With this technology waste is burnt in controlled conditions, firstly to reduce waste volume and secondly to possibly harness the burning energy for useful ends, like generating electricity.
The proposal documents are very detailed, talking about the types of waste proposed to be used, environmental considertions, the residue from burning, technology used and treatment of waste gases, how energy is recovered, control and monitoring etc.
In projects such as these, the problem is always the same. For residents living around the proposed plant site, how can they trust the developers, and the operators, that the project will operate perfectly according to its design documents?
For example, although a number of parameters are supposed to be continuously monitored (such as carbon monoxide, ammonia, particulate matter etc) and other at a frequency to be agreed with the regulator (like dioxins and toxic metals), can we trust the operator to report immediately when some parameter is superseded, and stop plant operations when necessary?
How can you trust a commercial operation to do the right thing even when against its commercial interest? And what guarantee can ever be provided against an unexpected disaster that hits the plant?
In such operations, the risk is carried by people living around the site, and by the environment, while the benefits are not enjoyed by the same people but by the commercial enterprise. The risk is not small, and I’m sure we all heard about cases where operators hid issues, even serious ones, from authorities even when obliged to notify and take necessary steps.
I think that the main problem is that the proposed plant it too close to residential centres in Western Sydney, incidentally bang in the middle of ‘Little Malta’ where so many first and subsequent generations of Maltese live. It might be wise for the plant be proposed to be situated elsewhere.
As I had written in The Voice No. 169, we do need to mature in our attitude to consumption, as at the end of the day, when we don’t require an object any longer, we can chuck it away (and generate waste); when it breaks we can repair (instead of binning) it and reuse; we can send it for recycling; and finally, we can think about whether in fact we need it at all!
I’m not one of those to oppose such a project at all costs. I recognise society does have a present problem with waste, and practical solutions are needed to reduce this. It is true that there are bad examples of incineration, but it is not necessarily so. Potential benefits are there also, therefore a proposal similar to this but in a more remote location and with strict audits and conditions might be considered.
It needs to be clear nevertheless that a plant operating out of sight does not mean out of mind and there is less need to be so strict, as we still need to avoid an environmental disaster. After all, we need to take responsible care of this land from which we live as much as the first Australians (the aborinals) who consider themselves the traditional custodians of the land.
----------------------------------
Din hija teknoloġija li minnha l-iskart jinħaraq taħt kundizzjonijiet kontrollati, l-ewwelnett biex jitnaqqas il-volum tal-iskart, u t-tieninett biex possibilment tintuża l-enerġija tal-ħruq għal-affarijiet utli, bħaġ-ġenerazzjoni tal-elettriku.
Id-dokumenti tal-proposta huma ddettaljati ħafna, jitkellmu fuq x’tip ta’ skart huwa propost jintuża, kunsiderazzjonijiet ambjentali, dak li jibqa’ wara l-ħruq, it-teknoloġija tal-ħruq u x’trattament isir lill-gassijiet, kif l-enerġija tiġi rkuprata, kontroll u mmonitorjar eċċ.
F’proġetti bħal dawn, il-problema tibqa’ dejjem l-istess waħda. Il-poplu li jgħix madwar is-sit tal-impjant propost, kif se jafda lill-iżviluppaturi, u lill-operaturi, li l-proġett se jopera perfettament skont id-dokumenti tad-disinn tiegħu?
Per eżempju, għalkemm hemm numru ta’ parametri li suppost iridu jiġu osservati l-ħin kollu (bħall-monossidu tal-karbonju, l-ammonja, il-partikulati eċċ) u oħrajn bi frekwenza miftiehma mar-regolatur (bħad-dijossina u metalli tossiċi), nistgħu nafdaw lill-operatur li jirrapporta mallewwel meta xi parametru jinqabeż, u li titwaqqaf l-operazzjoni tal-impjant jekk ikun hemm bżonn?
Kif tista’ tafda operazzjoni kummerċjali li tagħmel dak li hu suppost anke meta jkun kontra l-interess kummerċjali tagħha? U x’garanziji qatt jistgħu jiġu jingħataw kontra xi diżastru mhux mistenni li jolqot l-impjant?
F’operat bħal dan, ir-riskju jinġarr kollu mill-persuni li jgħixu madwar l-impjant, u mill-ambjent, filwaqt li l-benefiċċju ma jitteħidx mill-istess persuni imma mill-intrapriża kummerċjali. Ir-riskju mhux żgħir, u persważ li lkoll smajna f’każijiet fejn operaturi ħbew problemi, anke serjissmi, mill-awtoritajiet anke jekk kienu obbligati li jgħarrfu b’dan u jieħdu l-passi neċessarji.
Jien naħseb li l-problema prinċipali hi li l-impjant huwa propost qrib wisq taċ-ċentri tal-abitazzjoni tal-punent ta’ Sydney, inċidentalment qalb ‘Malta ż-Żgħira’ fejn joqogħdu tant nies jew imwielda Malta jew ta’ dixxendenza Maltija. Forsi jkun iktar għaqli li l-proposta tkun għal impjant iktar imwarrab minn hekk.
Bħal ma ktibt f’The Voice Nru. 169, hemm bżonn nimmaturaw fl-attitudni tagħna tal-konsum, għax fl-aħħar mill-aħħar, meta oġġett m’għandniex bżonnu iktar, nistgħu narmuh (u niġġeneraw skart); jekk jinkiser nistgħu insewwuh minflok narmuh u nergħu nużawh; nistgħu nibgħatuh għar-riċiklaġġ; u fl-aħħarnett, nistgħu wkoll naħsbu jekk fil-fatt għandniex bħonnu wara kollox!
Jien m’iniex wieħed minn dawk li jopponu proġett bħal dan akkost ta’ kollox. Nagħraf li s-soċjetà għandha problema preżenti ta’ skart, u soluzzjonijiet prattiċi biex dan jitnaqqas irid ikun hemm. Huwa veru li hemm eżempji ħżiena ta’ inċinerazzjoni, imma mhux bilfors ikun hekk. Benefiċċji potenzjali hemm ukoll, għalhekk proposta bħal din imma f’post iktar imwarrab u b’kundizzjonijiet u awditjar strett tista’ tiġi kkunsidrata.
Irridu nkunu ċari madankollu li impjant bħal dan li jopera f’post imwarrab ma jfissirx li jista’ jintesa u li m’hemmx għalfejn inkunu daqshekk stretti, għax xorta rridu nevitaw xi diżastru ambjentali. Wara kollox, għandna nħarsu b’responssabbiltà lejn din l-art li ngħixu minna bħal ma jħarsu lejha l-ewwel Awstraljani (l-aboriġeni) li jqisu lilhom infushom bħal l-kustodji tradizzjonali tal-art.
1https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/blacktown-advocate/protesters-turn-up-the-heat-over-proposed-incinerator-at-eastern-creek/news-story/b072e2bb15184b4902d8765d3392fb0c, retrieved 16/1/2017
2http://www.tngnsw.com.au/proposal/, retrieved 16/1/2017
3Project Definition Brief, revision 3; The Next Generation NSW Pty Ltd; 25/10/2016. p. 7
4http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/opposition-grows-to-western-sydney-energyfromwaste-incinerator-20170329-gv97z6.html, retrieved 16/1/2017
1https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/blacktown-advocate/protesters-turn-up-the-heat-over-proposed-incinerator-at-eastern-creek/news-story/b072e2bb15184b4902d8765d3392fb0c, retrieved 16/1/2017
2http://www.tngnsw.com.au/proposal/, retrieved 16/1/2017
3Project Definition Brief, revision 3; The Next Generation NSW Pty Ltd; 25/10/2016. p. 7
4http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/opposition-grows-to-western-sydney-energyfromwaste-incinerator-20170329-gv97z6.html, retrieved 16/1/2017
No comments:
Post a Comment