Letter to South China Morning Post:
Your February 14 edition carried two references to more modern technology to deal with Hong Kong's waste management than the MBT ('mass burn technology") currently being considered by the government.
Your February 14 edition carried two references to more modern technology to deal with Hong Kong's waste management than the MBT ('mass burn technology") currently being considered by the government.
In his letter ("Government ignores eco-friendly solution to waste management"), Don Johnston of Green Island Cement again proposes the "Eco Co-Combustion System", which he claims is less than half the price of MBT, with any residue ash being used in cement production. Key advangates: cheaper, higher capacity, less final residue.
Howard Winn's Lai See column mentions Clear the Air's submission to LegCo for the use of plasma gasification technology, claiming that MBT is "dinosaur technology". Key advantages of plasma gasification: cheaper, greater capacity, residue can produce jet fuel.
While either of these proposals would appear to be superior to the government's MBT solution, I am not an expert in any of them, and I presume most of your readers are not either.
Given the importance and cost differentials of these various proposals, could your editors consider asking for a more detailed articles on your "Insight" page from each of Mr Johnson, Clear the Air and the government?
if the government sticks to the MBT option, we the taxpayers would really like to know why, and why these other apparently more modern, cheaper and cleaner solutions are not suitable for Asia's World City.
