Opposition Senator Crystal Drakes.
AN Opposition Senator is raising concerns about the waste-to-energy plant that is proposed for St. Thomas, questioning whether such a plant is really the way to go and if it should be added to the country’s energy mix.
Speaking during the debate on the Fair Trading Commission (Amendment) Bill and the Utilities Regulation (Amendment) Bill in the Senate, Senator Crystal Drakes referred to the $320 million investment in the plant, which is to produce 25 megawatts of energy, and lamented that the plant seems to have been given the go-ahead without consultation.
“It has been tabled as being in discussion and soon to be, so by all accounts I would assume that some kind of confirmation has been given to investors about this waste-to-energy plant,” she added.
Drakes, an economist by profession, said that while the announcement about the plant lacked “very few details”, an important revelation was that 80 per cent of the waste that would be needed would be imported into the island. But the senator said given the abundance of solar and wind potential, one has to question if it is necessary to move in the direction of waste-to-energy and not have the necessary input and be required to import it.
“I am not sure I understand the rationale. Even if the economics makes sense, there are other energy sources we can use, so why are we rushing to establish a waste-to-energy plant that 80 per cent of the waste is being imported?” she queried.
The Opposition Senator continued, “It was also noted that we are using agricultural lands to produce the organic matter to feed the plant.”
Drakes took issue with that point, indicating the current environment caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. She said that the supply chains were disrupted by the pandemic and it is therefore important that the question be asked, “What is more important – using arable land to produce inputs for a waste-to-energy plant, or using the arable land for food production?”
Drakes said, “Even if you tell me that they are bringing in waste that is non-toxic, it won’t affect persons’ health, etc., the question also is, is a centralised biomass waste-to-energy plant the best way to set up a waste-to-energy plant in Barbados, or is it that we use organic waste from our communities so that we also, in putting together this concept of waste-to-energy, get Barbadians to move towards a more recyclable approach to waste – what is called waste diversion? Are smaller communal plants a better option than the centralised plant in the event that you don’t have the critical mass to run the plant?”
The Senator also raised concerns about the type of technology to be used by the plant, noting that a number of studies have shown that even burning biomass produces emissions of nitrogen oxide, which causes pollution, carcinogens and carbon monoxide. In that vein, she warned that if not managed properly, the use of the technology can be “toxic and dangerous”. She went further noting that while the Environmental Protection Department does an excellent job, she wondered if there is sufficient technical capacity to ensure that the emission regulations, the waste and by-product produced by the waste-to-energy plant are above board and have the right standards in place to ensure the health of Barbadians who live in close proximity to the plant.
She further insisted that Barbadians need to know the implications of the proposed technology and whether or not there are no viable, cleaner alternatives that can be used including ocean thermal energy. Her comments came as she pointed out that Barbados’ exclusive economic zone is 500 times the land mass of Barbados.
“If we can also become a leader in ocean energy, that is another area we can tap into. So I just want to say I support the amendments, but I stick a pin particularly in the type of energy mix that we are considering and how we manage the transition moving forward,” she stated. (JRT)