The list of PROs and CONs last updated 11.05.25
Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council is debating building a brand new ERF and Incinerator. The ERF will generate a small amount of electricity but a gas fired power station will be built nearby. The incinerator will burn 450,000 tons of waste pa and the emissions, including CO2 and pollutants will have an effect on Climate Change, the environment and people’s health and wealth.
Some, if not all, the Pros and Cons the council should consider are listed in the table:
Considering the PROS and CONS of an ERF and Incinerator it is clear the need for the planned ERF and 450,000 tonnes incinerator is questionable. The ERF is planned to generate 49.9MW (e) electricity. It will be superseded by the 860MW (e) electricity gas fired power station planned to be built nearby.
The Incinerator will be unable to operate as the amount of non-recyclable waste is being eroded. There will not be sufficient non-recyclable waste to feed the planned incinerator as Producers are changing from non-recyclable to recyclable packaging. At the current rate of progress the incinerator will be unable to operate and be obsolete in a few years time.
If you are reading the post https://guisboroughecogroup.co.uk/blog/2025/03/11/why-redcar-and-cleveland-does-not-need-an-erf-or-incinerator/ on the guisboroughecogroup.co.uk blog please see the PROS and CONS below.
If you wish to object to the incinerator please visit https://www.writetothem.com/. Just enter your postcode and your councillors and MP will be displayed. Select your option(s), and write your objection to all your councillors and MP.
The list of PROs and CONs last updated 11.05.25.
The list may change as more options become available.
Current updates including information provided by SINE are in bold.
Defra wants food waste taken out of the waste stream and sent for anaerobic digestion to make methane, a resource that can be collected and burned.
SINE presented evidence from Haverton Hill feedstock in Feb 2019. It shows approx 30% of waste presented was organic.
Taking food/organic waste out of the waste stream will put a stop to CO2 emissions from incineration and stop uncollected methane from decomposition of food in land fill.
Taking organics out of the waste will cut waste volume by a third. It will reduce the volume of waste councils will have to incinerate. Have they factored this reduction into their feed supply for incineration?
| PROS | CONS |
| Redcar and Cleveland has planning permission to build an ERF (Energy Regeneration Facility) (may be known as an Energy from Waste Facility) to generate 49.9MW (e) electricity pa | Guisborough Eco Group oppose the build because it includes an Incinerator that will generate roughly 450,000 tones of CO2 pa.There is also planning permission to build a gas-fired power station in the area, which will generate 860MW (e) electricity pa. That suggests the ERF will not be required to generate electricity. |
| Redcar&Cleveland has planning permission to create a landfill site near the ERF in which to bury Bottom Ash created by the incinerator. | The Bottom Ash from the incinerator may contain dioxin and other toxins. Burying them will contaminate the ground and give rise to problems in the future. See northeastfc.uk website for details of recent problems and crab die off. |
| It is anticipated that Carbon Capture will be operational in the next few years. R&C expect the incinerator to be Carbon Capture ready and when CC is available and applied the CO2 emissions to be reduced to zero. | Carbon Capture may not be operational at all. CO2 emissions may not be zero and the CO2 will affect Climate Change. However, if it does work the Carbon Capture process uses a lot of electricity and will be expensive to run. Our council tax pays for incineration now and if Carbon Capture works we will pay for that too! I ask, how much will Tess Valley residents want to pay for waste disposal when manufacturers are turning to replace non-recyclables with recyclable and compostable packaging! Would residents prefer recycling, which is cheaper? See below:- |
| The Incinerator will burn up to 450,000 tonnes of non-recyclable waste. It will generate approx 450,000 tons of the greenhouse gas CO2 that affects Climate Change + pollutants | Non-recyclable may be defined as waste that is not identified as recyclable during MRF sorting. Burning 450,000 tonnes of waste will generate at least 450,000 tonnes of CO2 and pollutants. CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas that affects Climate Change. Residents in Redcar and Cleveland collect recycling to be recycled, however, Wikiwaste Redcar showed only 13% of kerbside recycling is recycled and the rest, 87%,is deemed as non-recyclable and sent to landfill or incineration. Significantly the DEFRA Extended Producer Responsibility scheme, (EPR) which is in operation, will reward councils, including RCBC for recycling it sends to be recycled. The more it sends the more money it will be paid. R&C is waiting to see the budget for the incinerator to determine whether to go ahead, get involved with the incinerator, or not. The budget should not be based on current recycling. There will be significant improvements in the future and that should be taken into account. Also DEFRA’s scheme for cardboard to be collected separately and the proposed Deposit Return Scheme (DRS) will improve recycling and reduce non-recyclable waste. |
| Once the incinerator is in place and R&C signs the contract it will be committed to send an agreed amount of waste to be burned each year, regardless of possible reductions in non-recyclable waste. It will be committed for 30 years. | In a lot less than 30 years, under DEFRA plans, there will be less non-recyclable waste and more recyclable and reusable waste.The amount of non-recyclable waste to be burned will be reduced. |
| The Facility will cost £2.2 billion. 7 councils will pay for it. R&C’s share is £300 million. In 30 years it will become the property of the 7 councils. I think the ERF contract will allow a range from 400,000 to 450,000 tonnes of waste to be burned annually. A minimum of 1.01 tonnes per day. | R&C does not have £300 million. It will rely on a lender. It will have to meet the terms of the contract. If it can’t comply with the terms, let’s say its non-recyclables decrease, it may be forced to pay a penalty. Latest news from S.I.N.E. Facebook is Alec Brown, RCBC labour lead said, ‘Redcar only own 9% of the proposed incinerator, Dorman Point…’ |
| R&C will keep its landfill to a minimum | Bottom Ash from burning waste in the incinerator will have to be buried because of its toxin content. It will contaminate the Teesworks site. Crab die off was noted when the area was cleaned. See northeastfc.uk for details. I do not want that to happen again. |
| Cumbria Waste separates RCBC’s recycling at the Southbank Material Recycling Facility (MRF).Info from Wikiwaste Redcar shows recycling currently separated by Cumbria Waste for RCBC results in approx 13% recyclable material and 87% of non-recyclable. The non-recyclables are either sent to landfill or incineration. | DEFRA Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), separate cardboard waste collection and the proposed Deposit Return Scheme (DPR) planned for 2028 will increase the amount of recyclables and reduce non-recyclables. This will reduce stock available to be fed to the incinerator raising the question, Has RCBC got a plan to deal with that reduction? |
| If Carbon Capture is in place the annual 450,000 tonnes of CO2 emitted from burning waste in the incinerator will be captured and the incinerator emissions will be carbon neutral. | It is not certain that the Carbon Capture system will be afforded or work. In these circumstances the incinerator will annually emit 450,000 tonnes of the greenhouse gas CO2 + pollutants. |
| It is expected that Non-recyclable plastic waste will be burned in the incinerator. | Businesses are working on ways to use and save waste.A local company, Muratechnologies, on Wilton site, aims to treat non-recyclable plastic waste and turn it into chemical resources. That will reduce the non-recyclable plastic waste which would be fed to the incinerator. Again, has RCBC got a plan to deal with that reduction? I know 2 people who know people who work there and report it is having teething troubles but will come on line when they are sorted. |
| Waste that could be composted but is not labelled as compostable is burned. | Waste Management Companies want compostables to be labelled so they will not be sent for incineration. (Incineration is costly!) |
| Gloucestershire County Council (GCC) were promised incineration would make savings. | SINE reported that far from delivering promised savings, Gloucestershire County Council’s (GCC) waste incineration contract at Javelin Park has cost the taxpayers millions more than landfill and UK ETS will increase that in 2028. |
| It appears that some recycling is incinerated. | SINE reported that when council incineration rates increase recycling is decreased. |
| Incinerator emissions will be filtered to reduce the pollution released into the atmosphere. | SINE reported that Non-catalytic emissions filters are 30% efficient and catalytic filters are 90% efficient. It is my opinion the best way to reduce emissions is to recycle it. If it can not be recycled then burn it or put it to landfill and look for alternative things to do with it. |
| Food waste in landfill will emit methane. Food waste is fuel for an incinerator. Incinerating food waste will stop methane emissions in landfill. | Defra wants food waste taken out of the waste stream and sent for anaerobic digestion to make methane, a resource that can be collected and burned. SINE provided evidence from the EfW Haverton Hill feedstock in Feb 2019 that shows approx 30% of waste presented was organic. Food/organic waste taken out of the waste stream will reduce waste being sent for incineration. Has the council factored this reduction into their feed supply for incineration? |
| Gas emissions from the incineration process will be filtered. | SINE advise that The Environment Agency allow the operators to use either a catalytic or non-catalytic filter. The non-catalytic being the cheaper of the two and least efficient.The non catalytic is said to be 30% efficient and the catalytic is said to be 90% efficient. Obviously we would want all the emissions cleaned out but neither cleans the emissions totally! |
Update 11.05.25
Recycling Rates are taken from the blog post – ‘Evidence to support reduction in Recycling Rates of TVCA councils’.
| Is R&C being driven to want an incinerator by its falling Recycling Rate? 8% reduction in R&C Recycle Rate in 1 year! From 2019/20 to 2021/22 R&C average Recycling Rate was 38.6%. In 2022 R&C and M’bro’ signed a 3 year contract with Cumbria Waste to manage their recycling. R&C Recycling Rate fell to 30.2%. 6.7% reduction in M’bro’ Recycling Rate in 1 year From 2019/20 to 2021/22 M’bro’ average Recycling Rate was 30.0%. In 2022/23 its ’Recycling Rate fell to 23.1% | Would a return to a better recycling rate make R&C abandon the idea of an incinerator? Redcar and Cleveland’s fall in Recycling Rate indicates there is a problem, probably with the MRF. Let me suggest that the MRF procedure should be examined/corrected. Considering the process it is clear that recycling that should be separated and sent for recycling is being sent for disposal by other means, for example incineration. If an improvement in recycling can be achieved will it negate, make invalid, the claim that an incinerated is needed. Will the incinerator project be abandoned? |
| Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council first considered getting an incinerator in 2010. Background Information The council explored waste management options, including incineration, as part of its strategy to handle increasing waste volumes and meet environmental targets.Discussions and proposals regarding the incinerator have evolved over the years, with various public consultations and planning applications.Current Status As of now, the council continues to evaluate waste management solutions, including the potential for incineration, amid community feedback and environmental considerations. | The background information states there have been ‘various public consultations’ and there has been community feedback.I have evidence that the council’s plans are not generally known to residents.I have talked with numerous people recently about the incinerator project. In the 26.05.25 Guisborough Eco Group Repair Cafe 7 out of 7 did not know about it. On Wednesday May 6th Mick, from SINE, and I door knocked In Redcar Kirkleatham ward to campaign to stop the incinerator and talked with about 20 people. They were not aware of the council’s plans.Further wider public consultation to give people more information may result in more comments and anti incinerator feeling! WRT environmental considerations 450,000 tons of CO2 pa is bad for the environment. . |
| Dec 2021 article by Stuart Arnold Local Democracy Reporting Service – Council leader says waste incinerator project has ‘gone too far’ to pull out of | If the contract is not yet signed Guisborough Eco Group and SINE would like to know how the project has gone too far? |
| Redcar and Cleveland waste is taken to Warreby in Redcar for processing and disposal at a designated waste management facility. | Warrenby is a waste transfer station that handles various types of waste. If more recycling can be sorted at Warrenby it may help the recycling rate. |
Update 12.05.25
| The TV ERF questions and answers – It will employ a range of industry-standard flue-gas treatment technologies. These technologies will separate and capture particulate matter and pollutants by filtering them from the gases. The substance left over from this filtration process is known as Air Pollution Control residue (APCr) the Environment Agency, which will only grant an environmental permit for the facility to the chosen operators if it is satisfied that the plant can operate within the stringent regulations. | As above the filtration process is not 100% efficient and … a plant may remain well within its daily average emissions limit despite recording a temporary half hour spike (which is most typically caused by items present in the waste that should not be there – such as gas canisters). |
| In TV ERF answers – Energy recovery is a lower carbon solution for the treatment of residual waste compared with landfill and, for context, approximately 200kg of CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent) on average is saved for every tonne of residual waste sent to energy recovery instead of landfill | My perception is that on burning all carbon reacts and is convered to CO@ unless there is insufficient oxygen. I dispute that it is possible to get more CO2 by putting stuff in landfill. |
| The Emission Trading Standards ETS will fundamentally increase the cost to local authorities of residual waste treatment. Strategies to reduce the carbon emissions of energy recovery, and subsequent ETS costs, include recycling and reducing waste a much as possible (particularly for plastics), increasing the energy-efficiency of EfW plants and through carbon capture. | The extra cost of ‘waste treatment’ ie burning will increase the cost to local authorities. Recycling instead would be beneficial. |
Opinions are those of the author!
Copyright © 2025 by Fred Page
On behalf of the Eco Group
(recently renamed GUISBOROUGH and District ECO GROUP)
Best wishes from Jemma and Fred
Leave a Reply