Although Sutton Council is trying to give the Beddington incinerator a green gloss with its proposed heat scheme (Council putting up a heat smoke screen, 18th July) most experts say that such schemes are not economically viable.
In a recent conference on Energy from Waste systems called "Where there's muck, there's brass" the expert consensus was that using incinerators to heat buildings is not economic.
The process draws off steam which could otherwise generate more lucrative electricity which also has a simpler infrastructure.
Ken Livingstone was planning a District Heating System in London which had the advantage of being more population-dense than Beddington.
But this folded when Boris took over as he pushed for projects which were market-viable. Even Viridor's own consultant scientist in a health impact workshop last year said a heat recovery plant at Beddington is impractical, as does BedZed architect Bill Dunster OBE.
So it was misleading of Sutton's planners to tell the planning committee in April that there is 'a strong business case' for a heat system and that this should 'weigh significantly' in favour of granting planning permission to the incinerator.
The councillors may have been persuaded by this inaccurate and overblown advice to make their awful decision which will blight the area for decades.
Darren Johnson GLA member for the Green Party is demanding Sutton provides sound evidence for this claim meanwhile asking Boris to discount it in his final ruling, due imminently.
Jim Duffy; Sutton Green Party
- Send your letters to: letters@suttonguardian.co.uk.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here