it was five, ten or 20 years ago. The definition has progressed by leaps and bounds. I remember within the past 15 years walking by the back of St. James's Hospital and seeing piles of incinerator ash directly beside local authority housing. I have no doubt the kind of plants Indaver Ireland would operate would be very different from that definition. By the same token in landfill technology we are very far from where we were 15 or 20 years ago.
Mr. John Ahern
The issue we are here to discuss is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommendation to governments. I believe 130 countries are participating in it. The recommendation is not to landfill because landfill produces greenhouse gases. It is possible to cover a landfill, extract methane and try to generate electricity from it. However, the Deputy should imagine covering a 50-acre mound, sealing it, securing the gas, piping it to a generator and burning it. The IPCC refers to doing that, even doing that produces more greenhouse gases.
I agree. It is my and my party's view that we do not want to see that type of landfill. We would favour a clean-fill technology of residual waste that does not have a carbon-producing component within it. Ideologically my argument is that we should dramatically increase the recycling component. If the plastics, paper, glass and WEEE waste are removed, very little is left and it seriously undermines the move towards incineration. I do not believe we would be left with anything more than a fraction of waste required to operate almost a dozen incinerators on this island. I believe it undermines the case for the Dublin incinerator to the point that if we achieve the kinds of recycling levels that are possible, particularly on the domestic waste front, we will not have a need for it and we will have a residue going to landfill that will not——
I remind members that we are not here to debate whether we should or should not have incinerators. We are here to debate whether action taken will be good or bad for our climate change targets. We could be here all day discussing party policies on incineration. We should put questions to the witnesses.
I accept that. May I continue with my questions? I had started with a few questions and we ended up in a debate really back and forth.
The media thought we were at an oral hearing again.
I thank Ms Keaney for the question as to who pays the salaries. It is useful to know. Would Mr. Ahern accept that his definition of landfill needs some clarity in order to address Ireland's current waste challenge? Is he familiar with the percentage reduction of domestic waste that is possible with current technology and recycling? If he is can he give us some details? Would he accept that one of the concerns about incineration is not so much the carbon component but the concern that if things go wrong the kinds of emissions coming from the flue of an incinerator can change quite dramatically from what one hopes to achieve?
Mr. John Ahern
First, on landfill, we did not come here with any of our opinions. We came here to give the committee information about the IPCC's opinion and advice to governments as to what to do. The Deputy and I can argue all day about our opinions. We came here to give the committee evidence. The IPCC has stated that modern well-engineered landfills are not the way to go from a climate change point of view.
From which IPCC report is Mr. Ahern taking that information?
Mr. John Ahern
It is its most recent report. I cannot remember its title.
Ms Jackie Keaney
It is the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007, Working Group III Report "Mitigation of Climate Change."
I thank Ms Keaney.
Mr. John Ahern
It was published approximately one year ago and it received considerable media coverage at the time. That is the first question. We are talking about modern landfills and the IPCC is comparing modern incineration with modern landfills. The IPCC again gives us advice on recycling rates. It states that an optimal level for recycling is 50%. It is possible to reach a recycling level at which people go to extraordinary lengths and put energy in to recycle something at which point the environmental cost of recycling it is greater than would be saved by incinerating or putting it in landfill.
Does Mr. Ahern accept that we are up to 85% in some plants in Ireland that are taking green bins?
Mr. John Ahern
We can in theory recycle nearly everything.
I am talking about in practice. Does Mr. Ahern accept my contention that there are some waste plants in Ireland that are taking grey bins and getting 80% out of that for recycling?
Mr. John Ahern
Indaver is based in Flanders, which has the highest recycling rate in the world. It has a 70% recycling rate.
I was asking about Ireland because Mr. Ahern should be familiar with it.
Mr. John Ahern
Ireland could do considerably better than it is doing.
I am asking about the current situation in some plants in Ireland.
Mr. John Ahern
I believe we are at approximately 30%. In terms of industrial waste we are at——
Mr. Ahern is avoiding answering the question. I asked him specifically if he would accept that some plants in Ireland are taking grey bins and are getting 78% to 80% recycling levels out of them?
Mr. John Ahern
The Deputy said he had visited the Mr. Binman plant in Limerick. I have also been there because that plant is a customer of ours. It takes waste and treats it in a form of MBT technology. It produces a large residue which our company then picks up, puts on a ship and takes to Sweden to power a cement kiln.
I am asking about the percentages.
Where are we going with this line of questioning?
After the processing by Mr. Binman, what percentage of residue is being shipped out of Ireland?
Mr. John Ahern
Approximately 50%.
I thank Mr. Ahern.
Mr. John Ahern
There is an optimum recycling rate. The IPCC recommends not recycling to the point of exhaustion because more energy would be used up in doing so and therefore create a great deal more environmental harm than doing something else with the waste.
I thank Mr. Ahern.
I thank the delegation for appearing before us and making the presentation. The area of incineration can be very difficult politically. The points made by the witnesses need to be attended to. In terms of public policy, what they have highlighted shows a real anomaly versus what we have heard from the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and his officials. On the one hand it seems that for climate change reasons, incineration needs to form part of the picture whether we like it or not. On the other hand, the approach seems to be anomalous in terms of tax. We are living in days where if it moves it gets taxed so I am not sure, even it were acceptable to the Minister, whether that might not happen anyway.
There seems to be an issue with the extent to which we can recycle. Mr. Ahern referred to energy use in this regard. Every time people go to a recycling centre to deliver a few newspapers and bottles, they use a car. It is the greatest show in town where they meet all their friends. The more that happens, the less energy efficient it becomes because green bins are not available in parts of the country or they must be paid for in other areas. It would be worth undertaking a close analysis of the cost of recycling to ascertain where are the limits because it is limiting.
I am concerned about the dependence of incineration on waste. We should go back a step and examine the material we generate for waste disposal. We recycle more and, at the same time, more waste is going to landfill. At some point, we must return to the source of the problem and if we go the incineration route wholeheartedly — CEWEP is not looking for levies but let us take a benign view of it — the organisation is depending on that volume of waste to grow and certainly not diminish because otherwise that would put plants out of business.
That is a problem when it come to a reliance on incineration. It also applies in other areas but an incineration plan requires major investment. Committee delegations have visited plants in other countries and they work very well. When they evolve into district heating and so on, they make a great deal of sense. However, the dependence on, and growth of, waste is a problem.
The committee needs to pursue this with the Minister and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government because, on the one hand, fines are looming and, on the other, there is a perception that the Minister is clouded in his judgment on incineration because of what is happening in his constituency. We all understand that but it does not make for clear policy. Clarity about the best policy on energy efficiency, waste management and climate change is needed. Will Ms Keaney address the question about the generation of waste, which is central to the way CEWEP runs its business?
Ms Jackie Keaney
CEWEP represents more than 400 plants in Europe. From the outset, an incineration plant is deliberately undersized and, therefore, waste plans will identify what the recycling rate should be or what is an achievable rate and normally they will set how much they send to landfill. The balance is normally then identified as the required incineration capacity. We have done that in Ireland. For example, we have our ten waste management plans. Six identify waste-to-energy as part of the plan but they only identify required capacity based on an achievable recyclable rate. For example, in Dublin if they decide they can achieve a 45% recycling rate, they will base their incineration capacity on 30% incineration, while the remainder, which will comprise residual waste from MBT, recycling or incineration, will go to landfill.
We have seen this throughout Europe. Flanders has a recycling rate of 70%, which is high compared with many other European countries but the plant has 1.6 million tonnes of incineration capacity and it is increasing by another 400,000 tonnes because they are limited in going to landfill without pre-treatment first. In general, that is what plants in Europe do. Incineration capacity is always worked out after the recycling rate.
Mr. John Ahern
That is how there is not a dependence to feed the beast. The Deputy raised a good point about the Dublin incinerator. It has nothing to do with us, as we are not involved in the project or the Minister's position on it. The Minister is perfectly entitled, as is any other Deputy, to oppose a project in his area but one should not direct policy based on one's opposition. It is reasonable for people to agree with the policy but oppose a given site. They are two completely separate arguments. Policy is set but that does not mean every proposed incineration project is good. Projects can be opposed. We have attended many oral hearings where Deputies have said they are in favour of incineration but not in the location proposed. That is how one proceeds.
Who is Mr. Ahern telling?
Perhaps that is a good instruction for me.
Presumably Mr. Ahern is not suggesting the Minister is in favour of incineration as long as it is not in his backyard.
Mr. John Ahern
The Minister has said at least 400,000 tonnes is needed. Having moved from Opposition into Government, to his credit and probably for a political price, he stated at a conference attended by Ms Keaney we need at least 400,000 tonnes in capacity. We are not arguing about whether to introduce incineration, but about how much. If the capacity of incinerators is restricted, that is fine.
I would like to avoid discussing the proposed incinerator in my own constituency because I have issues about that. Mr. Ahern and I have spoken about it many times. There are issues relating to capacity and supplying sufficient waste to keep the hazardous waste incinerator proposal going. That is for another day.
This is about principle, not location.
In principle, I am not anti-incineration but I would like to ensure we put all the incentives we can in place to encourage people to recycle. As Deputy McManus said, if incineration is introduced as the solution, as Mr. Allen describes it, there is a disincentive to force people to recycle and reuse. It makes sense to ensure it is more cost effective to recycle than incinerate. For that reason, it may make sense to tax incineration as a waste disposal proposal.
I accept we cannot continue to do what we are doing. Putting everything into landfill, even if it is well baled and well lined and so on, is not a sustainable proposition. Strides need to be made in recycling and reuse to dramatically reduce the volume of landfill, or another solution needs to be found. Incineration should not be eliminated as part of the solution.
It is difficult not to allow this to become a debate about whether we support or oppose incineration. Does the waste residue following the incineration process pose an emissions risk when it is landfilled?
Mr. John Ahern
Not if handled correctly.
Are the emissions removed at that stage? I presume the methane has been removed. Mr. Ahern referred to waste to energy but I am as interested in a potential heat component and, therefore, combined heat and power whereby the emissions produced through incineration can be recycled. If the technology were to ensure zero emissions from an incineration plant, we would have fewer political problems dealing with it. Are we at that stage yet? I have heard conflicting reports in this regard.
CEWEP has a tough job to succeed in Ringaskiddy just like it had a tough job in Meath because of significant local opposition politically. A small number of national incinerators are involved. If our guests are successful in Ringaskiddy, it will mean waste being transported from throughout the country to one or two incineration points. The emissions cost of the transportation of material must be factored in. However, recycling and landfills are localised solutions and the transport requirement is not as significant. Will our guests comment?
I do not know enough about MBTs, which I believed were a type of shoe worn by a number of people I know to improve their leg muscles. I know that MBTs are being considered by the Government, but I do not feel qualified to comment on the emissions consequences. Will our guests send members information on the matter, as it would be useful?
In many European countries, alternative farming practices include the use of grass and silage for methane collection as opposed to cattle feed. Does the same theory not apply in terms of waste? Instead of burying the silage first and trying to collect methane subsequently, can we not be more efficient and try to crush, store and treat it, given that methane would be more of a resource than a waste product if collected properly? Are there any solutions and is Indaver considering them? It is not just an incineration company but a waste management company as well. What is occurring in this respect? Given the concept of collecting gas instead of viewing it as a negative emission, we should be trying to turn what is a problem into a potential solution. The IFA is considering whether farmers could use grass to produce methane rather than milk. If this concept does not apply to waste, why not?
I accept a residue that must be dealt with remains at the end of the process, but can we efficiently collect methane before incineration or landfill instead of burying it first? I accept that trying to collect methane from a 60-acre landfill site would be disastrous. While it is being done successfully in County Cork to a certain extent, it is not the most efficient way.
I thank our guests for their presentations. What is the transfer of energy balance difference between anaerobic digestion and incineration as outlined in the energy balance sheet? Does the Confederation of European Waste-to-Energy Plants, CEWEP, include plants that are not incinerating but are using anaerobic digestion to harvest methane to convert to energy? Are all the approximately 340 plants listed incinerators? In terms of efficiency, is there a cost difference in the technology or process?
It boils down to a question of how to control and minimise a carbon emission to harvest energy. Is this where the transfer of energy balance difference occurs or has a cost-benefit analysis between one and the other been carried out? I agree with Mr. Ahern that it is not a question of whether to incinerate, rather about getting the level right. It should not incentivise a continuance of waste. Our first priority should be to reduce, re-use and recycle, after which we will deal with what remains.
There is a windfall tax in terms of renewable means of generating electricity. Will this windfall profit accrue to plants such as our guests'?
Ms Jackie Keaney
I will start with the European perspective. Regarding an incineration tax to mitigate any impact on recycling rates, a European country generally decides to meet landfill diversion targets. According to the landfill directive, countries must divert X tonnes from landfills on certain dates. Otherwise they must store it or be fined. Countries tax landfills to raise waste in the hierarchy and to promote recycling, MBTs and incineration.
When countries reach a recycling rate of 50% to 60%, they consider an incineration tax that is generally minimal, for example, €7 instead of the €70 landfill tax. From my experience of sitting around the table of CEWEP members, none of the countries has taxed incineration to assist recycling rates. They have not found an imperative to do so. There is an imperative to divert waste from landfill and, therefore, they tax it.
In Europe, approximately 10% of the volume or 25% of the weight of incinerated waste becomes residual ash. Some three quarters of the ash is usually treated in ash recovery plants if a country's incinerators produce enough to justify it economically. The ash comes out of the plants in, for example, three streams or types, two of which can be re-used in the construction industry while the other goes straight into landfills or is used as landfill cover. Most of the ash is classified as inert and is safer to deal with than landfill waste. All of the——
Is it defined as hazardous?
Ms Jackie Keaney
A small proportion from the flue gas cleaning process is classified as hazardous because of its salts and everything it has taken out of the air before leaving the stack. Its content is high in metals and controversial dioxins. Normally, these are captured in 1% to 2% of the input volume. The ash is treated in specialised hazardous waste landfills and is sometimes solidified, that is, put into landfills like cement blocks so that it can be removed in future if a better solution is found.
All the waste is going into landfills currently and is not contained. All the contaminants are being admitted into the atmosphere. With ash, all the contaminants are removed from the waste, air emissions are clean and in line with EU standards and hazardous material is captured in a small portion that can be separately treated.
Of the 400 CEWEP members, all are waste-to-energy or incineration plants with energy recovery. Some tap into an existing district heating system and are selling their steam into a grid. These can be 100% efficient and their facilities can be designed to use a minimal amount of energy to operate. Cooling water can be brought back through the heating system to be used in their processes.
Other members have a combined heat and power plant. In Denmark, one would switch off the heating during the summer because it is unwanted. There is excess heat so the priority is to export it if possible. If this is not possible, electricity will be produced. They are a little less efficient — between 60% and 80% efficient — as they need to make electricity. Some plants may not be situated near a district heating system or they may not be able to find large energy users for heat or steam, so they must produce electricity. There is no other choice. They would be approximately 30% efficient. They are our members.
They all use incineration as opposed to gasification, the other phrase used.
Ms Jackie Keaney
Yes.
They all use incineration.
Ms Jackie Keaney
They used standard municipal waste incineration technology.
Mr. John Ahern
I will pick up the other questions and try to bring it back to the climate change issue. There was mention of combined heat and power. We will be relaunching our planning application in Cork in a couple of months and we are proposing to convert the plant into a combined heat and power plant. The idea is driven purely by climate change and energy efficiency — a district heating system would be put in to power the local pharmaceutical industries. The ideal process would have hazardous waste coming from the pharmaceutical industry and we would process or burn it and turn it into steam before shipping it back out to them. They would, in effect, use their own waste as a fuel after it comes to our facility.
This is the most efficient way we could generate steam for those power plants. We would take municipal waste from the likes of Cork city, burn it and produce energy. From an energy security perspective, we would not have to import gas, oil or anything else. From the perspective of climate change, we are dealing with waste locally.
Members spoke about transporting waste over great distances across Ireland. We are taking our hazardous waste in Cork to Germany, Finland, Holland and Belgium at a significant environmental and CO2 cost because of transport emissions. If we could deal with that waste in Ireland, we immediately have a climate change benefit. There are 20 to 30 trucks a day leaving Cork for Hamburg and that makes no sense. Some waste may still have to be brought from Donegal. We know the Irish market very well and there is very little hazardous waste there and most of it is in Cork, along with the relevant industries.
The difficulty we have always had when people have said to us to build the plant somewhere else is that if we go to another community with the idea of building the hazardous waste incinerator, the people will tell us to go back to Cork, where the industry is producing this waste, to deal with it there. From a climate change perspective, that is the best way.
Members mentioned zero emissions but there is no such thing. Recycling does not achieve zero emissions. Everybody believes we should recycle metal and we collect it in the recycling centres spoken about by Deputy McManus. We take it to a steelworks and put it in a big oven.
I am not talking about recycling metal. We know that.
Mr. John Ahern
It generates lots of emissions. Members remember Irish Ispat and the emissions from there. Even for recycling, including paper and plastic plants, wherever there is recycling there are emissions.
The question is if solutions are being developed that involve zero emissions with regard to combined heat and power plants. Is that nonsense?
Mr. John Ahern
Emissions are improved but there is never zero emissions. We are working towards that but technology has a long way to go.
With regard to local opposition, it is interesting that where we are building the facility in Meath, the issue we are dealing with now is people queuing for work. We must be the only construction site in the north east because every ten minutes or so, somebody pulls up in a truck or van asking for work. We have had no opposition once we got through the process. Previously we had opposition and much debate, and I am sure we will have much more in Cork. Generally speaking, we have that debate with people and if we win — not every project gets through — there is generally a greater level of acceptance, although not full acceptance.
Some members of the committee were in Sweden and we observed some of this incineration plants which produced heat. Some were in industrial estates and we even drove into one not realising what we were going to see. It was totally out of character with what one would suspect.
Ms Jackie Keaney
They are perceived as industrial facilities on mainland Europe. There is a completely different perception.
I thank the witnesses most sincerely. Unfortunately time is against us and we must deal with another topic. I found this very informative. We will take note of everything that has been said. Ireland must wake up and realise we cannot keep forking out money we do not have because we fail to meet targets. That is the angle I am especially concerned about. Not alone are we dealing with climate change in this manner, we are also saving much money.
The message I got from today is that we cannot go on acting as we have always done and there are alternatives which we must investigate and face up to in an open-minded way. As far as I am concerned, we are learning the whole time what is available to replace bad habits with less bad habits.
I was a member of Dublin County Council when all the waste of the city was dumped back in the 1970s and 1980s. Eventually we ran out of sites and now the waste from Dún Laoghaire and surrounding areas is baled and stored in a hole in County Kildare. There is much traffic bringing waste from Dublin to Kildare. From an emissions perspective, it does not make much sense to me.
I thank the witnesses sincerely for their attendance, as well as their openness and constructive contribution.
We have a real problem in that the carbon budget is about to be announced in the Dáil. I must go to listen to it and I will speak after the Minister in any case.
The Deputy could listen to the next presentation for a while before he goes.
I do not want to be rude and leave halfway through the presentation. The witnesses will only speak to one or two people.