Eunomia's 60% recycling limit claim not true

Eunomia has today published the latest version of its residual waste review. This has generated headlines on the basis that England's local authorities are going to build so much capacity that they will effectively place an upper limit on their recycling rates of 60%.

Eunomia makes this claim on the basis that England will build roughly 5 million more tonnes of capacity on top of the current 5.5 million tonnes, thereby only leaving only 15.5 million tonnes available for recycling. But this is of course a partial analysis which is only looking at residual LA waste (taking their figures at face value). England also generates much larger quantities of residual commercial waste which also needs to find a home.

Eunomia's report/media line talks about local authorities tying themselves down with the minimum tonnages which they are committing to the facilities in the pipeline. But minimum tonnages in residual waste contracts consist not only of Contract Waste from the Authority, but Substitute Waste from commercial sources as well.

In other words, as levels of local authority residual waste fall during the life of a contract, the shortfall is made up using commercial sources, i.e. more and more residual commercial waste is used during the life of the contract so that the plant can keep running while the authority remains incentivised to meet its recycling commitments elsewhere.

To say that England's authorities are therefore constraining their recycling rates to 60% is nonsense.

Returning to Defra's forecasts

Further to my previous post on this subject, I have subsequently realised that the updated waste arisings' forecasts published by Defra this month were in fact already out of date when Defra published them.

We now know that the 'revised February 2013' forecasts (published in October 2013) has been updated/superseded by this version, which has been produced to support the decision to remove central government support for Norfolk.

At first glance this seems slightly puzzling, as the forecasts for arisings in the new version are higher than the old numbers. Surely this (on it's own) would increase the case for supporting Norfolk? Apparently not.

My personal view remains that these forecasts are a bit on the low side, but at least they're moving in the right direction. My central forecast is towards the upper end of Defra's range, but at least they don't look completely out of kilter with one another.

Overcapacity concerns for AD?

I see via @ediewaste that there have been a few concerns about the state of the AD market voiced at the recent ADBA conference.

Basically this looks to me like an incumbent saying: look guys, this is a lot more difficult than you think; be careful as we don't want a situation where there are too many plants chasing too little feedstock (i.e. overcapacity). Overcapacity is of course an issue which tends to be associated in the trade press with efw (the recent Eunomia report being a key element stoking these concerns).

I suspect we're more likely to end up with overcapacity for a technology like AD where the plants are relatively smaller and less capital intensive to deliver than a large-scale residual waste plant. They are therefore less reliant on long-term debt funding which means operators may have greater flexibility to take a punt on a project without being constrained by having to satisfy risk-averse lenders.

AD is a technology which has explicit government backing and which enjoys some of the largest amounts of support under the Renewables Obligation. If operators can't get it to work under these circumstances then there really is something wrong.