Proposed waste depot in Portobello

[Porty]

[seanie]

[Porty]

[seanie]

[Porty]

[seanie]

How many calendars-per-hour does a QC charge?

[Maria]

[Maria]

[Porty]

[Porty]

[Porty]

[Maria]

[Maria]

[Epykat]

[Porty]

[Maria]

[Porty]

[seanie]

[Maria]

[seanie]

[Maria]

[seanie]

[Sceptic]

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU REALISE IT, BUT YOUR MATHS IS WAY OUT. 300,000 TONNES PER ANNUM = 5 LOADS PER HOUR MAXIMUM CAPACITY, NOT 90.
TO HAVE LORRIES COMING IN AT THE RATE OF MORE THAN 1 PER MINUTE IS TOTALLY STUPID.
TRYING GIVING THE CASH BACK TO PORTOBELLO AS OBVIOUSLY YOU DIDN'T DO YOUR HOMEWORK!

[wangi]

[seanie]

Well I tried looking at the traffic assessments and couldn't work out what the actual implications were.

But you can see one of the submissions aspart of the planning application.

Appendix 7.3e suggests an average of 305 lorries (610 lorry movements)over the 10 hour period of operation and a maximum of 464 lorries (928 lorry movements).

[Sceptic]

Traffic manager plan so that lorries are not standing idle waiting to offload. How long will it take to offload a lorry of, say, chemical drums? 30 minutes? They will not c ome with partloads, that wastes time and fuel and driver time. Therefore we have a situation where a lorry is booked in to be unloaded at a specific time. How many lorries can be unloaded at any one given time slot? Anyway if we did have 900 lorry movements per day as alleged, we end up at 2.8 million tonnes per year! Almost 10 times the quoted capacity. Give the money back.

[seanie]

Those figures were submitted by Viridor as part of their planning application. They were calculated from taking figures from Powderhall and translating them for the scale of operation for the proposal at the Freightliner terminal.

The 928 may be a theoretical maximum,unlikely to happen, but the figure does actually come from Viridor themselves.

[seanie]

I never could get my head round the traffic figures because there were effectively two different sets of projections.

One was based on mesurements of Powderhall scaled up, and one was based on working back from the train capacity and the number of trucks required to load it. Trouble was the resulting figures were very different.

[Sceptic]

As I was saying, someone's maths is out bigstyle somewhere. I cannot visualise a string of parked lorries on Harry Lauder Road. it does not make economic or logistic sense. Viridor is not the only fish in the pond, there are others playing this game. Always remember that there are EU rules about waste disposal, incineration at extreme temperature is the only viable option. I am surprised that they do not follow the Swedish model of incinerators and use the waste heat to supply hot water and heating to the local housing. By the way, the EU rules govern emisions as well.

[seanie]

The proposal is for the transfer of waste to landfill, although that could presumably change.

[Sceptic]

The propsal is to build an incinerator at Dunbar capacity 450,000 tonnes pa, the EU is to reduce dependancy on landfill, increasing recycling and incineration as disposal techniques. this will also reduce the convoy of lorries going nto the present landfill siten at Dunbar. It is therefore logical and ecological sense that is part of the proposal. It will also make Viridor a lot of money. Have a look at the Keepdunnysunny site.

[seanie]

The incinerator application was refused a week or two ago.

They may well appeal, but as a proposal it is separate to this one.

[Sceptic]

It is separate as it is a different Local Authority, but the two plans are linked closely. There would be little point to have one without the other.

[Bob Jefferson]

Welcome to the forum Sceptic. It's good to get some new input on this topic, although I'm perplexed as to how anyone can properly evaluate this application with such wildly conflicting figures.

[seanie]