blog

Energy from waste and its environmental impacts

Fri, 07 Jun 2013 13:00:00 +0100

I was very pleased to be invited to present a talk on ‘Energy from waste and its environmental impacts-reaching a conclusion without sitting on the fence’ at the CIWM Eastern & Southern Region on 31 May 2013.

Energy from waste has continued to generate much discussion and attention over many years, often with more heat generated than light in public debates. In my talk, I tried to shed some light on the matter by giving a personal perspective on Ricardo-AEA’s recent work on proposed Energy from Waste facilities at King’s Lynn in Norfolk, and Sutton in South London.

I described the value of the in-depth reviews carried out by Ricardo-AEA into the air quality, health risk and nature conservation aspects of these high-profile developments on behalf of the planning authorities. These detailed studies enabled me and my colleague Richard Smithers to ensure that any potential impacts were properly addressed at an early stage, and then “come off the fence” to give robust and authoritative evidence on these topics to the planning inquiry into the King’s Lynn facility, and to the London Borough of Sutton Development Control committee. This approach was ultimately beneficial for all parties, reducing uncertainty and enabling attention to be focused on key issues. Click here to download a copy of the presentation. The presentation triggered a lively discussion of public concerns regarding health risks and potential impacts of waste to energy on recycling from a well-informed audience. How can waste authorities ensure that obtaining energy from residual waste does not discourage re-use and recycling initiatives higher up the waste hierarchy? The discussion highlighted the importance of stakeholder and community involvement in the development of waste strategies, to ensure that facilities are appropriately sized and well located.

Professor Lewis Herbert of Anglia Ruskin University provided a fascinating presentation on the long history of waste combustion in the UK since the mid-19th century. The long lead time for major waste projects in the 21st century was put into context by Professor Herbert, who highlighted the 40 year interval between identifying the need to deal with sewage in Britain’s cities in the 1850s, and the construction of the Cambridge waste destructor and sewage pumping station in 1894.

As well as waste to energy, the meeting included presentations of contrasting innovative developments in waste recycling and reuse. Russell Hirst of WISER Recycling discussed the future challenges for re-use and recycling of waste electrical and electronic equipment. Carlos Ludlow-Palafox of Enval presented a new technique for recycling laminated foil packs using microwave technology, and John Durrant of Newmarket Open Door described his experience of taking over and running a household waste recycling centre as a social enterprise.

The meeting concluded with a tour of the interesting and idiosyncratic Cambridge Museum of Technology, including the original 1894 “waste destructor,” used to generate steam to pump sewage from Cambridge to the newly developed treatment works. If you’d like to visit the museum, there’s more information here.

We have moved on since the days of the Cambridge Refuse Destructor, and the environmental challenges facing us in the 21st Century are very different. But there will always be a need for high quality science, engineering and technical expertise – as demonstrated in the Cambridge pumping station which stood the test of time and was still running over 70 years later!

The Cambridge Refuse Destructor – then and now

[Photo (left) courtesy of Lewis Herbert, author of the CIWM centenary history]

Off-Frack?

Fri, 07 Dec 2012 13:00:00 +0000

This week, George Osborne announced the setting up of a new “Office for Unconventional Gas and Oil.” Together with the plans for tax incentives for development of the UK’s shale gas resources, this sends a strong signal regarding the current temporary ban - and that the use of high volume hydraulic fracturing in the UK will soon be permitted to resume.

These steps are sensible from a number of perspectives – DECC’s proposed approach to seismic monitoring will provide effective control of the slight seismicity risks associated with hydraulic fracturing. And a flowchart of the UK’s approach to regulating unconventional gas exploration and development resembles a complicated knitting pattern, so I welcome any steps to simplify regulation in this area – even if the new office will surely end up being called “Off-Frack”.

I was pleased to be invited to contribute to an intensive workshop in Brussels this week, convened by the European Commission. The aim of the workshop was to develop ideas and thinking around geological risks associated with unconventional gas – what are the key issues? How can they be regulated? And what data should be obtained before, during and after hydraulic fracturing? The discussion was lively, with many differences of opinion. The risks that could be associated with hydraulic fracturing in karst geology were presented – valid concerns, but very different to the risks that could apply in regions with different geological formations overlying the shale formation.

Several speakers commented that “you can’t regulate geology” – true enough, but of course we do have to regulate industries who are affected by geology. To me, this emphasises the need for a flexible regulatory system which mandates regulatory authorities to focus on and require detailed assessment of topics which are relevant to a particular development. This does of course need to take account of geological structures, and needs to be sufficiently flexible to accommodate the knowledge which will be gained as exploration progresses.

Drilling through karst formations to shale gas reserves would pose greater geological risks

Ceefax - the end of an era in air quality health broadcasting

Wed, 24 Oct 2012 10:30:00 +0100

This week the BBC finally drew a veil over Ceefax, the world's first teletext service. The shutdown was timed to coincide with the completion of the UK's digital switchover, with Olympic champion Dame Mary Peters turning off the last analogue TV signal at 23.30 BST on Tuesday (23 October). A series of graphics on Ceefax's front page marked its 38 years on the BBC.

This end of an era also marks the end of the dissemination of air quality data through teletext. Two decades ago AEA led the implementation of what was, at the time, a pioneering air quality information service: utilising teletext for the delivery of hourly air quality health messaging via the BBC (CEEFAX) and Independent (TELETEXT) pages. The independent service proved so popular with the UK public that dating agencies even paid to advertise alongside the air quality updates!

Today, the switch over to digital along with social media and mobile technologies are rapidly changing data dissemination opportunities. AEA is proud to continue pioneering this area, supporting those affected by poor air quality and providing them with accurate air quality information whenever and wherever they need it most.

“The biggest decision for 20 years”

Fri, 06 Jul 2012 13:00:00 +0100

I was privileged to participate in the biggest decision faced by Norfolk County Council’s Planning (Regulatory) Committee for 20 years. At stake was a decision as to whether to grant planning permission for a new waste incinerator at King’s Lynn. The irony of this decision being taken by a local authority 50 miles away in Norwich was not lost on those present.

The decision was taken over the course of an all-day committee meeting. During the course of the day, the committee members grappled with the often contradictory views expressed by Council officers, objectors to the scheme, and the applicant. The characteristics of the Committee members emerged as they questioned the speakers on their evidence, with some very incisive questioners alongside others who engaged much less in the discussion. Meanwhile, about 80 members of the public were in an adjacent room, and every so often we heard cheers and boos as they made their views on the points under discussion very clear.

My role was to provide advice to officers and committee members on air quality and health issues, including the difficult issues posed by the risk of impacts on protected habitat sites. The committee members had 500 pages of documentation to read, but in a forum like this, only the big issues get debated and there is no opportunity to go into matters of detail. Often the same issues were raised repeatedly as those addressing the Committee each had their say. Can you monitor dioxins continuously? Is the site in a high risk flood zone? Do fine particles affect health? Will the facility emit sufficient quantities of particles to be a concern? Have in-combination effects been considered? Should the project be put on hold until the Health Protection Agency has completed its research into the health effects of waste incinerators?

At the end of the very long day, it was local democracy in action. From a barnstorming 5 minutes from the MP to some very emotional testimony from local residents, from detailed discussion of carbon footprint calculations to a comedy interlude when some members didn’t realise that they were repeating the voting on the vote before the vote they’d just voted on. It felt like a very English way to go about things – slightly shambolic at times; giving serious attention to serious questions; and mostly carried out in a polite and respectful way.

And at the end of the long day, the Committee decided to grant permission for the development … but the Communities Secretary may decide to call in the application. If that happens, there will be a public inquiry – and maybe it’ll be a bit closer to King’s Lynn.

How good is the air we breathe?

Thu, 28 Jun 2012 19:19:12 +0100

British air under scrutiny at Olympics

The UK’s air quality is going to be under intense scrutiny this year when the Olympics and the world’s media descend on London and venues around the country. Who can forget the headlines and images from 4 years ago then air quality at the Beijing Olympics, and its impact on the athletes, came under the spotlight of the world’s media? This summer, what will our headlines be?

Air pollution has been of concern for many centuries. John Evelyn’s landmark essay ‘Fumifugium or the inconvenience of the Aer and Smoak of London Dissipated’ was recently translated by Environmental Protection UK to mark 350 years since its original publication. Later, in 1952, it took the death of around 4,000 people over the space of a few days during that year’s infamous smog for the Government to take action. This eventually led to the Clean Air Act of 1956 and the first coordinated monitoring programme of smoke and sulphur dioxide in the air across the UK. Whilst concentrations of these pollutants have declined dramatically, less visible but harmful pollutants still remain in our air today.

These days the UK is expected to comply with the European Ambient Air Quality Directive 2008/50/EC which sets out compliance objectives and monitoring requirements for the pollutants ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, lead, benzene and fine particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Other metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in air are covered separately by Directive 2004/107/EC (often known as the 4th Daughter Directive). The challenges posed by these Directives are enshrined in both UK law and into the UK Air Quality Strategy.

Concentrations of pollutants in our air are mainly measured using automatic analysers located across all our major towns and cities. Legislation prescribes the monitoring methods, location type and number of these stations required to be deployed across the UK; depending upon population density and initial concentrations which have to be assessed. The infrastructure is fairly complex. Air conditioning, gas calibration cylinders and vandalism protection are all needed to ensure the integrity of the results; while careful operation and data screening ensures the quality of data published. The results are available publicly on the UK-AIR website.

In the run-up to the London Olympics we are going to see media attention and discussion around the concentrations of PM10 particulate matter (particles which can get into the upper areas of the lungs) and nitrogen dioxide (mainly linked to emissions from motor vehicles). Why? Because London has until recently exceeded the permitted number of exceedance days each year for PM10, and annual average concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in air are above the permitted Directive level widely across the UK. If the number of PM10 exceedence days in 2012 exceeds the Directive the UK could end up with a large fine. At the same time we are still awaiting the results of an application to extend the current compliance date of 2010 for NO2.

Whilst these two pollutants will make the news headlines because of the legal implications, there are in fact mixed messages on their likely public health impact. There is no safe level of PM10 particulate matter defined, and increases have been shown to result in a direct increased health risk. However, its sister pollutant PM2.5 is a smaller particle which can get even further into the lungs, and is likely to be the most harmful and need most attention to control in the long-term.

Levels of these pollutants in the UK are controlled to a certain extent by implementing local measures such as low emissions zones, congestion charging and controlling traffic flow. The success of such measures has been debated widely, especially in London, but they are becoming increasing deployed by local authorities.

Fortunately for the public the pollutants of most concern are combined in to a single 1-10 Daily Air Quality Index for each region of the UK, attributing the levels to Low, Moderate, High or Very High overall health risk. UK-AIR presents up-to-date concentrations on a simple colour-coded map. The latest levels are accompanied by a forecast for the next 24-hours based on sophisticated weather and chemical transport models which are run each day.

Increasingly the public is also being engaged through the use of Smartphone Apps and SMS or telephone alert services such as London Airtext. It is these pollutants that will challenge the policy makers and air quality sector over the coming decades and long after the 2012 Olympics.

How good is the air we breathe - British air under scrutiny at Olympics? was originally published in the leading environmental publication Energy and Environmental Management.

Fracking and earthquakes – back in the news

Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:00:46 +0100

Hydraulic fracturing – or “fracking” – is currently on hold in the UK. That’s because hydraulic fracturing carried out at a site near Blackpool last year coincided with some minor earth tremors recorded by the British Geological Survey. Coincidence? The operator of the site commissioned a study to investigate the earth tremors, and found that it was no coincidence – or as the report authors said, “most likely, the repeated seismicity was induced by direct injection of fluid into the same fault zone.”

The next question is, what do we do about this? Do we follow the approach adopted by countries such as France and Bulgaria, and ban the use of hydraulic fracturing outright? Today, DECC has published for consultation a study which sets out a management-based approach to addressing seismicity. The DECC study proposes a system of monitoring seismic activity, and has a “traffic light” system for deciding whether hydraulic fracturing can continue to be carried out, in the event of seismic activity being detected, even at a very low level.

It’s important to be confident that hydraulic fracturing doesn’t give rise to detectable earth tremors, and the approach suggested by DECC seems sensible in principle. The incident at Cuadrilla’s Blackpool site last year confirms that transferring what is established technology in the US to shale gas reserves in the UK may not be completely straightforward, and we will need to proceed with caution. But it also seems to me that there are perhaps more acute issues that we need to think about.

There are environmental risks with any oil and gas extraction activity – just recently, there has been an ongoing leak from the Elgin platform in the North Sea off Aberdeen. Operators always have to act responsibly and minimise the risks of accidents and emissions to the environment. But using hydraulic fracturing introduces a set of new issues to deal with – sourcing, transporting and handling water; mixing chemicals; recycling and disposing of waste waters. Put simply, there are more ways to do it wrong. We can perhaps now move on from worrying about earthquakes to making sure that any future development of our shale gas resources is carried out safely and responsibly.

AEA experts in the UK and the US are working with policy-makers and regulators to understand and manage the wider environmental impacts of shale gas extraction. Please contact me if you would like more information on this work.

Trusted data will be used and has value...

Mon, 13 Feb 2012 12:51:23 +0000

... back in bed I was trying to pick up the thread from last time; got it - spider webs, yes – thats it: Stoke’s law and PM2.5 particles. However, this thought was then hijacked by recollecting an email sent to me earlier by my colleague Paul Willis - pointing out the impact of PM2.5 measurements undertaken by the U.S. EPA on the roof of the Chinese Embassy in Beijing:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/clearing-the-air-over-beijings-pollution/article2296622/

The measurements which are posted hourly on Twitter (@BeijingAir), were originally intended for use by the embassy staff but have gained a major following beyond this by the local population. The air quality data reported have proved to be in stark contrast to the official reported data - with levels exceeding by far even the most polluted roadside locations in the UK.

Diplomatic cables released through WikiLeaks revealed that the Chinese government had asked the U.S. Embassy to stop publishing its data and had issued official complaints from a Foreign Ministry official that the U.S. data conflicted with China's and was causing confusion. However, the local population has come to only believe the US Embassy data and has simply voted with its iPhones – which has initiated change in that it appears that the Beijing authorities have now moved to disclosing information on PM2.5 and further, they now plan to reduce air pollution levels by 15 percent by 2015 and 30 percent by 2020 through phasing out old cars, relocating factories and planting new forests. So, good measurements of small things can have big impacts!

Of course Beijing hosted a highly successful Olympic Games almost 4 years ago and London will shortly host the games. Air pollution was a major issue in the run in to and during the Beijing games; like all major cities London has its air pollution problems and it will be important to provide information to the public and the athletes during the games.

Colleagues here at AEA have been preparing for some time to configure our air quality forecasting models to cover the major locations of the games. We will be issuing daily forecasts of air pollution as well as the actual measurements – all underpinned by health advice for use both by the public and the athletes and coordinated by the Health protection Agency:
http://www.myair-eu.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/UK_Air_Quality_Alerting_and_Public_Health-HPA.pdf.

The stunning Beijing Olympic stadium was designed by the Chinese artist and champion of democracy Ai Weiwei who was commissioned by the Tate North to create a sculpture to celebrate the Liverpool millennium. His spider sculpture was hugely impressive, with the spider controlling the web stretching between buildings but with light emanating from the connections – perhaps an allegory........ back to spiders; I must get past this next time!

The particles moved on and the air quality forecasting challenge goes on...

Fri, 03 Feb 2012 09:52:34 +0000

Well, unlike Wednesday I didn’t wake at 4 am yesterday. Instead, it was a few hours later when a friendly knee in the back from my wife reminded me I was late. Up and out, cold and frosty, a bluish exhaust-plume from a neighbour’s old diesel car reminding me immediately of the PM2.5 pollution particles that AEA’s forecasters had tracked heading towards the UK yesterday; its bluish because the particles are about the same size as the wavelength of blue light.

Anyway, at the office the updated forecast showed that the small particles had, in the end, been shoved north. PM2.5 measurements were low as was the wider pollution forecast for the day, with only a scattering of moderate pollution level areas around the UK.

It was an interesting 24 hours for the team nonetheless. We should be grateful air quality was better than it could have been and are reminded of the challenges of forecasting - and the balance we have to make when preparing our daily forecasts for Defra and the Devolved Administrations.

A recent Environmental Audit Committee Report noted that the costs to society from poor air quality are on a par with those from smoking and obesity. Improving public awareness, it argued, would be the single most important way of improving air quality – helping to inform people about the action they can take to reduce their emissions and their exposure to air pollution.

So, it’s a question of democracy, responsibility (I must advise my neighbour not to run the car to defrost and warm it) and the right of the citizen to know and to be able to act on best information. There is the challenge: to summarise all the physics and chemistry and associated uncertainties and package the advice in a useful, understandable and balanced form for the general public.

This is where a pollution index is of value - because it embodies all of this in a useful summary format. Indicators have been in use when presenting air pollution information for many years. Following a request from Defra, in June 2011 The Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) reported back to Defra (Review of the UK Air Quality Index) that there was a lack of public awareness regarding the links between air pollution and ill-health. It also found a lack of understanding concerning the existing air quality information available to the public. It recommended that greater public awareness be achieved by improving the UK Air Quality Index.

This can now be seen at: http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/air-pollution/daqi

An enhancement of this service implemented by AEA on behalf of the Scottish Government is Know and Respond Scotland. You may have caught my colleagues discussing the service with BBC reporters last week: Pollution alert system launched in Scotland.

Know and Respond is a new air quality alert system. It gives users free alerts by text, email, etc. when air pollution is forecast in their area. The alerts contain health advice and are beneficial to people with medical conditions that may be affected by pollution, such as asthma, bronchitis and emphysema. It may also benefit people whose breathing gets worse when air pollution increases. This early warning service allows the individual to take precautionary action when necessary to minimise the effects of pollution.

Take a look at the service here. Do you have a similar service where you live?

In the meantime the forecast for tomorrow is not too “exciting”; http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/latest/. It has got me thinking about spiders though.......

PM10 and PM2.5 – the stuff of which dreams are made.......

Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:01:08 +0000

...Maybe it was a spooky coincidence that I was dreaming about last night’s weather forecast when I awoke about 4 am - the time of AEA’s daily download of meteorological data from NOAA. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Forecast_System). Whatever caused it, I did wake early with the image in mind of cold easterly air over my roof in the south of England doing battle with warmer westerly air – with the eventual skirmish line making the difference of several degrees in temperature..... so what about the pollution I thought?

No frost on the car, good – off to our Harwell Office. AEA’s team of forecasters undertake a daily, 24/7 forecast of air pollution on behalf of Defra for towns and cities across the UK. Pollution sources are widespread and the pollutant levels we are exposed to when we wake each day and go about our business have global, regional and local sources. In order to forecast these we need to utilise global weather data (hence the 4 am download) and combine this with on-the-ground measurements of pollutants we collect from national monitoring networks and with assessments or projections from large scale models of the atmosphere.

Our forecasters collect the data and then run the models; so, by 10 am my dream was broken and I could see on my pc that we are expecting high levels of particle pollution over the next couple of days.

Latest pollution summary - http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/latest/
Interactive AQ map - http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/interactive-map
UK weather map - http://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/forecasting/wrf-summary?view=today&region=uk

This is where the air quality scientist has to honestly confess to often saying things are “interesting”. However, we are vigilant and forecast air pollution on a daily basis because it is harmful to health, and many individuals who suffer from health related conditions that may be exacerbated by high pollution can use the information to help manage their condition e.g. to modify their planned activity.

The current pollution forecast is predicting high levels of particle pollution. Following research and advice from experts on health impacts the UK now has 2 measures of this material – PM10 and PM2.5. These terms relate to the effective size of the particles and research on their health impacts on people indicates the smaller size (PM2.5) is the component of the material in the air we breathe that is most strongly linked to adverse health effects.

The UK is now using a new pollution indicator scale based upon the PM2.5 measure – interestingly the current pollution is mostly this smaller, PM2.5 material. This can indicate the particles have originated from more distant sources beyond the UK. Close to the sources of particles there is a broad range of sizes; with time, coarser or larger particles settle out under the influence of gravity leaving those that are small enough (to effectively behave like gases) remaining airborne and available to travel long distances “on the wind”. Given a higher proportion of the smaller particles are present in this forecast event we can infer a poorer quality of air – and it is reassuring to see this reflected in the higher index indicated for PM2.5 rather than by the measure of the larger fraction (PM10). So we are seeing the use and impact of what is effectively a more sensitive measure of air pollution in action.

Is there a link between "Fracking" and earth tremors?

Thu, 03 Nov 2011 14:00:46 +0000

Exploration and extraction of shale gas uses a technique known as “hydraulic fracturing,” or fracturing. At present, exploration in the UK is on hold because of concerns that exploration of a site in Lancashire operated by Cuadrilla Resources Ltd could have given rise to minor earth tremors in the spring of 2011.

On 2 November 2011, Cuadrilla published its investigation of these incidents. The study found that: “Most likely, the repeated seismicity was induced by direct injection of fluid into the same fault zone.” However it went on to conclude that “measurable seismicity is unlikely to occur in the next wells.”

This is not a finding that will inspire confidence amongst those concerned about the potential environmental and health consequences of hydraulic fracturing. But it is encouraging to see an industry operator producing a report that doesn’t completely exonerate the company’s activities from causing the issue of concern. Furthermore, experience in the United States and Canada suggests that earth tremors are not a significant problem for this kind of activity, and indeed the tremors recorded in Lancashire were not detectable at the surface.

Of greater significance are the questions which still surround hydraulic fracturing linked to issues such as use of water resources, well integrity, fugitive emissions of methane, and disposal of contaminated water: see my Utility Week article 'the shale gas trail', 12 October 2011. Together with ERG, our US business, AEA is working with regulatory authorities to assess, regulate and manage these environmental risks.

Air pollution is no accident

Sun, 10 Jul 2011 11:45:52 +0100

Think for a moment – what do you consider to be more dangerous: air pollution or traffic accidents? Would you be surpised if I tell you that air pollution is responsible for more than ten times as many deaths each year than traffic accidents: see http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/04/air-quality-pollution-campaign-eu-uk?

While traffic accidents resulted in 2,200 deaths in 2009, air pollution is responsible for about 29,000 deaths per year – and contributes to as many as 200,000 deaths. But I think it’s fair to say that most people take a lot more trouble to protect their children from traffic accidents than making sure that they avoid air pollution. And that’s one of the problems.

You can’t avoid air pollution. It’s invisible, it’s everywhere, and you can’t help breathing it in. As individuals, there is not much we can do about it, apart from not taking a walk along the hard shoulder of the M25. On the other hand, we all contribute directly and indirectly to air pollution to a greater or lesser extent … through driving cars, cooking, using electricity, heating our homes, putting the bins out, working in an office, shopping, and so on.

In a situation where a problem is largely the result of small contributions from many individuals, action must be led from the centre. This principle was accepted by the last Conservative government in 1995 (yes, I remember “Air Quality: Meeting the Challenge”) and we have been managing air quality since then. But while 15 years of monitoring, modelling and action planning has dealt with some particularly significant air pollution hotspots, it has barely made a dent in the overall impact of man-made air pollution on health.

So there is a scientific basis for taking much more significant steps to reduce man-made air pollution than those we have managed so far. Of course, any steps to restrict people’s freedom to do what they like for environmental reasons is doomed to be unpopular: just look at alternate weekly bin collections, and the abandoned London Congestion Charge western extension. That’s why it will be vitally important to prepare the ground well before any steps are taken. People need to understand that this year, air pollution will result in the early death of 30,000 people – that’s a town the size of Wokingham, Ashington or Spalding – and this is outrageous. When that message has hit home, maybe we will at last be more willing to change our lifestyles to save lives. About the same number of people die each year from pneumonia and flu. But to deal with deaths from air pollution, we won’t be asking people to queue up for an injection and wrap up warm in winter: this time, we’ll be asking people to leave their cars at home.

That’ll never happen, you might think … but the times, they are a-changing. I think we will soon have to start accepting that we don’t have the right to an ever-increasing standard of living, which will be a seismic philosophical shift after 200 years of growth and development in the west. And genuine behaviour change can result from a campaign based on saving lives. Clunk, click every trip!