Memorandum submitted by Sports Advancement
& Research Co. Ltd (SARCO)
You are requesting suggestions on waste recycling
as a VP of ETRA, a member of the EA task group on tyre recycling
and MD of a R&D company which takes the use of scrap tyres
from product conception to market I believe that I am well qualified
to make constructive suggestions.
The major problem is barriers to market, which
is not only fiscal, market size in relation to the players, and
the ability for those players to make a profit.
BARRIERS
1. Grants initial R&D through either
local or ESPRC works well but is based on a academic time scale
not commercial and does not contribute to entrepreneurs or SME's
who may be the instigators of the project, nor does it get products
to market Universities are encouraged to claim IPR under, the
scheme this is wrong when an entrepreneur asks for R&D of
a new technology.
2. EC funding is very difficult and long
winded and does not recognise the part that large companies may
play in product development. and national markets as they are
excluded from funding.
3. LTC's this has recently been considered
for changes presently any C/CC projects may require payback to
the distributive DB this is not practical, as final technology
development and marketing are as expensive as the initial R&D,
presently there appears to be no means of distributing the ,100m
to be allocated except through WRAP and in our case which is tyre
recycling WRAP does not recognise this area to be one which it
will grant aid to.
4. In house funding, here I can only speak
from my involvement within the civil engineering community, all
these companies carry out in-house R&D and have substantial
budgets, to do so, In many cases they will consider waste re use
and disregard it as being to small a market, if they do consider
it then the tendency is to only allocate a small budget to the
product
development.
5. much has been written about LA/Gov procurement,
green policies etc which is also applicable but the main problem
is availability of funding.
6. Banks and venture capitalist do not want
to know as in most cases success is not guaranteed and funding
is always short term.
SUGGESTIONS
1. Most Universities have a commercial arm
and are sitting on many potentially successful technologies but
lack the means to move these technologies to market, set up a
second arm of the ESPRC to fund precisely that, but run on a commercial
basis and time scale.
2. Instruct WRAP to take on board Tyre/
rubber recycling.
3. All such schemes must be payback free
to encourage Industry to take onboard the technologies, and by
placing commercial people in the two above bodies, market and
product feasibility will be seen at an early stage.
4. Enter into and fund (including paying
ALL participants expenses) a serious of stakeholder dialogues
to add to and resolve additional issues.
I could relatively easily write considerably
more on the above as well as cover other salient points but having
been at the sharp end of going from theory to market, recognise
that these barriers are and should be the committees main focus.
SARCO
2 December 2002
| Product | Designation Use
| Status | Comments | Market tonnes
|
| 3/20 | School playgrounds |
In production | Meets EN1177 |
96,000 |
| 3/20 | Skate/roller blade areas
| Fine tuning reqd | No tests reqd
| No stats |
| 3/20 | Tennis courts | Fine tuning reqd
| Indicative tests only rated slow | No stats
|
| 3/20 | Basketball courts |
In production | No tests reqd |
No stats |
| 3/20 | Other hard play sports areas
| In production | Cost effective/EN1177
| No stats |
| 3/20 | Athletic tracks |
Work needed market/design | No spikes/not tested cannot meet IAAF tolerances
| Cheap alt for schools |
| 3/20 | Jogging tracks. |
In production | No tests reqd |
No stats |
| 3/20 | Cycle tracks | In production
| No tests reqd | No stats |
| 3/20 | Walkways | In production
| No tests reqd | No stats |
| 10/40 | APSP shockpad base .
| In production
Re-design as two
layer
| Meets all performance
requirements |
24,000 |
| 10/40 | Football base/shockpad
| In production
Re-design as two
layer
| Meets all performance
requirements |
45,000 |
3/20 high
friction | Special product for FIA/FIM motor race circuits arrestor beds
| Final trial early
November | Meets EN1177 high friction rating, 72psv FIA will insist on use
| UK circuits plus 18 overseas |
3/20 high
friction | Zebra crossing vehicle
pedestrian interface
| R&D reqd
BBA cert reqd | Meets Gov targets reduction of 10% injuries
| No stats |
| 3/20 thin surfacing | Spin off from above
| Long term use in urban areas | Advantages noise, grip cost effective, hard wearing, dispels water
| Huge market |
| SAMI | No design yet | R&D reqd
| Does not suffer from thermal or reflective cracking.
| No stats |
| Sleeping policemen | Spin off from above
No design yet
| R&D reqd | Reduction in vehicle shock impact
| No stats |
| Bridge Abutments | Prefabricated blocks to Highways authorities spec
| Final R&D plus live trials | Small but lucrative market, needs more work
| No stats |
| Paviors | Prefabricated |
Full R&D + market analysis | DIY Market, can be coloured
| No stats |
Road ironwork support blocks |
Classified 2 years R&D at NCPE (prefabricated)
| Full R&D | Huge market through builders merchants,
| No stats |
| Airport runway landing/stop zones | Theoretical
| Full R&D | Responsibility for smooth landings rests with pilots not AP authority but stopping does.
| CAA like idea concentrate on friction. |
| Rapid light transit rail embedment | Indicative tests 1999
Suggest 80% success rate
| Full R&D
(£ 0.75million reqd) minimum
| Large EU Tram market | No stats
|
| | |
| |
| 
