More uselessness from DBC

[Dirty Buggane]

I would take the EFW part with a pinch of salt. Imo

[TheTeapot]

How much do they sell the electric for?

[Happier diner]

33 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

How much do they sell the electric for?

That's a good question

[Happier diner]

37 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

I'm pretty sure that they recently hiked the gate price for waste wood by 200%?

From a very low value? Waste wood is often wet and useless and also produces a lot of ash so its probably still a crap fuel overall. Its still better than household waste which i reckon will have very little calorific value

[Gizo]

6 hours ago, Mr Helmut Fromage said:

Not a single penny by you Braddan rate payers.

Or Onchan rate payers. 

[Non-Believer]

2 hours ago, Happier diner said:

From a very low value? Waste wood is often wet and useless and also produces a lot of ash so its probably still a crap fuel overall. Its still better than household waste which i reckon will have very little calorific value

A lot of that wood will also be perfectly combustible, having come from kitchen and other internal rip-outs, maybe even the odd Covid vaccination centre. A 200% hike is a 200% hike to those paying the gate fees.

I'm acquainted with a couple of guys who have contracted up the EFW, both from their knowledge/experience quite casually describe it as a "Very/Extremely Profitable" operation.

If it's an "unregulated" monopoly operation (it is) operating an IoM Govt contract (it is) then that's probably an understatement.

People were promised miracles when the EFW was constructed. IIRC, Pully and the NSC were going to be powered for almost nothing after it was disproved that life in Braddan was going to be wiped out by the incinerator.

Edited February 1, 2023 by Non-Believer
extra bit

[Moghrey Mie]

10 hours ago, BriT said:

What seems to be fairly clear now looking at the rate increases announced Island wide is that waste disposal fees (ie, gate fees at the EFW) seem to be the main driver in all the rate rises. Which makes it more surprising that instead of admitting this like almost everyone else DBC went down the route of making up a fake recycling initiative the net result of which seems to have been an increase of nearly 9% regardless and a resultant loss in service provision. It feels that it’s all more to do with some claiming to have pretend green credentials than anything else. 

Surely increasing recycling will avoid gate fees at the incinerator. At 5% recycling on the island has immense capacity to increase.

 

[John Wright]

29 minutes ago, Moghrey Mie said:

Surely increasing recycling will avoid gate fees at the incinerator. At 5% recycling on the island has immense capacity to increase.

 

Unless, as is probable, lower throughput will result in increased gate fees.

[Gladys]

3 hours ago, Happier diner said:

It's not that simple. Like I said before, the efw plant is not an electricity generating plant that uses waste as a fuel. Its a plant that incinerated waste in order to get rid of it and generates some electricity to offset the cost to some degree. 

It's a hard thing to get your head around I know. 

So we don't need to send more waste there, unless it's stuff like dry wood. 

That's why they charge a gate fee. The waste is not that useful to them otherwise they would pay for the waste. 

It isn't a hard thing to get your head around at all.  It's primary function is to dispose of waste and generates electricity as a by-product.  That doesn't invalidate the proposition that increasing waste throughput will generate more electricity.  But it has to be the right throughput and taking out green waste, metals and glass has to assist in that, does it not? 

I suppose the question is whether Suez is contractually required to charge at the gate the cost of waste disposal plus a defined element of profit, how they are rewarded (if at all) for electricity generated at cost or plus profit or not at all and whether the costs of generation have to be met out of the gate fees.

There are a lot of variables in there. 

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

Unless, as is probable, lower throughput will result in increased gate fees.

That's right. Because the capital cost has to be repaid. 

[John Wright]

Just now, Happier diner said:

That's right. Because the capital cost has to be repaid. 

They’re just operators, aren’t they. It’s owned by a NatWest leasing entity.

[Happier diner]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

It isn't a hard thing to get your head around at all.  It's primary function is to dispose of waste and generates electricity as a by-product.  That doesn't invalidate the proposition that increasing waste throughput will generate more electricity.  But it has to be the right throughput and taking out green waste, metals and glass has to assist in that, does it not? 

I suppose the question is whether Suez is contractually required to charge at the gate the cost of waste disposal plus a defined element of profit, how they are rewarded (if at all) for electricity generated at cost or plus profit or not at all and whether the costs of generation have to be met out of the gate fees.

There are a lot of variables in there. 

Sort of. As per my reply to JW the whole project is based upon paying back a loan. So the more waste they burn the more money they get. The more they burn the more electricity they can sell back to us.

However it's such as inefficient process, don't be fooled into thinking it has many green credentials. 

[Happier diner]

Just now, John Wright said:

They’re just operators, aren’t they. It’s owned by a NatWest leasing entity.

Yes. But it was a hybrid ppe. The formula has to aim to get the debt being paid. 

So if there is less waste, there is less gate fee and less cash. 

[Happier diner]

1 minute ago, John Wright said:

They’re just operators, aren’t they. It’s owned by a NatWest leasing entity.

And the natwest leasing entity will want their money back with interest. 

[John Wright]

9 minutes ago, Happier diner said:

And the natwest leasing entity will want their money back with interest. 

But are Suez the lessors, or IoMG. I think it was sale and lease back between IoMG and IoMBank Leasing. Suez are just the operators. 

Suez set the gate fee, not IoMG. But they don’t pay the capital cost through a lease.

I don’t think there’s any real commerciality between IoMG and Suez.