Download PDF : Environmental Conference – Incinerator – 5 June 2013
May 28th, 2013:
British Airways’ Jet Biofuel Plant Will Open in 2015
http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/12/british-airways-jet-biofuel-plant-will-open-2015/
British Airways’ Jet Biofuel Plant Will Open in 2015
By Leon Kaye | December 6th, 2012
0 Comments
British Airways and Solena will soon launch a US$500m biofuel plant
Yesterday, British Airways (BA) announced that it has found a site for a bio-refinery that will generate up to 50,000 tons of jet fuel annually. In a partnership with the American aviation biofuel company Solena Fuels, BA will invest approximately US$500 million in the plant, which will eventually provide the airline a steady source of jet fuel for a minimum of 10 years.
The GreenSky Project, which will soon break ground and become fully operational in 2015, will allow Solena to produce up to 16 million gallons of jet fuel and 40 megawatts of power. The project would also score huge achievements on the waste diversion front: 500,000 tons of waste would become diverted from landfills annually and instead become a feedstock for BA’s new stream of jet fuel.
Solena will produce the jet fuel using the company’s proprietary integrated biomass gasification to liquid process (IBGTL). Solena’s gasifiers will churn municipal waste, along with agricultural and wood waste, into jet, diesel, naptha and MGO fuels via a series of Fischer-Tropsch chemical reactions that in the end will create a greener alternative to conventional hydrocarbons. The strength of Solena’s process is that its gasification process can incorporate various forms of feedstock into a cleaner source of jet fuel. According to Forbes, the Solena-BA venture will be enough to power all flights out of London’s City Airport.
Solena and BA claim that the bio-refinery project will create 1,000 temporary construction positions and 150 jobs within the facility upon completion. The U.S. engineering and construction firm Fluor will serve as the project engineer.
With its massive investment, BA has joined other airlines that have become keen on biofuels as conventional fossil fuels continue to rock the aviation industry. United, its pre-merger competitor Continental, Alaska, the U.S. Navy and KLM are among the organizations that have tested biofuels for their fleets of airplanes. The ability to scale and find reliable sources of feedstock are among the challenges airlines face in incorporating biofuels; in fact, once the GreenSkyProject is at full capacity, it will only provide two percent of BA’s fuel needs. But as aviation companies grapple with high jet fuel prices, the search for alternatives to petroleum will keep them focused on alternative sources of energy in order for them to remain competitive.
Leon Kaye, based in Fresno, California, is a sustainability consultant and the editor
Panel `no’ puts landfill plan on shaky ground
|
Hong Kong standard Panel `no’ puts landfill plan on shaky ground A lawmakers’ panel has said no to the expansion of the Tseung Kwan O landfill. Candy Chan Tuesday, May 28, 2013 A lawmakers’ panel has said no to the expansion of the Tseung Kwan O landfill. The non-binding motion at the Legislative Council’s panel on environmental affairs was passed with nine in favor, four against and no abstentions. It came despite a warning from Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam- sing that without expansion of the landfill, Hong Kong will be overrun with garbage. Landfill expansion is a key plank of the 10-year “Blueprint for Sustainable Use of Resources” aimed to reduce the rate of disposable waste by 40percent on a per-capita basis by 2022. Wong insisted the HK$8.9 billion expansion, planned since 2003 to include three landfills, is needed even with recycling. The government is seeking funding approval from Legco to expand the landfills in Ta Kwu Ling, Tuen Mun and Tseung Kwan O, which are expected to be full by 2020. The Tseung Kwan O landfill, which was to be expanded by 13 hectares, will be the first to hit saturation point next year or in 2015. Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong lawmaker Elizabeth Quat Pui-fan, asked: “Have you even experienced the bad odor suffered by the people living near the sites?” Helena Wong Pik-wan of the Democratic Party said that in South Korea, 20 percent of municipal waste is still disposed of in landfills despite 60 percent of it being recycled and another 20 percent incinerated. “The success that we can see in Taiwan and Japan has worked for decades. But Hong Kong in this early stage is working step by step towards the South Korean model,” Wong said. Insurance lawmaker Chan Kin-por, who agreed with the government plan, fears the city will face more trouble if a decision on landfill expansion cannot be made. “We can’t risk putting the city to be surrounded by garbage, it would be a disaster,” Chan said. Meanwhile, around 20 Tseung Kwan O residents protested outside Legco, urging the scrapping of the landfill plan. They said the foul smell coming from the landfill is unbearable, and complained that it has severely worsened hygiene conditions in the area. Residents warned they would seek a judicial review against the proposal. Sai Kung district councillor Christine Fong Kwok-shan accused the environment secretary of threatening the public, and said the government should find an alternative site. Friends of the Earth environmental affairs officer Celia Fung Sze-lai called for more support in general for the recycling industry. |
Lawmakers trash Tseung Kwan O landfill expansion plan
Published on South China Morning Post (http://www.scmp.com)
Home > Lawmakers trash Tseung Kwan O landfill expansion plan
Lawmakers trash Tseung Kwan O landfill expansion plan
Tuesday, 28 May, 2013, 12:00am
News›Hong Kong
ENVIRONMENT
Cheung Chi-fai chifai.cheung@scmp.com
Officials despair as Tseung Kwan O plan shelved but other developments go ahead amid warnings of waste management undercapacity
·
Residents of Tseung Kwan O protest stage a protest against the plan of extending landfill in the district and urge the government to close it during a parade in Tseung Kwan O. Photo: May Tse
Environment officials’ waste strategy was dealt a serious blow yesterday, when lawmakers asked to withdraw a controversial plan to expand the Tseung Kwan O landfill.
Despite government pledges to address the odour and dust problems that plague the adjacent residential area, a motion to oppose the plan was passed by nine votes to four at a meeting of the Legislative Council’s environmental affairs panel.
Similar motions to stop landfill expansions in Tuen Mun and Ta Kwu Ling were rejected.
The question now is whether officials still want to submit about HK$18 billion of funding requests to the public works subcommittee for the three landfill expansion plans, which would provide an extra 106 million cubic metres of space for trash.
The plans were discussed yesterday after the Environment Bureau unveiled a blueprint targeting a 40 per cent cut in waste dumped in landfills by 2022.
“Some overseas jurisdictions have spent two decades to plan for waste handling, but we can barely inch forward with our blueprint,” said Secretary for the Environment Wong Kam-sing.
But pro-government lawmaker Chan Yuen-han told him: “You are doomed to fail.”
All three landfills, the city’s only final waste disposal sites, will run out of space by 2020, according to official projections. The Tseung Kwan O site is the smallest, at 43 hectares, or 6.5 million cubic metres.
Wong said officials were sincere in tackling environmental problems such as odour and dust at Tseung Kwan O, which legislators said were caused by poor planning that put homes beside a rubbish dump.
Measures to be introduced included banning food waste and sludge at the landfill, which could cut rubbish truck traffic in half. Odour and air pollution monitoring will also be stepped up.
Christine Loh Kung-wai, undersecretary for the environment, said “even a single inch of landfill counts”.
But Chan, of the Federation of Trade Unions, said Wong was “extremely politically immature” in pushing the Tseung Kwan O landfill extension, and said he should scrap the plan before negotiating with the community.
“You can propose whatever you want,” she said. “I won’t stop you. But I can assure you that you are doomed to fail.”
Democrat Emily Lau Wai-hing urged a “rubbish summit” with residents and politicians.
“No doubt you will leave today empty-handed … but you should also ask yourself what has actually gone wrong,” she said.
Lawmakers from the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, the Liberal Party and the Civic Party also opposed the plan.
The only supporter was insurance-sector lawmaker Chan Kin-por, who said: “If we withdraw these landfill plans today, sooner or later we will run into a rubbish catastrophe. Should that happen, the Tseung Kwan O district is set to lose more because it has a … facility to take in the trash.”
Topics:
Tseung Kwan O landfill
Source URL (retrieved on May 28th 2013, 5:53am): http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1247639/lawmakers-trash-tseung-kwan-o-landfill-expansion-plan
WPC_USEA_Annual_Meeting_Presentation_-_V21.pdf
From: James Middleton [mailto:dynamco@netvigator.com]
Sent: 28 May, 2013 00:17
To: Mary OK TANG; panel_ea@legco.gov.hk
Subject: Microsoft PowerPoint – WPC_USEA_Annual_Meeting_Presentation_-_V21.pdf
Legco
Panel on Environmental Affairs
Dear Panel Members,
The world’s largest MSW Malaysian built plasma gasifier is in UK already for 2 weeks and being installed in Teesside.
1,000 tpd MSW per reactor.
See the massive reactor photos herewith.
The second reactor is on order already.
Modular reactors. More waste? Just add another reactor. Build them on the landfills, not pristine islands.
Just 2 ½ years’ for the plant build to commissioning. Technology advances, not ENB style regression.
Add Fischer Tropsch back-end Tech for the Syngas and create bio jet fuel/ marine fuel /bio naptha.
Companies like AirProducts/ Teesside and Solena Fuels build the plants at no construction cost to Governments !
They charge a tipping fee per tonne and sell the aggregate; in addition Solena Fuels sell the bio jetfuels to airlines wef 2015.
APP UK offered Hong Kong a FREE 150,000 tpa gasplasma demo plant in 2012 guaranteed by Technip. No takeup.
Fact ! not ENB devious fiction.
Plasma has no 1/3 by weight incineration ASH residues to landfill ad infinitum in a place where we have no landfill space. ( so we need man-made islands in the sea as ash lagoons)
Minimal emissions vs incineration bonfires.
Plasma residues are inert molten Plasmarok that can be mandated for use in Govt construction contracts to replace imported aggregate and bring building costs / transportation pollution down significantly.
Win-Win ?
Kind regards,
James Middleton
Chairman
We all breathe the same air as do our children
Download PDF : Microsoft PowerPoint – WPC_USEA_Annual_Meeting_Presentation_-_V21
Chromosomal congenital anomalies and residence near hazardous waste landfill sites
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(02)07531-1/fulltext?_eventId=login
The Lancet, Volume 359, Issue 9303, Pages 320 – 322, 26 January 2002
< >
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07531-1Cite or Link Using DOI
Chromosomal congenital anomalies and residence near hazardous waste landfill sites
Original Text
Dr M Vrijheid PhD a , Prof H Dolk PhD b, B Armstrong PhD a, L Abramsky BA c, F Bianchi PhD d, I Fazarinc MD e, E Garne MD f, R Ide MinstAM g, V Nelen MD h, E Robert MD i, JES Scott FRCS j, D Stone MD k, Prof R Tenconi MD l
Summary
Previous findings of the EUROHAZCON study showed a 33% increase in risk of non-chromosomal anomalies near hazardous waste landfill sites. Here, we studied 245 cases of chromosomal anomalies and 2412 controls who lived near 23 such sites in Europe. After adjustment for confounding by maternal age and socioeconomic status, we noted a higher risk of chromosomal anomalies in people who lived close to sites (0—3 km) than in those who lived further away (3—7 km; odds ratio 1·41, 95% CI 1·00—1·99). Our results suggest an increase in risk of chromosomal anomalies similar to that found for non-chromosomal anomalies.
EUROHAZCON study findings1 have shown a 33% increase in the risk of non-chromosomal anomalies for residents living within 3 km of 21 European hazardous waste landfill sites. We report findings from the EUROHAZCON study on chromosomal anomalies. EUROHAZCON study methods have been described in detail.1 We obtained data from regional population-based registers of congenital malformations in five European countries. In addition to the regions included previously (table 1), we included data from the England and Wales Down’s Syndrome register, selecting only two regions (Essex 1989—92, and Mersey 1989—93) because resources were insufficient to provide case data with full postcodes for all regions. These two regions were selected because of good collaboration with local environment agencies and presence of hazardous waste landfill sites which conformed to our criteria for inclusion.1 In total, we included 23 landfill sites in 17 study areas (table 1). Details of site characteristics have been published.2 One landfill site included in the non-chromosomal part of the study was excluded because geographical site co-ordinates proved incorrect. Exclusion of this site (study area 14) did not change findings published for non-chromosomal anomalies: the odds ratio for living within 3 km of a landfill site including site 14 was 1·33 (95% CI 1·11—1·59) for non-chromosomal anomalies.1 After exclusion of site 14 this estimate was 1·34 (1·12—1·60).
Table 1Table image
Odds ratios for chromosomal anomaly in residents within 3 km of a hazardous waste landfill site
On a-priori advice of landfill specialists, we defined a 0—3 km proximate zone around each site to represent the zone of most likely exposure.1 This zone was compared with a 3—7 km distant zone. We defined cases as livebirths, stillbirths, and terminations of pregnancy with chromosomal anomalies (International Classification of Disease [ICD] 9 codes 7580—89) registered on malformation registers. Controls were normal live births, around two per case, selected from the same year of birth and 7 km study area as the case.1 In the Essex Region (study areas 16 and 17), controls were selected by random selection of two neonates from all normal births on the day after the birth of the case, within the same 7 km study area. In the Mersey region (study area 18), controls were a random sample of all live births in the same year of birth and study area as the case. These different methods were used in order to obtain complete maternal age information for controls. In analyses we used the total pool of controls selected for non-chromosomal and chromosomal cases in each 7 km study area, giving about 10 controls per hromosomal case. We included a total of 245 cases and 2412 controls. The geographical locations of cases and controls were determined with an accuracy of 100 m or less by use of the mother’s address or postcode of residence at time of birth. The association between distance of residence from the nearest waste site and risk of chromosomal anomalies was analysed with logistic and related binomial regression models. Terms for study area and year of birth, were included in all models, and analyses were adjusted for maternal age and socioeconomic status.1 Distance of residence was fitted as a dichotomous measure (0—3 km and 3—7 km zones) and as a continuous measure only in analyses pooling data over all study areas. We fitted the same continuous distance models as in the non-chromosomal part of the study, including one model in which risk declines exponentially with distance.1, 3
The adjusted odds ratio for living near a site, for all chromosomal anomalies combined, was 1·41 (95% CI 1·00—1·99, table 2). Adjustment for confounding factors increased the crude odds ratio slightly (from an unadjusted odds ratio of 1·32, 0·96—1·81), almost entirely because of adjustment for maternal age. Odds ratios did not vary significantly between study areas (p=0·79). A similiar odds ratio was found for the fifteen study areas on which previous non-chromosomal analyses had been based (table 2). Point estimates of odds ratios for Down’s syndrome and non-Down’s syndrome separately were greater than 1, but were not significant (table 2). Risk did not decline consistently with increasing distance from sites: various models fitting distance as a continuous measure and six distance zones showed no significant trends (p>0·10). Odds ratios were highest in the 0—1 km (1·68, 0·72—3·89) and 2—3 km (1·74, 1·12—2·70) distance zones, and lowest in the 1—2 km (1·08, 0·61—1·93) and 3—4 km (1·05, 0·69—1·60) zones compared with a 5—7 km baseline. In most individual study areas, odds ratios were not significant before or after adjustment for maternal age (table 1). However, numbers of cases were small and 95% CI wide.
Table 2Table image
Odds ratios for chromosomal anomaly in residents within 3 km of a hazardous waste landfill site
Risk estimates for chromosomal anomalies were similar to those noted for non-chromosomal anomalies,1 in pooled analyses and in individual study areas. This similarity can be interpreted in two main ways. Either landfill exposures are causally related to risk of congenital anomaly and have both teratogenic and mutagenic effects, or the relation is not causal and findings indicate a common bias, or a chance effect in the selection of a common pool of control births. Potential sources of bias, including misclassification of exposure, ascertainment bias, migration bias, and occupational and industrial exposure have been discussed in detail1 and apply to the present findings. The similar increase in risk of chromosomal and non-chromosomal anomalies renders residual socioeconomic confounding unlikely as an explanation for findings as socioeconomic status affects risks of chromosomal and non-chromosomal anomalies differently. We noted higher risks of non-chromosomal anomalies and lower risks of chromosomal anomalies in groups with lower compared with higher socioeconomic status, mainly because of differences in maternal age distribution.4 Maternal age is a confounding factor in analysis of chromosomal anomalies, but adjustment for maternal age shifted odds ratios away from unity. A previous study reported on chromosomal anomalies near waste sites and showed an increased risk (1·46, 1·01—2·01) near sites containing plastic chemicals, following an a-priori hypothesis that plastic chemicals such as styrene might induce chromosomal anomalies.5 More study into the chemical causes of chromosomal anomalies and exposure of residents to landfill sites is needed to interpret our findings.
Contributors
M Vrijheid and H Dolk wrote the paper and coordinated the study. M Vrijheid did analyses of chromosomal congenital anomaly risk near landfill sites and reviewed the literature. B Armstrong supervised statistical analyses. The other authors took part in protocol design of the study (including advice on data collection, classification of cases, &c), and supplied data from participating registries. All authors contributed to revision of the paper.
Conflict of interest statement
None declared.
Acknowledgments
We thank colleagues from the participating registries and laboratories contributing data to the Down Syndrome Register. The main study was funded by the EC DGXII BIOMED programme, this work was carried out specifically under a Research Fellowship for M Vrijheid from the Colt Foundation. The sponsors of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report.
References
1 Dolk H, Vrijheid M, Armstrong B, et al. Risk of congenital anomalies near hazardous-waste landfill sites in Europe: the EUROHAZCON study. Lancet 1998; 352: 423-427. Summary | Full Text | PDF(72KB) | CrossRef | PubMed
2 Vrijheid M. Risk of congenital anomalies in the vicinity of hazardous waste landfill sites. (thesis). London: University of London, 2000.
3 Dolk H, Vrijheid M, Armstrong BEUROHAZCON collaborative group. Congenital anomalies near hazardous waste landfill sites in Europe. In: Lawson AB, Biggeri A, Bohning D, Lesaffre E, Viel JF, Bertollini R, et al, eds. Disease Mapping and Risk Assessment for Public Health. Chichester: Wiley, 1999.
4 Vrijheid M, Dolk H, Stone D, Abramsky L, Alberman E, Scott J. Socioeconomic inequalities in risk of congenital anomaly. Arch Dis Child 2000; 82: 349-352. CrossRef | PubMed
5 Geschwind SA, Stolwijk JAJ, Bracken M, et al. Risk of congenital malformations associated with proximity to hazardous waste sites. Am J Epidemiol 1992; 135: 1197-1207. PubMed
a EUROCAT Central Registry, Environmental Epidemiology Unit, Department of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
b EUROCAT Central Registry, Faculty of Life and Health Sciences, University of Ulster at Jordanstown, Belfast, UK
c North Thames (West) Congenital Malformation Register, North Thames Perinatal Public Health Unit, Northwick Park Hospital, London
d Tuscany EUROCAT Register, Unit of Epidemiology, CNR Institute of Clinical Physiology, Pisa, Italy
e Institute of Public Health, Ljubljana, Slovenia
f Funen County Eurocat Register, Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
g National Down Syndrome Cytogenetic Register, The Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, St Bartholomew’s and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London
h Antwerp Eurocat Register, Provincial Institute for Hygiene, Antwerp, Belgium
i France Central East Register of Congenital Malformations, Institut Européen des Génomutations, Lyon, France
j Northern Congenital Abnormality Survey (NorCAS), Maternity Survey Office, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Newcastle, UK
k Glasgow EUROCAT Register, Paediatric Epidemiology and Community Health (PEACH) Unit, Department of Child Health, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
l North-East Italy Registry of Congenital Malformations, Genetica Medica, University of Padova, Padova, Italy
Correspondence to: Dr M Vrijheid, Environmental Epidemiology Unit, Department of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel St, London WC1E 7HT, UK