• Fri
  • Aug 22, 2014
  • Updated: 8:10pm
CommentLetters

Bureau misled panel on incinerator

PUBLISHED : Tuesday, 04 March, 2014, 4:32am
UPDATED : Wednesday, 02 July, 2014, 2:03pm

How low will the Environment Bureau go to inflict the worst and costliest waste-disposal option on Hong Kong?

In April 2012, its proposal to build a mega incinerator off Shek Kwu Chau was rejected by Legco's panel on environmental affairs. Yet on Monday, February 24, the bureau presented the same proposal to the panel, now, at HK$18.2 billion, it costs 22 per cent more.

Since the rejection in 2012, the bureau has not developed a holistic waste-management strategy for sorting waste at source, collecting it and transporting it to recycling facilities. It remains intent on bulldozing through Legco the easiest option of expanding landfills and building an incinerator for burning unsorted waste.

Last week, legislators raised the same issues as in 2012 and those issues remain unaddressed. Environment Secretary Wong Kam-sing and assistant director Elvis Au again gave misleading answers to questions. Asked to separate the cost of reclaiming land and building infrastructure for the Shek Kwu Chau site from the cost of building the incinerator itself, Wong claimed the project has no separate costings. However, in a letter to these columns in 2012, Au said the infrastructure would cost about 26 per cent of the total. Of the current HK$18.2 billion capital cost, 26 per cent is HK$4.7 billion. Despite his plea to construct an incinerator, Wong has chosen a site that will cost taxpayers HK$4.7 billion more (26 per cent) and take two years longer to complete than building it near a landfill with existing infrastructure.

By refusing to separate infrastructure cost from the actual cost to construct the incinerator, Wong is hiding the fact that it will be the most expensive in the history of this technology, at HK$13.5 billion (HK$18.2 billion less HK$4.7 billion for infrastructure development).

In 1993, the Dutch built a 2,200 tonnes per day (tpd) incinerator costing €191,625 per tonne of waste, and in 2003, they commissioned a 1,400 tpd incinerator costing €233,600 per tonne. If a 2 per cent annual inflation rate is applied to those two incinerators and expressed in 2014 money, they will cost €290,000, or HK$3 million, per tonne. So in 2014 money, the bureau's 3,000 tpd incinerator at HK$4.5 million per tonne costs 50 per cent more than the two Dutch ones. (Au claimed the cost of the proposed incinerator is comparable to the ones in Holland.) And cost is not the only thing the bureau has fudged.

Tom Yam, Lantau

Share

For unlimited access to:

SCMP.com SCMP Tablet Edition SCMP Mobile Edition 10-year news archive
 
 

 

7

This article is now closed to comments

KwunTongBypass
You delay the project and now that the price has gone up you whine? Hypocrite!
dynamco
"You delay the project" because the emissions will kill people and increase our ambient pollution levels and require increased landfills "nd now that the price has gone up you whine?" excellent Now Legco will reject the funding request
"Hypocrite!" look in the mirror
pbhawk
what is about this Government and the ones before it? they can never admit their mistakes and one a decision has been made it can never be changed, ever.
dynamco
the ENB arrogantly re-applied for the landfill/incinerator package clearance to the Legco Environment Panel just days before they were due to fly out to Europe to 'look at' Plasma technology, pyrolysis plant, meeting with the Danish Environment Minister whose country's paradigm shift AWAY from incineration + towards recycling is public knowledge, + of course to view incinerators which have a proven track record of polluters. Hypocrites in blinkers extraordinaire! time to turf out the backroom staff that has been there pushing outdated policies during the tenures of the past 3 ministers at ENB.
As for cost, where is the cost of the Man Made island ash lagoon that will be mandatory as our landfills will be full + incineration reduces what is burned only 70% by weight + the rest including highly toxic flyash needs to be treated + landfilled? Hey, let's copy Pulau Semakau in Singapore, they obviously think, Legco will rubber stamp it (NOT).
After appeals of appeals + assuming Legco somehow gave the go-ahead thereby to give up on recycling it would be 2016 before works could start which means cap in hand for more money again.
Whereas plasma gasification companies build their non polluting , non ash emitting plants at THEIR OWN COST w/ no pollution, Govt just supplies the land. They would charge a gate fee per tonne, sell electricity, sell the 6000 Deg C fused plasmarok inert slag as local road aggregate.
Even a blind man's blind 3 legged guide dog could see the benefits.
KwunTongBypass
Hahaha...."plasma gasification companies build.......at THEIR OWN COST"
What a load of rubbish! Google for DBO or BOT and educate yourself how modern infrastructure is being financed and built. Sure, your Solena friend will have no problems coughing up the HKD 13.5 Billion!! Because bankers will not finance this type of unproven technology! Ask any Mediocre Bookkeeper and Accountant (MBA) to explain.
dynamco
Hahah yourself numbskull + you have obviously no idea of the cost of a plasma plant
Air Products has built Tees side from its own resources
The cost is USD 300 million
The guts of the plant were manufactured in Thailand and Malaysia
A second plant is on order also funded by Air Products adjoining the first and the output is already presold to the UK Cabinet Office under agreement
source: Lisa Jordan Air Products Europe
jtc
DYNAMCO IS CLUELESS ON HOW BUSINESS IS RUN BY SUGGESTING THAT AIR PRODUCTS HAS BUILT TEESSIDE FROM IT OWN RESOURCES.
HE PROBABLY HAD NO IDEA ABOUT ELEMENTARY BUSINESS CONCEPT SUCH AS CASH FLOW AND THE RATE OF RETURN OF A BUSINESS PROJECT, AND HOW A COMPANY RECOVERS ITS CAPITAL INVESTMENT WHILE MAKING AN ACCEPTABLE PROFIT.
TIME TO GO BACK TO SCHOOL, DYNAMCO !!
 
 
 
 
 

Login

SCMP.com Account

or