See Brescia and die

inceneritore_Brescia.jpg


Brescia is a sacred site for those looking for incinerator locations. They go there on pilgrimage in order to breathe in the healthy air directly from the chimney. They drink the locally produced milk and take a bicycle ride I the surrounding areas. It is a victory of science over darkness.
In order to find out more about this miracle of innovation, I decided to carry out a simple investigation. Today I am publishing the first part of the incinerator voyage. Hold on tight.

"Brescia displays a number of disconcerting similarities to Campania. The milk originating from companies located in the vicinity of the city have recently been found to contain higher than normal dioxin levels. We also encountered an extremely high incidence of liver tumours.
The National Health tumours register, however, reassuringly but without any verifiable data, puts this down to a high incidence of hepatitis and alcohol abuse (Giornale di Brescia, 10 November 2007). It must be pointed out that Eng. Renzo Capra, Chairman of Asm, is also a member of the ASL Tumours Register Scientific Committee, which he also funds.
It is maintained that there is an annual saving of 470 thousand tons of CO2 emissions, however, what is not being said is that the comparison is being made to the waste disposal dumps, and not to recycling, which enables CO2 emission reductions of three times this amount (AEA Technology. Waste management options and climate change, European Commission, 2001).
In Brescia they pretend to be practicing differentiated waste collection. However, this is annulled by the continuous increase in the amount of waste being produced, including the special waste. In the 10 years since the incinerator was commissioned, the amount of differentiated waste to be disposed of has remained at a level of 1,1 Kg/day/per capita, precisely the same as in Campania and 5-6 times as much as the undifferentiated waste, which is collected door-to-door, at a specific fee (e.g.: Consorzio Priula Treviso). After all, the incinerator requires a certain of waste, and Asm has managed to perform a “miracle” by maintaining the same quantities for a period of 10 years!
In order to inflate Asm results, it provides figures in kilowatt-hours (570 million), pretending not to know that the standard unit of measurement, outside of private dwellings, is in fact the gigawatthour (million KWh) or the terawatthour (billion KWh). If the truth were told, the Brescia plant (800,000 tons/year) has a capacity equivalent to one tenth of that of a normal turbo gas power station. The plant cost per MW supplied is 5-6 times higher than that of a turbo gas power station, and the yield is approximately 20% of the calorific potential of the waste, as against the 55% of a turbo gas power station. The minimal amount of energy recovered is negated by the wastage of other valuable materials (Each year, 5-6 thousand tons of iron, 6 thousand tons of aluminium and hundreds of tons of copper exit the plant together with the ash in the case of Brescia). In conclusion then, the contribution made by Lombardy’s incinerators, 13 plants, to electricity production in the area is equivalent to 2% of the total!
This is a wastage plant, and an unprofitable one at that, which is only able to continue its operating thanks to the scandalous funding, via the Cip6 (see the posting), paid to the Brescia incinerator, namely, more than 60 million Euro per year, for 8 years, or double the actual investment for the plant itself!
In 2006, the Asm incinerator was proclaimed "world champion ", having won the "Wtert 2006 Industry Award". Except for the fact that the Award Body, namely Columbia University’s Wtert, is sponsored, inter alia, by Martin GmbH, Germany, the manufacturer of the very same Asm plant." Marino Ruzzenenti, www.ambientebrescia.it

Posted by Beppe Grillo at 01:25 PM in | Comments (10)
Post a comment | Sign up | Send to a friend | | GrilloNews | TrackBack (0) |
View blog opinions



Comments

hello beppe!

how are you
my nane is andrew Wray i work for a company called U.T.S. ltd and we are the holders of the marketing rights for the HTCW technology, i came accross your site by accident, but i must say i like your views on incenerators, please email me or the company at uts@untechservices.co.uk and we would be more than happy to provide you with any information you would like, by the way we are totaly open about our technology nd would invite people to compare the HTCW technology to any other system any way please take up the invite

kind regards
Andrew Wray

Posted by: Andrew Wray | February 21, 2009 06:02 PM


I'm currently working on a business project linked to a sensible disposal of both municipal and industrial waste. having read the posts on Brescia's incenerator and other I was wondering if anybody had ever heard about HTCW and WES Gmb, wich is the Germany company that owns the patents of this technology.

It seems to me it could be a genuinely environmentally friendly solution.

Regards

Posted by: Erich Cavicchiolo | November 17, 2008 12:57 PM


Beppe et al, this is what Dr Dick van Steenis has to say about Dr Mark Broomfield, Technical Director of Enviros, The UK's travelling salesperson of EfW incinerator. Different EU country, Dr Paul Connett's county, same fine to nano particle issue and denial from government officials and waste corporates.

Dr. Dick van Steenis MBBS

31 January 2008

Surrey County Council councillors, Surrey MPS & Capel Action Group.

I have been requested to correct false accusations, ignorance and misinformation in the Enviros planning briefing note of 24 January sent to MPs & councillors, and the waste treatment technologies memorandum written by Mark Broomfield of Enviros for Surrey CC Environment & economy select committee scrutiny review of waste.

Readers should be made aware that Broomfield has worked for ICI and 4 incinerator companies (WRG, Sita, Biffa & HLC) and hence his 2 reports above read like a lobbyist’s PR stunt. There is not a single proper journal reference for his wild claims. (*I have 337 journal references backing up my report.). Broomfield fails to present any data whether health data (eg ONS, PCT, hospital or coroner) or PM2.5 data, when it is only PM2.5s emitted by incinerators. His amazing claims comprise make-believe propaganda. His claims are in defiance of the laws of physics regarding PM2.5s, toxicology regarding effects of inhalation (known in USA since 1943) and physiology in not knowing it takes a time lag of say 20 years for most cancers to be obvious enough to be diagnosed. Broomfield alleges no cancer problem from modern incinerators (presumably post 1997) so most cancers would be diagnosed between 2010 and 2023 (as not all modern ones were built in 1997). He quotes the fraudulent Elliott report, which looks at old 1960s incinerators with safer fuel & content and compares some people affected with others also at risk of being affected and looks in circles instead of upwind vs. downwind for only about 10 years exposure. Most cancers found in excess were then conveniently got rid of by sleight of hand removal for “deprivation” when the Health Effects Institute May 2000 & other reports have proved deprivation does not cause diseases caused by PM2.5s. Broomfield ignores journal reports of French & Belgian incinerators. His table of emissions is labelled “estimated” so must be ignored. He calls PM10s “fine” particulates when fine particulates are in reality PM2.5s in journals. Does he know anything about PM2.5 content, health effects at various concentrations and spread?? He makes comparisons with coal fired plant but incinerators release PM2.5s only compared to coal plant emissions averaging PM5 and makes comparisons with motorways when road fuel PM2.5s are much less contaminated and less toxic than incinerator PM2.5s. 70% of road PM1s settle by 110 yards while the incinerator emissions in your proposal will ground mostly within 16 miles downwind with prevailing SW, NW & SE winds.

In the briefing note he alleges incinerators “make a negligible contribution to PM2.5s”. He meant PM10s. Oops. The National Atmospheric Inventory quoted consists again entirely of ESTIMATES hence cannot be relied upon except by those living in the world of make-believe. Broomfield alleges you must consider socio-economic factors, again displaying total ignorance. He then moves onto the Michael Ryan study quoted by CAG. Broomfield it appears cannot tolerate looking at wind roses and government data plotted out on a map. As his presumptions are totally without foundation, he cannot understand that proper measurement of grounding of particles published by Harvard proves that the high infant mortality plotted out in Ryan’s maps is EXACTLY where wind rose and Harvard data predict it would be with the incinerator emissions as causative. There are no exceptions. He does not tell you that even DEFRA, for whom he writes, state in their July 2007 report that PM2.5s CAUSE a range of illnesses and premature deaths. He then alleges Ryan’s report was reviewed by Woodward & Harrison. This is malicious libel and untrue as Ryan’s report to parliament was published afterwards so was not seen. Woodwards report had no proper control and only looked at 4 wards compared with the same area including the 4 wards when most of the area had the health damage. She could have examined Dothill ward upwind versus Ironbridge gorge and other wards downwind. Her own PCT age standardised mortality proves the death rate in Ironbridge gorge almost TREBLE that of Dothill, with Dothill infant mortality zero compared with as high as 29 per1000 births in Ironbridge. Childhood asthma incidence in Dothill was 1.9% compared with 24 to 100% in schools downwind. A secret meeting of regulators with the power company was called by the Health Protection Agency 17 Nov.2005 purely to formulate a joint propaganda to hide the illnesses and deaths from the public in order to protect company profits. Prescott downgraded IPPC law in 2000 to mean “anything will do” so the Environment Agency declined to really regulate industrial air pollution. The regulations were kept at PM10s (meaning monitoring PM10 down to PM4), which do not get into your lungs. In USA the USEPA introduced PM2.5 laws in 1997 and tightened them in 2006, as it is PM2.5s that really get into your lungs. So to wind up his deceitful propaganda Broomfield quotes Health Protection Agency to say incinerators contribute little to regulated items, deliberately omitting that incinerators only emit PM2.5s TOTALLY UNREGULATED. What a deceit!!! In fact analysis of ONS data proves Basingstoke incinerator, the newest, has a slightly worse infant mortality differential downwind compared with London’s incinerators so it seems most modern UK incinerators are worse rather than better than very old ones. The evidence stares you in the face but the regulators & Enviros are clearly not daring to look. Harrison told HPA/DEFRA in 2005 not to do any studies. The zones of high infant mortality also have low birth weight babies, asthma, depression & suicides, diabetes 2, heart attacks, cancers etc. as listed in my report. It is easy not to look, then say there is no credible evidence. Just look—its there.

In conclusion the incinerator proposal breaks the IPPC law as it is no longer BAT or BATNEEC as plasma gasification is cheaper to build, to run, and the safest with no ash for disposal. The Canadian government is working with one, they are found in USA including one being built by Veolia. Panama & Puerto Rico and others are having them too. Why is the UK fobbed off with unsafe plant, when you can and should have the best for less cash and less maiming and killing. Its time to sort out the regulators. Check everything out so you are not fobbed off with mis-information. I am published in 4 peer-reviewed journals. My references are available for you.

Posted by: Rob Whittle | February 4, 2008 09:09 PM


My Dear Beppe,

You continue to complain about waste disposal as though it is the work of the devil - still without posing any kind of alternative that might have a chance of implementation in the next 50 years (if ever). You still IGNORE every answer to your questions - if that is what they are.

I presume that you have no real interest in actually finding a way to dispose of our self-made problem of waste disposal - just another handle to crank up your bitterness about Italy and the Italian people who are not of your particular, small-minded way of thinking.

Well Beppe, there are elections for making these negative views of yours both known and felt. Why not try them some time? Rather than hiding behind the self-proclaimed "most read in the world" blog (rather reminiscent of the "richest man in Europe" claim of someone else) - put your hat in the ring and engage with the majority of the people.

This is not a vaudeville show, Beppe, it is real life. If you have something CONSTRUCTIVE to offer, rather than just a never-ending WHINE and BLEAT about Italy, OFFER your thoughts to THE PEOPLE. Not just your FAN CLUB.

Or are you too FRIGHTENED to engage in the REAL world without the support of your AGENT or FANS?

Posted by: Luke Dixon | January 16, 2008 11:22 AM


I tried to talk about a working incenerator and incenerator technology development here in Göteborg, a chilometer distant from here, in the Italian Grillo blog version. But you, Beppe didn't like the comment for some reason. (Daily Owl-blog discovered it) Maybe it is more accepted here in the English version were most Italians are not able to read?

I live near an incenerator and wanted to tell that the incenerator technology has developed quite a lot. You can see by the photos in my blog the luxury neighborhood of this plant. As the previous commenter, Andrea Ceccanti said, it is not a good solution to burn wastes. But what are the alternatives?

In Borås, a town near Göteborg are they planning to build two new gasdriven incenerators with new technologies to get more energy out of it.

The Terni-incenerator scandal is not an example of incenerator technology. That is an example of a criminal administration.

If you want to know more I have photos and documentation on my site.

Posted by: Stellan Kinberg | January 15, 2008 09:46 PM


Veltroni is shit

Posted by: Franz | January 15, 2008 03:25 PM


It is unbelievable what it is happening in all Italy, from North to South.
It is a shame that a wonderful country where art, history, literature, science have enriched all the world, became as it is now. Contaminated, dirty, anarchic... a joke of ridiculous and embarrassing politicians.

Incinerators are just a side of the problem.

I think it's time for a serious revolution.

Posted by: Alessandro Patti | January 15, 2008 09:28 AM


On the top of what Andrea wrote i would say
that in the incinerators the furnace temperature
is mantained above the critical at which dyoxine
start to be produced, well above.
According to my direct experience using modern
instruments with the best possible accuracy ,
nothing is detected out of the declared limits.
Many time ambientalists, like Pegoraro Scanio,
they mix up reality with fantasy,facts with hypothesis, speculating over the ignorance and
the ancestral fears of the people.
The results are under the eyes of the world.

Posted by: maurizio confalonieri | January 15, 2008 05:08 AM


As one who has lived here for 30+ years, I am always relieved by the continued popular resistance. How about a solution folks !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Michael Newton | January 14, 2008 08:25 PM


As far as the energy calculation is concerned I totally agree with you that an incinerator is inefficient. However, please do not forget that the incinerator is supposed to reduce the volume of waste and not producing energy.
Energy production is a job for power plants and sometime they are not efficient either.
However, having an incinerator that can produce some energy is a clear advantage.
From the pollution point of view, incinerators represent an unfortunate choice for our environment and ourselves.
Unfortunately, the alternative to incinerators is a rubbish dump that has its own problems as well.
In any case an incinerator could provide a reasonable mean of waste disposal if combined with a separate waste collection.
In actual fact the environmental impact of burning paper, wood, non-synthetic clothes, kitchen waste and cardboard is minimal and surely lower than the million of cars that roam Italian roads every day.
The process becomes dangerous when burning plastics (especially PVC), plastic bags, plastic wrapping, certain type of rubber (like those of electric cables) and many other man made products that combined with oxygen produce Dioxin.
The open battle against incinerators is important but dramatically fails to provide a short term solution.
The average family produces at least a couple of bags of rubbish a week. What are we going to do with the resulting 40 million bags of rubbish a week?
Talking about separate collection and recycling is fine but how many Italians will separate and recycle?
Probably the same percentage of the Italian drivers that drive carefully…

Posted by: Andrea Ceccanti | January 14, 2008 03:23 PM


Post a comment


Beppe Grillo's Blog is an open space for you to use so that we can come face to face directly. As your comment is published immediately, there's no time for filters to check it out. Thus the Blog's usefulness depends on your cooperation and it makes you the only ones responsible for the content and the resulting outcomes.

Information to be read before using Beppe Grillo's Blog

The following are not allowed:
1. messages without the email address of the sender
2. anonymous messages
3. advertising messages
4. messages containing offensive language
5. messages containing obscene language
6. messages with racist or sexist content
7. messages with content that constitutes a violation of Italian Law (incitement to commit a crime, to violence, libel etc.)

However, the owner of the Blog can delete messages at any moment and for any reason.
The owner of the Blog cannot be held responsible for any messages that may damage the rights of third parties Maximum comment length is 2,000 characters.
If you have any doubts read "How to use the blog".

Post a comment (English please!)


First name and Surname*:

Email Address*:
We remind you that anonymous messages (without real first name and surname) will be cancelled.
URL:


* Compulsory fields



Send to a friend

Send this message to *


Your Email Address *


Message (optional)


* Compulsory fields