Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
100-119)
MR STEVE
LEE AND
MR ROBERT
LISNEY OBE
15 OCTOBER 2008
Q100 Lynne Jones: I am not just talking
about the scale of the operation, but if you have got a technology
that is much more effective in the conversion of waste to energy,
then surely that is not affected by where the location is. It
should be the scale of the operation that is affected. Certainly
advanced technologies are much more efficient. I cannot understand
why you are saying you are neutral on what should be promoted.
Surely there should be best practice guidance.
Mr Lee: I think the real trigger
for efficiency in terms of energy recovery from residues is heat.
It is relatively easy to generate electricity, relatively easy
to hook into the National Grid and to supply it and to make money
from it. It is much less so for heat. I think in the discussion
centered around the Environment Agency's evidence it came out
that probably twice as much energy comes out of waste as usable
heat as is likely to come out as generated electricity. Finding
a reliable market for heat, I think, is probably going to be one
of the keys to the future. It sounds easy when you say it quickly,
but you need to find a customer who has got a thirst for heat
365 days a year. I think that can be done, and we are starting
to find industries that have got that appetite for heat, and local
waste management solutions that can supply heat and energy locally,
I think, will be very successful, but at the moment I think it
is much easier to find a market for electricity than it is for
heat.
Mr Lisney: There has been a large
number of new technologies that have been proven in the relatively
last few years, but they are proven in terms of their certain
scale, they are proven in terms of efficiencies, but they are
not necessarily proven in the UK or at the widespread scale, as
yet. I think that is one of the issues.
Q101 Lynne Jones: We know best practice
from other countries. We have seen examples in Germany, for example,
on a committee visit. Why are we not promoting what is good practice
in other countries?
Mr Lisney: I think the Institution
does do that very much, but there is a difference between promoting
good practice from anywhere in the world that is better than the
UK at the moment. The issue is that people have got to receive
that message and then they have got to procure those technologies,
and some of those technologies are not necessarily offered in
the way we procure things, certainly in the municipal sector at
the moment.
Q102 Lynne Jones: What do you mean
by "not offered"?
Mr Lisney: If you actually go
out to tender for energy recovery services, let us say, or municipal
service, the companies that might respond to that tender might
not offer those technologies. They might consider them a high
risk or they put on a high cost and they become unaffordable.
So it is quite complex.
Q103 Lynne Jones: Is not that self-defeating,
because until there is support for those technologies they are
going to continue to be undeveloped and we are going to continue
to be using the conventional methods?
Mr Lisney: Yes, the Defra New
Technology Programme was set up to prove that these technologies
can be built, delivered and effective in the UK. Those technologies
are just about now being built and coming on stream, so it will
still be another year or two before we will be able to prove that.
In the meantime, we also have lots of projects in the Municipal
sector being procured at the moment which will be, let us say,
bankable and cost-efficient technologies. They are all very good
technologies nevertheless, but the issues are around—. We
talk about scale and other things. The other dimension that Steve
mentioned about heat: it is generally something that has not been
in contracts at the moment in the municipal sector because it
adds another dimension of complexity.
Q104 Lynne Jones: Is this something
that should be part of the Government's Fuel Poverty Strategy?
Mr Lisney: I think one of the
issues is that there is a bridge needed to be made between effectively
the energy policies and this particular opportunity to provide
energy. I think the Government's energy policy came out just about
the same time as the Waste Strategy and I think they were linked
in some areas, but this could have been a really strong link.
Q105 Lynne Jones: I worked out that
the waste energy that goes in heat is the equivalent of 800gw,
which is a power station, is it not?
Mr Lisney: Yes, indeed.
Q106 Lynne Jones: It is unbelievable
that we should do nothing and just accept that this happens.
Mr Lee: It is absolutely vital
that we get on top of this heat market. I believe that we will.
I know that Defra and people that we talk to in the Scottish Environment
Protection Agency are actively searching their areas trying to
find where these reliable heat markets are, and I look forward
to that happening. But I would like to echo the point that Bob
Lisney has just made. We in the waste management industry have
started to realise in maybe only the last five to 10 years that
we are part of a much bigger picture. It is not about waste disposal
any more, it is about resource management, and we see ourselves
as being part of the link between climate change, energy policy,
resource efficiency and even social issues, and it is a fantastic
step forwards, which is why we have now got the opportunity of
starting to talk about waste as resources, planning for and making
maximum use of those, as Bob has just described. CIWM would still
call for much closer links between energy policy and waste policy.
Just as a throw away figure, what we are landfilling at the moment
from municipal sources is probably about the energy equivalent
of five million tonnes of coal. The energy equivalent of what
we are landfilling from industrial and commercial sources is probably
about another five million tonnes coal equivalent. That is 10
million tonnes coal equivalent being landfilled. That does not
pass the blush test if the lights start to go out. As a nation
we owe to it ourselves to minimise waste. We owe to it ourselves
literally to recycle our socks off, but once we have done that,
equally, we owe it to ourselves to make sure that we recover the
energy value from the real residues, and we have been relatively
slow in coming forwards in that respect in this country.
Q107 Lynne Jones: Just a quick one
on composting. Are there any practical steps that Defra or perhaps
the Environment Agency need to take to ensure that the growth
in composting does not compromise soil quality or animal health?
Mr Lee: Yes, you make a very good
point. We think the biological treatment of appropriate waste
has got a great future in this country. Anaerobic digestion, composting,
the key to it all is quality: quality in terms of the inputs to
the process, the management of the process itself and, even more
importantly, management of the quality of the output from these
biological processes. So long as the quality is good, the future
is bright. Unfortunately, if we are found guilty of adding questionable
materials to the soil, the soil will not forgive us and neither
will the customers who take it. So I think quality has to be the
absolute by-word in biological treatment. There is good work being
done by organisations like WRAP and the Environment Agency. You
will be aware already that they are putting a lot of effort into
an end of waste protocol for anaerobic digestate—the stuff
that is left behind after you have anaerobically digested things
like food waste. We need good science on how to produce high quality
biological treatment outputs. We need to understand how we can
prove that we have got those high quality outputs, how to assay
them, how to test them, how to report it and, equally, we need
to be able to prove that we have added the right waste derived
materials to the right soils at the right sort of rate. This should
not just be an excuse for unloading treated biological materials
willy-nilly. We need to be able to prove that we have done it
for the good of the soil. When we have done all of that, we have
got an even bigger job in front of us, and that is tackling the
attitudinal issues around waste derived materials going into soil:
because even if we have the science to prove that the input is
good, the process is good, the output is good and it is being
applied in the right way to the right soils, there is still a
knee-jerk reaction in many places that food that is developed
from farms that have received waste derived materials is not what
the customer will want. There should be no good reason why that
should be the case. So I think, once we have got the science behind
us, we have to work on the communications issue, and if there
is one common theme running through almost every question that
you have asked us, CIWM, this afternoon it is that we have a huge
communications job in front of us.
Q108 Chairman: Gentlemen. Thank you
very much. Just before you go, there is one thing that I would
be grateful if you would reflect on. You have highlighted to us
some very important areas for future work if the Strategy is to
deliver its potential, and you have just closed by highlighting
one very important issue that weaves its way through the whole
picture, but you also said at the beginning that there was almost
a plethora of initiatives, and one of the key issues was actually
turning those initiatives into reality. In the light of our questioning
and your own thoughts, it would be very helpful if you might just
submit to us a little bit more supplementary evidence to develop
where you see some particularly good ideas perhaps not being implemented
at the speed or with the importance that you think they should
have because there is a resource problem. It would be helpful
to do a little winnowing out for us within that area. Thank you
very much indeed for your contribution. It is much appreciated.
We look forward to those further bits of information.
Mr Lee: Thank you for the opportunity.
|
