Cement Factory to burn tyres from all over the country

Tim76

jbkenn wrote: »

No, they used coal to fire the kiln.

Are they using the same tech to burn the waste?

bmm

https://www.rte.ie/news/munster/2018/0531/967250-indaver/

Shocking & disgusting that the Ringaskiddy incinerator has been given planning permission by An bord pleanala . There has to be shenanigans going on . We will find out in 10 years time there was brown envelopes involved.

It is not right that these companies can keep applying for 18 years until they get the decision they want. They literally wear the system out until they get what they want. No should mean No .

testicles

This post has been deleted.

zulutango

bmm wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/munster/2018/0531/967250-indaver/

Shocking & disgusting that the Ringaskiddy incinerator has been given planning permission by An bord pleanala . There has to be shenanigans going on . We will find out in 10 years time there was brown envelopes involved.

It is not right that these companies can keep applying for 18 years until they get the decision they want. They literally wear the system out until they get what they want. No should mean No .

Technology changes and improves over time? The understanding of the effects does likewise.

That said, I think we should be vastly reducing the amount of municipal waste we produce before we go gung-ho on building incinerators. These incinerators basically are creating a market for waste, so there is no incentive to reduce it.

Alf Veedersane

bmm wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/munster/2018/0531/967250-indaver/

Shocking & disgusting that the Ringaskiddy incinerator has been given planning permission by An bord pleanala . There has to be shenanigans going on . We will find out in 10 years time there was brown envelopes involved.

It is not right that these companies can keep applying for 18 years until they get the decision they want. They literally wear the system out until they get what they want. No should mean No .

Can you give me an objective reason why it shouldn't be approved and that we should continue to export for incineration in Europe?

Just as an FYI, there are quite a few pharma sites in Cork that incinerate the same type of waste that would be incinerated in Ringaskiddy already.

Dardania

Just to note, the EPA seem to be gaining confidence with performing their role, if you see this article from a few months ago:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/poolbeg-incinerator-fined-for-breaking-environmental-licence-1.3440855

Edit: I've also worked on a different type of industrial plant where there was an EPA license (or rather, we expanded the scope of the existing EPA license). THe license was originally done in 2004 I think, and we were making modifications in 2012. I remember that the EPA were quite tough to deal with at that time, and challenged us hard on a number of assumptions & calculation methodologies.
Also, the particular pollution abatement equipment we had to fit to meet the EPA needs - we had to install a monitoring system which recorded a number of parameters of the exhaust gases every 2 to 3 minutes. The monitoring system cost more than the abatement system itself - all so the client could monitor quickly and adequately. And of course, we had to provide hookups so the EPA could validate our readings too.
I was quite impressed to be honest with their demands. Maybe it's down to the individual one is dealing with in the EPA, but I would feel quite confident living near the facility we built judging by the scrutiny it receives.

Limerick91

I wonder how people who oppose the Cement Factory and the Indaver plans propose we deal with waste.

The "sure ship it to China and they will deal with it" avenue is now closed.

Most of the hazardous waste generated by med/pharm companies is sent off to Germany/Belgium/Holland for incineration.

It is time we started dealing with our own waste

Tim76

testicles wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I thought burning rubbish out the back was illegal?

zulutango

Limerick91 wrote: »

I wonder how people who oppose the Cement Factory and the Indaver plans propose we deal with waste.

The "sure ship it to China and they will deal with it" avenue is now closed.

Most of the hazardous waste generated by med/pharm companies is sent off to Germany/Belgium/Holland for incineration.

It is time we started dealing with our own waste

I think there is a place for incineration. There will always be some amount of waste and incinerating it is usually preferable to throwing it into landfill or exporting it.

Having said that, I don't think we have done nearly enough to reduce the amount of waste that we generate. We should really be making serious efforts at addressing that. But we're not. And the incinerator operators are sure as hell going to resist any efforts to at reducing waste production, as this will impact on the availability of the resource for them.

Alf Veedersane

zulutango wrote: »

I think there is a place for incineration. There will always be some amount of waste and incinerating it is usually preferable to throwing it into landfill or exporting it.

Having said that, I don't think we have done nearly enough to reduce the amount of waste that we generate. We should really be making serious efforts at addressing that. But we're not. And the incinerator operators are sure as hell going to resist any efforts to at reducing waste production, as this will impact on the availability of the resource for them.

With any of the 'hazardous waste, primarily solvents, those who export do so because it makes sense financially. Their waste will always be a function of production.

With normal municipal waste, there's not much scope to entice waste companies. It's going to be more expensive than recycling so makes sense for waste companies to recover as much recyclable material as possible. The municipal waste sent to cement kilns at the minute has very strict criteria in terms of calorific value and moisture content so its not necessarily a free for all. It's called Solid Recovered Fuel.

The new waste streams they want to use as alternative fuels have higher calorific values so it makes sense. They also have no other outlet nationally and their generation isn't necessarily easy to reduce as should be the case with packaging and supermarkets.

YFlyer

Slightly off topic.

Does anyone know if at the recycle bring station at Roxboro Shopping Centre that you can throw in food cans with the aluminium drink cans?

Thanks

s7ryf3925pivug

Yes food cans are also aluminium

YFlyer

Jake Wooden Web wrote: »

Yes food cans are also aluminium

Thanks Jake Wooden Web. I was thinking they were steel.

Alf Veedersane

Jake Wooden Web wrote: »

Yes food cans are also aluminium

They're mostly steel.

YFlyer

zulutango wrote: »

And the incinerator operators are sure as hell going to resist any efforts to at reducing waste production, as this will impact on the availability of the resource for them.

Who cares what they resist. Reduction will come from producers and customers.

YFlyer

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

They're mostly steel.

Thanks Alf. I'm sure the separating process entail that.

Wanderer78

YFlyer wrote:

Who cares what they resist. Reduction will come from producers and customers.

This may not necessaryily be true, if an incentive is created so that a larger profit can be made by increasing throughput, a system can change so that this becomes the case.

Alf Veedersane

Wanderer78 wrote: »

This may not necessaryily be true, if an incentive is created so that a larger profit can be made by increasing throughput, a system can change so that this becomes the case.

They don't need to change anything. We generate more than enough residual waste. We're not likely to change significantly anytime soon unfortunately

Wanderer78

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

They don't need to change anything. We generate more than enough residual waste. We're not likely to change significantly anytime soon unfortunately

ah id some what disagree there, we need to make sure our waste facilities work in such a way that truly benefits society, and creating an incentive to maximize profits can in fact be dangerous for society. i do think incinerators are probably, at the moment, one of the best ways to deal with our waste issues, but we need to be careful how we integrate them into our waste management systems.

Alf Veedersane

Wanderer78 wrote: »

ah id some what disagree there, we need to make sure our waste facilities work in such a way that truly benefits society, and creating an incentive to maximize profits can in fact be dangerous for society. i do think incinerators are probably, at the moment, one of the best ways to deal with our waste issues, but we need to be careful how we integrate them into our waste management systems.

About a third of what goes into green bins is contamination. A lot of that is people trying to hide stuff. Like nappies. A lot of nappies. Basic stuff like cleaning food etc out of recyclables.

So I don't think enough people care enough to make the effort.

Government has a role to ensure that incineration is less attractive than recycling in the same way it did by increasing landfill levies.

By and large it isn't needed as waste companies want to maximise the amount of recyclables as it minimises costs. That's why they invest a huge in separating out recyclables etc.

Agree on the principle of ensuring that their role in waste management is appropriate. It's still only just above landfill in the waste hierarchy after all.

Wanderer78

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

About a third of what goes into green bins is contamination. A lot of that is people trying to hide stuff. Like nappies. A lot of nappies. Basic stuff like cleaning food etc out of recyclables.

So I don't think enough people care enough to make the effort.

Government has a role to ensure that incineration is less attractive than recycling in the same way it did by increasing landfill levies.

By and large it isn't needed as waste companies want to maximise the amount of recyclables as it minimises costs. That's why they invest a huge in separating out recyclables etc.

Agree on the principle of ensuring that their role in waste management is appropriate. It's still only just above landfill in the waste hierarchy after all.

i both agree and disagree, you d be surprised of the amount of adoption, acceptance and overall agreement of society in our approach to waste management, most people do truly care for our planet, and want to do the right thing. i will agree, some do indeed 'hide' things in their waste, we must actually ask, why is this, and if these materials are indeed harmful to our environment, why are they sold in the first place? are people too lazy to clean materials prior to disposal, or is it the fact, theyre simply too busy? if they are too busy, why are they too busy? are people just getting sick of having to do this that and the other thing, to deal with waste? this is a far more complex problem than can be imagined, we need to think systemically, in order to truly tackle this complex issue, this is far more complex than just the individual.

our political institutions are stuck in what can only be described as dangerous thinking regarding these issues, the idea of continuous growth is lethal for all of us, uk economist kate raworth explains this very well, with her concept of 'doughnut economics'.

its important to realise the overall game in private businesses is to simply, 'maximize profits', this is a potentially dangerous approach to waste management, as having such an incentive can and does create positive feedback throughout a whole system, exasperating such problems.

we re effectively creating a perfect storm for ourselves, i.e. political institutions driving growth, and industries trying to maximize profits, it drives increasing levels of waste, its unsustainable.

Alf Veedersane

Wanderer78 wrote: »

i both agree and disagree, you d be surprised of the amount of adoption, acceptance and overall agreement of society in our approach to waste management, most people do truly care for our planet, and want to do the right thing. i will agree, some do indeed 'hide' things in their waste, we must actually ask, why is this, and if these materials are indeed harmful to our environment, why are they sold in the first place? are people too lazy to clean materials prior to disposal, or is it the fact, theyre simply too busy? if they are too busy, why are they too busy? are people just getting sick of having to do this that and the other thing, to deal with waste? this is a far more complex problem than can be imagined, we need to think systemically, in order to truly tackle this complex issue, this is far more complex than just the individual. .

That's really juat excusing people's laziness. How is someone too busy to take 20s to rinse a tub of coleslaw.

There's very little personal responsibility being taken

Wanderer78

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

That's really juat excusing people's laziness. How is someone too busy to take 20s to rinse a tub of coleslaw.

There's very little personal responsibility being taken

both agree and disagree, theres something far more complex going on regarding these issues, the individual cant be blamed for everything, the individual is only partially to blame, we are in fact, over producing and theres poor incentives to keep creating materials that are in fact harmful for our environment, particularly at the end of their life, even 100% recyclable materials have a 'toxic cost'.

Alf Veedersane

Wanderer78 wrote: »

both agree and disagree, theres something far more complex going on regarding these issues, the individual cant be blamed for everything, the individual is only partially to blame, we are in fact, over producing and theres poor incentives to keep creating materials that are in fact harmful for our environment, particularly at the end of their life, even 100% recyclable materials have a 'toxic cost'.

I'm not saying that there isn't an over production of materials. I don't think anyone would argue that. But there's little effort made to segregate recyclables properly. If you look at the EPA waste characterisation reports, the level of contamination has been high and it has gotten worse. More often than not, people are too lazy rather than too busy. Why would someone stuff dirty nappies into an empty cornflakes box? Nappies in the recycling bin is all too common.

There's an argument for lack of awareness but it doesn't really offset the lack of personal responsibility being taken.

Again, it's not the full picture but it's the reality when it gets to consumers.

seachto7

Dolans is hosting a gig soon, an anti pollution type gig protesting Irish Cement. I'm not sure who it's supposed to be aimed at to be honest.
Reminds me of the rap against rape or the I heart Cranberries gig.

kupus

heaven forbid Ireland doing something like shredding the tyres, taking out the steel bits and recycling it into playground rubber mats.

No.

Ok just burn it so.

Irish solution to an Irish problem.

Cookiemunster

kupus wrote: »

heaven forbid Ireland doing something like shredding the tyres, taking out the steel bits and recycling it into playground rubber mats.

No.

Ok just burn it so.

Irish solution to an Irish problem.

Nope, it's an international solution to an international problem. Whether you agree with it or not, it's already being done abroad.

wherearewe45

Cookiemunster wrote:

Nope, it's an international solution to an international problem. Whether you agree with it or not, it's already being done abroad.

And it's safe. Tyres need to be burned at several 100 degrees to burn off all chemicals. Kilns burn at well over 1000 degrees. There won't be any toxic chemical/emissions released

seachto7

When people bought houses near the factory, did Irish Cement assure them their cars wouldn't get covered in ****e? Did the developers assure them? Did they do any research to be sure themselves? Did the council assure them?
I would love to know how many of them would complain about the smell of cow****e or slurry.

zulutango

wherearewe45 wrote: »

And it's safe. Tyres need to be burned at several 100 degrees to burn off all chemicals. Kilns burn at well over 1000 degrees. There won't be any toxic chemical/emissions released

It depends on how the plant is operated. They don't exactly have a great track record.

jonski

zulutango wrote: »

It depends on how the plant is operated. They don't exactly have a great track record.

Is that not most peoples problem with this . We know we can't keep burying rubbish, reduce and incinerate are our current alternatives . We know it has to be in someones back yard . We just don't trust the cement factory to do it and be responsible, accountable and transparent . And tbh in this country I probably wouldn't trust anyone else to do it either .

Alf Veedersane

jonski wrote: »

Is that not most peoples problem with this . We know we can't keep burying rubbish, reduce and incinerate are our current alternatives . We know it has to be in someones back yard . We just don't trust the cement factory to do it and be responsible, accountable and transparent . And tbh in this country I probably wouldn't trust anyone else to do it either .

There are already pharmachem plants in Ireland using the same materials being proposed for the cement factory without issue.

zulutango

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

There are already pharmachem plants in Ireland using the same materials being proposed for the cement factory without issue.

They're not causing public health issues? Would like to see the evidence for that.

I would trust the pharma industry far, far more than I would trust CRH in any case.

Alf Veedersane

zulutango wrote: »

They're not causing public health issues? Would like to see the evidence for that.

So I would have to produce evidence that there are no issues but you can make throwaway statements that there are? Is that how it works?

There are EPA reports on emissions monitoring but then they probably can't be trusted either, I'm guessing.

zulutango

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

So I would have to produce evidence that there are no issues but you can make throwaway statements that there are? Is that how it works?

There are EPA reports on emissions monitoring but then they probably can't be trusted either, I'm guessing.

No, I'm not saying that. But anyone who flippantly says there is no issues should be asked to back that up. The reality is there's **** all monitoring going on so nobody knows one way or another. The EPA hasn't exactly covered itself in glory when it comes to the monitoring of the plant, I'm sure you'll agree.

keane2097

seachto7 wrote: »

When people bought houses near the factory, did Irish Cement assure them their cars wouldn't get covered in ****e? Did the developers assure them? Did they do any research to be sure themselves? Did the council assure them?
I would love to know how many of them would complain about the smell of cow****e or slurry.

Is this the new thing now? If I am buying a house somewhere I have to go around to the local businesses to ask them for assurances that they won't dump **** on my car/house/lawn etc?

Is there a local list of all the companies I need to ring up? Sounds like a big job. Might be easier if the companies just agreed not to cover peoples' property in **** instead. A bit idealistic I suppose.

seachto7

keane2097 wrote: »

Is this the new thing now? If I am buying a house somewhere I have to go around to the local businesses to ask them for assurances that they won't dump **** on my car/house/lawn etc?

Is there a local list of all the companies I need to ring up? Sounds like a big job. Might be easier if the companies just agreed not to cover peoples' property in **** instead. A bit idealistic I suppose.

Developers should have made buyers aware, as the factory was there long before the houses, so you'd have thought the emissions were too. But maybe that slipped their minds.

keane2097

seachto7 wrote: »

Developers should have made buyers aware, as the factory was there long before the houses, so you'd have thought the emissions were too. But maybe that slipped their minds.

Just to be clear, prospective buyers actually shouldn't have to go around to local businesses seeking assurances that they won't cover their property in ****?

keane2097

seachto7 wrote: »

Developers should have made buyers aware, as the factory was there long before the houses, so you'd have thought the emissions were too. But maybe that slipped their minds.

By the way, is there some limit to the extent around the cement factory to which this 'tough ****' exclusion zone applies? If the **** they spew out starts landing farther afield are newly affected households alright to complain or will you have a problem with them as well?

I find the attitude of 'they have always been dumping **** onto their neighbours property so you can't come along and complain about it now' barely credible to be honest.

Cookiemunster

keane2097 wrote: »

Just to be clear, prospective buyers actually shouldn't have to go around to local businesses seeking assurances that they won't cover their property in ****?

If you move to somewhere without first enquiring as to the possible negatives of the location, then tough sh!t if something, that you could have easily found about about before you moved there, actually happens.

keane2097

Cookiemunster wrote: »

If you move to somewhere without first enquiring as to the possible negatives of the location, then tough sh!t if something, that you could have easily found about about before you moved there, actually happens.

And am I to understand attempting to prevent the negative thing recurring indefinitely is out of bounds?

keane2097

And a follow on question - is there any portion of the blame due to the cement company for actually belching out this rubbish, or is all the blame on people foolish enough to live in areas affected by it?

seachto7

keane2097 wrote: »

Just to be clear, prospective buyers actually shouldn't have to go around to local businesses seeking assurances that they won't cover their property in ****?

No, but it's no harm knowing. Do they complain about the smell of slurry spreading during the summer too?

keane2097

Again, is there any limit to the extent of the exclusion zone around the cement factory where people cannot expect to be safe from having industrial waste fall out of the skies upon them?

If the cement factory expands their sphere of waste dumping to take in other suburbs, should the people newly affected have any recourse or do we just write off that area as well?

If you knew he had a temper before you married him, can you really complain now that he's regularly beating you?

keane2097

seachto7 wrote: »

No, but it's no harm knowing. Do they complain about the smell of slurry spreading during the summer too?

Do farmers dump slurry in their gardens during the summer?

Mc Love

keane2097 wrote: »

Again, is there any limit to the extent of the exclusion zone around the cement factory where people cannot expect to be safe from having industrial waste fall out of the skies upon them?

If the cement factory expands their sphere of waste dumping to take in other suburbs, should the people newly affected have any recourse or do we just write off that area as well?

If you knew he had a temper before you married him, can you really complain now that he's regularly beating you?

It depends on the wind tbh. I live a good bit away from the factory and I've had my cars/windows covered in deposits from the factory.

seachto7

keane2097 wrote: »

Again, is there any limit to the extent of the exclusion zone around the cement factory where people cannot expect to be safe from having industrial waste fall out of the skies upon them?

If the cement factory expands their sphere of waste dumping to take in other suburbs, should the people newly affected have any recourse or do we just write off that area as well?

If you knew he had a temper before you married him, can you really complain now that he's regularly beating you?

Why build houses there the first day if it's a problem? It's always been a problem.

Alf Veedersane

zulutango wrote: »

No, I'm not saying that. But anyone who flippantly says there is no issues should be asked to back that up. The reality is there's **** all monitoring going on so nobody knows one way or another. The EPA hasn't exactly covered itself in glory when it comes to the monitoring of the plant, I'm sure you'll agree.

The reality is that monitoring is ongoing and quarterly reports are a condition of their EPA licence. Also, the EPA prosecuted Irish Cement recently for those incidents of 'dust leak' so I'm not sure how they didn't do their duty.

Those dust leaks were from a clinker silo. Not from their processes. There is a difference in the context of the use of solvent waste as a fuel there.

Do I think Irish Cement be under the microscope a lot more if the licence is granted? Absolutely. But I don't see why the use of solvent as a fuel should be an issue because of fear that it will automatically produce toxic emissions.

keane2097

seachto7 wrote: »

Why build houses there the first day if it's a problem? It's always been a problem.

I understand it is a long standing occurrence.

I don't accept that this means nobody can/should try and solve the problem now, or that it's not something that can be complained about.

Look at it this way - the factory has been there since 1938. Nearly everyone in the city was not an adult when this plant opened and was in no position to make any objection to it. Surely someone who grew up in the 70s, 80s or 90s is entitled to a position that this should not be allowed to keep happening despite the fact that it has been going on since before they knew enough to complain about it?

Just because previous generations may have had no issue with this happening does not preclude new generations from taking issue with it.

We are still pumping raw sewage into the sea in some parts of Ireland. It seems utterly foolish to me the idea that people living in those area should just shut up and get on with it because it's going on for years. Surely the attitude that 'this is a nice area and I like living here, but I think we should stop pumping raw **** into the seaside nearby' is reasonable?

Or someone who moved into a place in Catherine Street once upon a time would have been within their rights saying 'this is a grand spot to live, close to amenities etc, but I think we should stop prostitutes plying their trade in the area'.

As there are no perfect places, people are obliged to move to places that have good points and bad points. Making this decision is no binding contract to shut up about the bad points for all eternity.

I don't see why the cement factory of all places is this sacred cow where people are OK with the idea that their waste can randomly get dumped over various parts of the city.

s7ryf3925pivug

They have an exemption that allows them double the normal European legal limit on certain emissions. It was recently decided to extend that exemption as it was expiring. Elisa O'Donovan is attempting to block that. I'm aware there was a piece going into a recent Limerick Leader about it.