Clear The Air News Blog Rotating Header Image

What kind of waste incinerator does Hong Kong need?

Thursday, 09 May, 2013, 12:00am



Howard Winn

The troubling question of what to do about Hong Kong’s waste got a spirited airing at a public forum yesterday evening. There was a panel of five experts who were attending the “International Conference on Solid Waste 2013 – Innovation in Technology and Management”. The conference was organised by the Sino-Forest Applied Research Centre for Pearl River Delta Environment, which is attached to Hong Kong Baptist University.

The previous administration’s proposal was to build a large 3,000-tonnes-per-day incinerator on the controversial location of Shek Kwu Chau, a scenic island off South Lantau. Legco shelved this last year. Controversy intensified in 2011 when it became apparent that instead of going ahead with the original site near the ash lagoons at Tsang Tsui, Tuen Mun, Donald Tsang’s administration wilted in the face of pressure from its political supporter, the Heung Yee Kuk, and opted for the alternative site at Shek Kwu Chau, leaving it to the Environmental Protection Department to make the case for it to the public, thereby earning its distrust.

There has also been controversy over the type of technology to be used, with critics saying the government has not properly looked at other forms of technology such as gasification. The suspicion that has dogged the project spilled over into yesterday’s forum, with several of the roughly 150-strong audience noting that the panel appeared to be made up of incineration proponents. Indeed, although the conference was supposed to be examining thermal treatment of waste, there appeared to be no gasification experts there. Some darkly suggested to Lai See this was because the Hong Kong conference had been timed to coincide with the much bigger conference in London on waste treatment. No doubt this was just a coincidence.

All this aside, it seems clear that modern incinerators have drastically reduced emissions over the past 15 years. Panellist Professor Umberto Arena, a waste energy specialist from Second University, Naples, told the forum that in his opinion gasification and moving grate incineration were similar in terms of their low levels of emissions, and their ability to convert waste to electricity.

Most panellists seemed to agree that if the need was for a large, single, thermal treatment project then incineration was better. But Professor Arena said that if it was also possible to have two or three smaller units, then gasification units were also an option. “The technology is tried and tested over 10 years,” he said. Another panellist, Dr Lee Potts from AECOM, the government’s technical consultants on the incinerator project said that gasification didn’t have a track record at the levels of 3,000 tonnes a day. One significant advantage gasification offers is much lower levels of residue of around 4 per cent, which can be used as material for road building. Ash from incineration is significantly higher at 10-20 per cent but has to be treated and dumped in landfills.

Christine Loh Kung-wai, the undersecretary for the environment, told the forum that Hong Kong was facing a crisis over its waste and had to make a decision on the technology fairly quickly since the landfills would be full in a few years. She added that the government would shortly be issuing a blueprint outlining proposals on dealing with waste for the next 10 years. This will encompass plans for separating domestic waste, reuse and recycling as well as the already announced plans for organic waste treatment plants for processing food waste.

There is no doubt Hong Kong needs some kind of thermal process to deal with its daily waste and to eventually munch its way through the landfills. The government appears wedded to the idea of one big incinerator, though the other possibility is a larger number of smaller ones. But the political effort for this may prove too much for the government to contemplate.

Have you got any stories that Lai See should know about? E-mail them to [1]


Waste Management




Source URL (retrieved on May 9th 2013, 5:52am):

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *