Representation by Michael Edwin Chaloner
- Date submitted
- 5 August 2022
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to Drax’s application to add carbon capture technology to two of its wood-burning units. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework [Redacted], since it is not compatible with increasing productivity, supporting communities’ health, protecting our natural environment or improving biodiversity. According to Drax’s planning document, carbon capture will reduce the net efficiency of the biomass boilers to just 28.49% as 28% of the energy generated by each unit will be needed to capture and compress CO2. By decreasing electricity generation, it is highly likely that this will cause more fossil gas to be burned in other power stations. This is contrary to the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy’s [Redacted] commitment to reduce energy from fossil fuels. I am also very concerned about the potential harm to human health from the amine chemicals Drax is planning to use to separate carbon dioxide from the other flue gases. These amines can form other compounds when they are emitted, including nitrosamines and nitramines which are possible carcinogens [Redacted]. Any leakage of ammonia is going to be highly dangerous. Drax’s Ecology Report [Redacted] for the project states that this development could lead to the degradation and destruction of a number of internationally, nationally and locally important habitats where ecological surveys found rare and protected species, including orchids, water voles, otters, Great Crested Newts and many species of birds. The government classes energy from burning trees as ‘low-carbon’ and argues that it can help ‘tackle climate change’. I strongly disagree with this, as do hundreds of scientists [Redacted] and environmental NGOs around the world. Research has demonstrated that burning trees for fuel emits more carbon than coal per unit of energy generated [Redacted] and takes 44-104 years [Redacted] to reabsorb this carbon. This is time we do not have. Drax’s claims that BECCS can achieve “negative emissions” are based on the false assumption [Redacted] that logging, transporting and burning trees in power stations can be “carbon neutral.” In the ‘Needs and Benefits Statement’ [Redacted] it suggests that at its peak, the Drax BECCS plants could support a total of 4,940 direct jobs (i.e. manufacture and installation), 2,120 indirect jobs (i.e. in the supply chain), and 3,240 induced jobs". However, in most of the construction phase the numbers of jobs are significantly lower - in the operation and maintenance phase (2019a to 2050) the figures are 375 direct, 960 indirect and 1,800 induced. The number of jobs rapidly drops from ~ 10,000 to ~3,000 creating a jobs ‘time bomb’ for the area. Any public money given to Drax is being lost to real renewable energy generation. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax’s BECCS application. Yours sincerely, Michael E. Chaloner