Why is Waste-to-Energy incineration a bad idea for Aotearoa? In this article, Michael Szarbo from Greenpeace asks the question, ‘How is a heavily state-subsidised Chinese W-t-E model going to work in NZ?’ and why any NZ council would be foolhardy to sign any contracts with SIRRL or any other W-t-E company.
Competitive waste market
Waste-to-energy companies in China claim subsidies and tax breaks from the Government by claiming to be renewable energy providers. These companies are also sometimes exempt from waste disposal tariffs.
These incentives have seen a boom in waste-to-energy builds, and companies are eager to claim the economic advantages.
However, these incentives don’t exist in New Zealand. This means any plant in Aotearoa would need to burn as much waste as possible to produce revenue from gate fees and the sale of generated electricity. This incentive encourages the plant operators to burn as much waste as possible to create electricity. Without the required 365,000 tonnes of waste the company intends to burn, ‘Project Kea’ would run at a loss.
In New Zealand, waste management companies and councils play a significant role in controlling the waste stream, often with shareholder stakes in landfills. For SIRRL to be competitive in this market, two things are required: available waste and the ability to provide significantly lower gate fees as an incentive to draw customers. While lower gate fees may incentivise customers to support waste-to-energy, they also reduce potential revenue.
Waste management companies in New Zealand have raised questions about SIRRL’s stated available waste calculations. This is a significant concern, as the accuracy of these calculations directly impacts the company’s ability to compete in the waste-to-energy market.