Representation by Oliver Holliday
- Date submitted
- 25 August 2022
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Dear Sir / Madam, I writing to you to share my views on the application by Drax to install carbon capture technology to the existing biomass wood-burning units. First of all, I agree with many groups on their stance which is in opposition to the plan as it stands. It also appears as though I am not on my own in not quite understanding the logic behind the application considering the clear need to provide robust and scientifically reviewed research to support the claims made by Drax. At this point, I would like to highlight several quotes from Kwasi Kwarteng, business secretary and follow this with a quote from an article published in the ‘Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ by Raymond Pierrehumbert. “is not sustainable” and “does not make sense”. “we haven’t actually questioned some of the [sustainability] premises of it”. “There’s no point getting it from Louisiana – that isn’t sustainable … transporting these wood pellets halfway across the world – that doesn’t make any sense to me at all.” Kwasi Kwarteng [Redacted]. ‘...there are plenty of reasons to be suspicious of the way Drax does its carbon accounting, and of whether the subsidies it has received for biomass use are justified, but it is far from proven that biomass burning at Drax is “worse than coal,” as some activists have claimed. Still less does it mean that biomass utilization cannot, in principle, be done in a way that contributes to the net-zero goal.’ Raymond Pierrehumbert [Redacted] Whilst I could easily refute these quotes and claim that these individuals are ill-informed, it is a sad reflection on the practices by Drax to pump enough misinformation out there so that all the information sounds credible. Those who are willing to look through the facade (and I can name several academically publishing authors from journals published by Taylor and Francis and Science Direct) are making their point which appears to fall on deaf ears by the powers that be. I also could argue that the information provided in these journals is still in a fledgling state, which is very much the truth, but sadly this means that more information and data is required to prove the viability of such a project, especially now that many pounds have been spent on this project and there have been acquisitions in preparation for the badly put-together application to be approved. I can’t believe that the solution involves a pellet production plant on the other side of the planet in order to function. I understand that trees are required to fire up the unit, but creating these pellets to be burnt thousands of miles away (which need to be shipped over here first, which will expel carbon) does not make me feel that this is a net-zero approach. I request that the government sticks with the position that net-zero is the way forward, especially in an area such as Yorkshire which is being affected by severe heatwaves and an oncoming hosepipe ban which are clear indicators of the impact of climate change from my firsthand experience. In addition to my above points, I have also included choice elements from the Stop Burning Trees Coalition’s website which gives me cause for concern and may offer a starting point from which Drax can work to persuade myself, my children and the future of my family that this is truly a viable option for the future. I understand that my major sticking point is the science and the data, but as someone who is involved in local politics, I believe that there is a much more detrimental impact coming should this application be approved. Here are some of the elements I would like for Drax to counter with robust evidence in a peer-reviewed, independent process. 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. 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.”. I hope that my concerns will be taken into consideration as a local resident, a father and someone who wishes to see the beginnings of a future in which my children and grandchildren can thrive. For the sake of our ailing planet and environment, which clearly can’t take much more of this, please reject, object and throw this planning permission into the wood-burning unit at Drax, where such a proposal belongs (before that gets shut down too). Yours sincerely, an objector to the plan.