Back to list Medworth Energy from Waste Combined Heat and Power Facility

Representation by Andrew Michael de WHALLEY

Date submitted
15 November 2022
Submitted by
Members of the public/businesses
  1. Need: England is at incineration overcapacity. Defra statistics show that “Waste sent for incineration increased by 0.8 million tonnes (7.7 per cent) to 12.5 million tonnes in 2020/21 compared to 2019/20. It was the disposal method used for 48.2 per cent of all local authority waste.” However, The Circular Economy Package includes a target to recycle 65% of municipal waste by 2035 and measures to reduce the amount of waste sent to landfill or incinerated. Furthermore, in 2020, Defra reported “Of total residual waste from household sources in England in 2017, an estimated 53% could be categorised as readily recyclable, 27% as potentially recyclable, 12% as potentially substitutable and 8% as difficult to either recycle or substitute.” The government has pledged to leave the environment in a better condition for the next generation through eliminating avoidable plastic waste over the lifetime of the 25 Year Environment Plan, doubling resource productivity by 2050, and eliminating avoidable waste of all kinds by 2050. Means to realise Government ambition include: Household food waste to be collected separately by 2023 Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for packaging from 2024. Deposit Return Scheme in England, anticipated to launch in late 2024. Additional incineration capacity is incompatible with HM Government policy. 2. Proximity Principle. UK ambition cannot meet incineration demands. Both Cambridgeshire County Council and Norfolk County Council have recorded their “in principle” objection to the Medworth proposal, so where will the waste come from? Will waste need to be imported during the lifetime of the plant? Is this consistent with the expectation that waste should generally be disposed of as near to its place of origin as possible? 3. Carbon Emissions. The power generated by Medworth may be attractive to some at this time of energy need. However, that power is generated by the high calorie parts of the waste, that is to say the plastics fraction. KWt for KWt this actually means that power generated this way produces more CO2 than if coal was used furthermore the rest of the waste that is burnt at the same time but contributes little energy produces a huge amount of solid residual and airborne pollution. Mixed residual waste is a highly inefficient and polluting fuel. The Co2 generated by burning 20 million tons of waste over 40 years will significantly contribute to global warming and not help the UK to meet its climate change undertakings/targets. The Fens are very susceptible to rising sea levels that are being and will be generated by global warming. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is an emerging technology, currently considered highly inefficient and impractically expensive and is unlikely to be a viable prospect during the lifetime of the plant. Even if CCS was successfully employed, burying the waste CO2, as well as the bottom ash and air pollution control residues,rather defeats the point of the process being supposedly preferable to landfill. 4. Health and wellbeing. The growing body of scientific, public health and medical research shows that PM 2.5 particles are a major public health issue should be of concern. PM 2.5s from incinerators are small pieces of unburnt carbon but have a wide range of other materials attached to them released from the weird mix of materials being burnt, Mercury, Cadmium, Arsenic, Lead, PCBs, Dioxins, Chrome etc. Such particles are very dangerous indeed. The real issue is will Medworth filter out these particles? The applicants say yes but the particle capture and release values are based on weight not particle number. If nearly all the particles by weight are captured by filters even a small weight escaping represents a huge number of particles as they are each so very light weight! Emitted particles will accumulate in bodily tissues year on year for the 40-year life of Medworth. The official line of a well-run modern incinerator being of no significant risk to humans is in part based upon a London University study on incinerator particles which it turns out studied the large, relatively harmless pm 10 particles not the medically important PM 2.5s, which are typically unmonitored. The values for specific pollutants discharged to the air are shown as being within statutory limits. Consider the accumulation of toxic compounds as dioxins and elements such as cadmium in the soil, water, plants, animals and humans exposed to these and other products of the combustion of 20 million tonnes of waste over 40 years. The nearby Thomas Clarkson Academy, with 1,220 students, will be perceived as highly vulnerable to the adverse health effects as will nearby residents. Incinerators are often sited in areas of high deprivation, such as Wisbech, thereby masking their detrimental effects on health and wellbeing. 5. Landscape/Visual Influence. Fenland is flat countryside where large oppressive structures dominate the landscape. In particular, the 95m stack will be a much reviled and highly visible blot on the landscape causing significant loss of amenity.