It is wrong to think that we need an incinerator for our waste. Recycling technologies have advanced in recent years and we now believe that it is possible to treat up to 90% of our waste using a combination of recycling, composting and anaerobic digestion.
The only reason that most of our non-recyclable waste is classed as such is because it hasn't been separated.
Many places around the world are now working towards 'zero waste' without resorting to incineration.
San Francisco today achieves 72% recycling rates, aiming for 75% in 2010 and zero waste by 2020, which goes to show that even a densely populated city can still achieve very high rates of recycling when the right investment is made.
Investment in recycling would create far more jobs than the 40 that would be required to run a municipal waste incinerator, and the amount of energy saved would be far greater than that which could potentially be reclaimed through incineration. As soon as the papers and plastic materials are removed from the waste stream (say through improved recycling) an incinerator very quickly starts to loose all of its power generation benefits and instead actually starts to require extra power to keep the fire burning at high enough temperatures.
Investment in recycling would provide an economic boost to the area. An incinerator is a more expensive option than recycling and the money spent on it would not end up back in our local economy but would be money that goes out of the area.
An improved recycling solution would still mean that a small amount of waste still ends up in landfill, but this would be reduced over time with the aim being zero waste to landfill.
Incineration still requires a landfill for the toxic ash that is created, and 25% of the rubbish that is burnt would remain as ash, plus a landfill is still required for waste that cannot be incinerated.
We have been researching in depth a potential alternative solution for our waste and will be publishing the results here shortly.
