FRASER SCOTT - TRUE NORTH CONSULTING
Fraser has worked with clients in sectors including energy, IT and electronics, waste management, government, health and disabilities, and social services.
ADVOCATING FOR WTE & PROJECT KEA.
Fraser Scott’s LinkedIn account provided a post with the following endorsement of Project Kea.
“I’ve got to say I think this model has a lot of merit. This kind of technology is common in countries we look to as exemplars in waste management. The countries that embrace Waste to Energy/Energy from Waste also tend to be the best at recycling. And since when was landfilling seen as a good option?!
Sure, it would be great if we didn’t have any waste, and we need to invest in reducing waste, but let’s be grown-ups and acknowledge we will always have residual waste. Is utilising this kind of world-class technology really worse than a hole in the ground and rampant methane production? Do we really think all of our recycling efforts are going to get shelved because this is built?
Sometimes I shake my head at the way we handle these types of things.”
The above Linkedin post provided a link to the following Stuff article, ‘Resource consents re-lodged for waste-to-energy plant near Waimate’
THE PROJECT KEA WEBSITE
Fraser Scott, a waste industry expert Consultant from True North Consulting, was commissioned by local and central Government and reported:
“Waste-to-Energy (WtE) has numerous forms and can operate at different scales and with different technologies. In recent times public opposition to WtE has become more prominent but is often based on outdated information and misunderstanding of how WtE technology and applications have moved over the past decade.
“WtE has, in some cases, become much more reliable, ‘greener’ and able to achieve better economic returns. It is also becoming recognised as a more flexible and useful alternative to landfill for waste that cannot be economically recycled or otherwise utilised further up the waste hierarchy.
“A number of Territorial Authorities and waste processors are recognising the advantages of using WtE rather than sending waste to landfill. There are also potential climate change benefits from WtE, and this area is becoming increasingly important.
“WtE is very likely to increase in profile in the near future and is also likely to become part of municipal waste strategies, particularly for major centres.”
– Fraser Scott, True North Consulting — Advisor to Climate Change Commission, MfE, CCC, ECan
W-t-E and the New Zealand context
It’s crucial to question comments such as, “I think this model has a lot of merit,” given that this comment was made about an actual proposal with a resource consent application lodged. This comment can be viewed as an endorsement of that proposal. However, Mr Scott’s comments are a bit bewildering given that the rest of his commentary ignored the Waimate proposal and provided a generalised view that W-t-E is a world-class technology that we should draw a comparison between its adoption and “exemplars in waste management”.
Given that the technology employed by the Waimate plant will be Chinese, the plant will be 60% owned and operated by a Chinese W-t-E company, and the componentry used at the plant will also be Chinese-built, then let’s compare apples with apples. Is China seen as an exemplar of waste management?
Mr Scotts’ comments also ignore the incentives for waste-to-energy overseas, including population density, localised waste sources, infrastructure to support W-t-E, lack of available land for landfilling, limited renewable energy generation sources, and associated subsidies and tax breaks.
If we apply the same overseas “model” to the Waimate proposal in a New Zealand context, we can see that they don’t relate.
Should we accept W-t-E proposals based on the notion ‘well, it exists overseas’?
Mr Fraser’s assertion of potential climate change benefits from W-t-E should be viewed cautiously, as little evidence supports this claim. The proposed Waimate incinerator, for instance, will release significant amounts of climate-altering gases, including CO2, nitrogen oxides, and sulphur dioxide. This underscores the urgent need to consider the potential environmental impacts of the W-t-E proposal and approach such claims with a healthy dose of scepticism, perhaps best ascertained in the Environment Court process.
The methane-generating content in landfills is organic material. There is a global shift toward removing this organic material from landfills, which has resulted in the adoption of stricter waste collection and sorting regulations.
It is important to remember that the Waimate incinerator will rely on an ever-depleting stream of waste with a high calorific value, such as plastics, to create energy and subsequent revenue. This secondary function of energy generation is largely sourced from the burning of oil-derived plastics.
Mr Fraser’s assertion that W-t-E is ‘becoming recognised as a more flexible and useful alternative to landfill’ is a point that warrants further debate and scrutiny.
It’s important to note that W-t-E incineration plants lack the flexibility of landfills. They rely on a continuous feed of material to run and return a profit, which is not flexible. European plants, such as the Amager Bakke plant in Copenhagen, have been built to overcapacity, leading W-t-E companies to import waste to keep plants operating. Unlike landfills, which can reduce inputs without compromising the technology, W-t-E incineration plants have no dial-back flexibility, a significant limitation that should be of concern.
While Mr Scott “shakes his head at how we handle these types of things,” We, too, shake our heads at how people can base their opinions of proposals on little more than a generalised view of an overseas W-t-E model that doesn’t fit within the New Zealand context.