Recycling in Bristol
Discussion
pdV6 said:
In fact, reading BCC's leaflet revealed the true reason for the changes; if they can't be shown to be doing more recycling, they'll get fined by central government. I can only assume that their way of paying for this is to save money on the bin collection by halving it.
Doesn't quite work like that.
The government has issued targets to all UK authorities with regards to the amount of waste that's recycled. Those authorities that fail to hit their target get fined - a lot. However, those that exceed their targets get financial rewards through something called landfill tax credits and other financial incentives. Also, a lot of recycled waste has good re-sale value - particulalry steel and glass which the council then uses to fund the additional collections.
In theory, it's a win-win situation. Less rubbish going to landfill=less pollution. More recycling=less need for raw materails and less energy to produce new stuff and all this costing less than bunging everything in a single bin. Might be a pain but we'll quickly get used to it.
neil_cardiff said:
steviebee said:
pdV6 said:
In fact, reading BCC's leaflet revealed the true reason for the changes; if they can't be shown to be doing more recycling, they'll get fined by central government. I can only assume that their way of paying for this is to save money on the bin collection by halving it.
Doesn't quite work like that.
The government has issued targets to all UK authorities with regards to the amount of waste that's recycled. Those authorities that fail to hit their target get fined - a lot. However, those that exceed their targets get financial rewards through something called landfill tax credits and other financial incentives. Also, a lot of recycled waste has good re-sale value - particulalry steel and glass which the council then uses to fund the additional collections.
In theory, it's a win-win situation. Less rubbish going to landfill=less pollution. More recycling=less need for raw materails and less energy to produce new stuff and all this costing less than bunging everything in a single bin. Might be a pain but we'll quickly get used to it.
Why your interest in the Bristol system? You live in Essex?
Edited to add: Oooh, I see now... your profile links to a website of yours regarding something to do with waste?
Edited by neil_cardiff on Tuesday 22 August 13:42
Busted!
www.envirocomms.co.uk
Just a bit of professional curiosity given that we did all the campaign work in Bristol
pdV6 said:
Out of interest, then, was the "filled bin %-age" diagram dictated to you by BCC or was that your own invention?
The reason I ask is that its being used as the sole justification for "selling" the reduced the bin collections to us and is, to my mind, misleading and factually incorrect.
The idea is based upon a nationaly accepted method but the figures are based upon averages in Bristol. The actual perectages were audited by a not-for-profit organisation called Network Recycling (now Resource Futures) whom we have nothing to do with.
The % s show average domestic waste composition over 130,000 homes in Bristol. There will of course be individual variances - such as with yourself. It's also worth noting that the figures are based on wieght not volume.
flooritforever said:
Better still, if the major aim of this is to reduce the amount of rubbish going to landfills, then why not build an incinerator? The fumes can be processed, removing all nasties, and the heat can be put to use generating electricity. A perfect solution if there ever was one.
It's a solution but landfill diversion is only part of the reason to recycle. There's also the protection of raw materails and the reduction in pollution to make new stuff (about 75% less!). You're right that modern incinerators are different beasts to the ones of 20 years ago but sadly, few people are as well informed as yourself and these facilities are amongst the most difficult buildings to get palnning permsission for. They also cost a hell of a lot of money which would then be reflected in your council tax charges.
That said, there is some consultancy work being done across your region on this very subject and you may want to have a look at www.rubbishorresource.co.uk
pdV6 said:
They get paid a bonus for doing so.
They save money by reducing the bin collections.
They get us to pay for new (garden) bins.
They get us to pay extra for some (garden) collections.
They get us to bear the cost of transporting excess rubish to the tip.
They get us to bear the cost of transporting plastics (other than bottles) for recycling.
Our council tax goes up.
Can somebody please explain the win/win scenario again?
Oh wait - its BCC that's winning
It's not a bonus. they don't get a prize for meeting the targets. They get tax allowances on waste that doesn't go to landfil. This gets used to constantly improve the service as well as buffer any service cost increases to residents.
They're not reducing collections. In fact, they are collecting more bins than before. If you use the scheme correctly, you'll be getting exactly the same level of service as before. Because there is less waste going into your black bin - it doesn't (or shouldn't) need collecting weekly.
Why should someone who doesn't have a garden subsidise those that do?
If used correctly, there should be no reason for extra trips to the tip.
As I understand it, there's a plastic bottle bank within a mile of every home in Bristol.
No recycing service is ever going to suit everybody - it will always be a compromise. The simplest sollution is something called single stream recycling where everything goes in a single bin and gets sorted at a massive facility. Some counties in the States use this and are recycling as much as 90% of their waste. However, in the UK, such a facility would add about £300 - £500 a year on your council tax.
yertis said:
Has anyone done a lifecycle audit of the amount of energy used by the recycling trucks on their weekly rolling roadblock exercise, and set it against the energy saved by collecting a few bottles, tin cans and soggy newspapers?
Yes.
If you care to trawl through the DEFRA website or www.wrap.org.uk you'll find the outcome there.
As said before, making recycled products uses about 75% less energy than making products using new raw materials. Know where you're heading but I can assure you, you are wrong!
yertis said:
So, steviebee, have you got some useful feedback for your client?
I tell you what guys, this is actually really good feedback and I do appreciate the comments.
I may well open this up on a wider forum as I think there's some interesting stuff here.
As a parting salvo here, I'll leave you with this:
Everything that's been said here is not uncommon. Many other councils are or have gone through a similar process and faced similar opposition. The fact is that these schemes are needed and it has nothing to do with hitting targets, saving or making money. I'm no lefty enviro-mentalist (what would I be doing on PH if I were!!) but I have seen first hand the effect of excess waste is having. It's not just down to householders either. Manufacturers and retailers have a huge part to play - particulalry with packaging - and they are being pressured into doing something.
As I said before, no scheme is going to be 100% right for 100% of the people. All I would say is that the scheme you've got in Bristol is amongst the most efficient in the UK and you - like many others - will quickly get used to it.
It's just about changing the way you do things but as the ads say: Change is often a good thing!
mechsympathy said:
pdV6 said:
yertis said:
So I reckon they just take the whole lot and chuck it in the same big hole. I've not seen any evidence to the contrary.
I've heard that several times from different sources, i.e. its all a big scam to "look" green and we're not actually saving landfill at all...
It wouldn't surprise me at all
Aside from the fact this would be highly illegal (directors and managers of waste firms and local authorities have received jail terms doing just this), it would also be akin to thowing money away given that the seperated waste material is treated as a commodity and has high value - particulalry steel and glass.
Where this has happened in the past is when third-party contractors are paid to dispose of the lower value or more difficult to treat waste (such as electrical items). The council will pay these companies who then have to pay to dismantle or incinerate the waste. They can increase their profits by simply dumping the stuff but it's becoming increasingly difficult to do this and the risks are no longer comensurate with the gains.
BTW: The "bugs" are simply chips that contain the postcode of the property to which the bin belongs. It's used to record the weight of the waste collected over a certain area. That's all. I can assure you that councils have far more pressing and important things to worry about thant who's putting what rubbish in what bin!
Yertis said:
IanReid said:
steviebee said:
it would also be akin to thowing money away given that the seperated waste material is treated as a commodity and has high value - particulalry steel and glass.
Why do you continually mention steel and glass in a thread about household rubbish. It's completely irrelvant. This is typical of the muddled thinking that shows the thing for the utter shambles it is.
I suspect that he means household bottles and cans. But it is well known that it is far cheaper (both financially and ecologically) to make new glass and steel. They're not in very short supply are they?
I've only just become aware of these ridiculous brown swill-bins (having managed to remove myself from this urban cack-hole that used to be a nice city). They seem very popular with the insect population
As an aside, steviebee, since you are an expert on the excellent work of BCC, what happens to the swill? Is it fed to pigs or what?
The glass from your jars and bottles is either ground up for use in building materials or to make new glass jars and bottles. It's also used in road surfaces.
Cans are used to make steel.
It's at about 25% cheaper to make these products using recycled materials as the cost of extraction of the raw material is going skywards.
The food waste is taken to an in-vessel composting plant (in Dorset I think). At this facility all the food waste is put into a closed container known as a vessel. It is heated to above 70 degrees Celsius and composted for at least 100 days. After this process is complete the resulting compost can be used as a soil improver, for example in local parks.
Yertis said:
steviebee said:
The food waste is taken to an in-vessel composting plant (in Dorset I think). At this facility all the food waste is put into a closed container known as a vessel. It is heated to above 70 degrees Celsius and composted for at least 100 days. After this process is complete the resulting compost can be used as a soil improver, for example in local parks.
And how much energy does transporting it to Dorset and heating it to above 70degrees use? Why not just feed it to the pigs, or throw it in the sea for fish to eat?
Unfortunatley, the great and the good at DEFRA decree that pig and all animal feed is of a certain quality these days.
Most in-vessel plants are self powering in that the process creates energy which is used to power the plant although there is the issue of transportation. BCC along with other local councils are looking at building a plant in the Bristol area but have to show that there is a certain level of waste generated over a certain period of time before they can get funding.
Yertis said:
steviebee said:
Most in-vessel plants are self powering in that the process creates energy...
Doesn't that contravene thermodynamic laws?
Very possibly (I just write and design the leaflets!!)
I think the rule of thumb is that the "new" energy needed to run the process is considerably less as a result of the enrgy that the process itself creates.
Gassing Station | South West | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff