THE FIGHT GOES ON!
SATEP is committed to fighting the Eco Park incinerator in every way.
However, we are just ordinary, local residents armed only with funds raised from the community - THANK YOU.
In January, local residents decided not to pursue a Judicial Review after the Court advised that there was no case to answer. Not a surprising outcome: Surrey CC spent £££thousands of residents' money on top lawyers ensuring that the planning processes used to pass te Eco Park application was armour-plated. Surrey simply ticked all the right boxes. It doesn't make what they have done, or what they are doing, any more right or good; and certainly not green or 'Eco' in safeguarding the health of Spelthorne residents.
OUR FIGHT CONTINUES, AND IF THE WORST HAPPENS WE SHALL NEED TO FUND MONITORING EQUIPMENT TO ENSURE ANY EMISSIONS BREACHES (AND THERE WILL BE) ARE PROPERLY AND QUICKLY ADDRESSED.
DONATE via Bank Transfer, or paying in cheques
We can now accept direct payment into Nat West via
Sortcode: 01 01 23
Account Number: 1587 9380
SURREY’S ECO PARK MYTHS EXPLODED!
Surrey's determination to build the Eco Park is driven by money: SITA’s profits and Surrey’s £200m PFI grant from DEFRA. Here we expose the truth behind the Eco Park myths peddled by Surrey:
PROXIMITY: Surrey claims that waste must be treated ‘in county’ but it applies the 'Proximity Principle' on false premises now it has added a new RDF processing plant to Eco Park plans. Critically the Proximity Principle does not apply to RDF waste which can be much better treated in large efficient incinerators elsewhere. Best value can be realised anywhere in the EC as per DEFRA, EC and SCC waste policies.
DEFRA PFI SUPPORT: DEFRA's c£200M waste PFI support is not dependent upon the Eco Park, and will not be lost because it is varied. DEFRA only requires significant "eco" waste infrastructure projects to be created in County.
ROCs: It's unlikely OFGEM will award the proposed Eco Park incinerator double ROCs as a gasifier at 2 x c.£40/MWh. Its physical design does not comply with OFGEM's fundamental definition of a gasifier - that will output an energetic fuel gas for combustion in a subsequent process.
RISK: Most municipal waste gasifiers globally, and at Dargavel, have failed, unless repurposed as direct EfW combustion - which can be better delivered elsewhere as recovery in cheaper more efficient full sized plants ten times the capacity of Eco Park. Failure to work as advertised is a very high probability for this experiment. For independent research - Ref: Google: "global WTERT council history of Gasification"
PRICE: At the core of the logic for all three waste policies is the lowest price consistent with the adequate R1 compliant energy recovery from our waste fuel, to raise waste affordably up the hierarchy. UK prices are well documented by the "WRAP Gate Fees Report" at down to £60/tonne for modern EfW. They are as low as £8/tonne plus freight for R1 EfW in Sweden. Google "1-3_Prognos_Tolvik" for ref. data, see slide 6.
We are not told the gate fee proposed for the Charlton Lane "gasifier”, so cannot begin to compare. We do know it will be CHP-less disposal of our waste in an inadequately sized, hence inherently inefficient and overpriced, facility.
QUESTION: Will the Eco Park value for money determination, now delayed to Surrey Council’s April cabinet, transparently apply all the crucial considerations listed above to compare the full range of options, in particular the lower gate fees for better R1 qualifying energy recovery widely available elsewhere, and fully justify its results to Councillors, exclusive of any contract cancellation penalties?