Representation by James E Hewitt
- Date submitted
- 31 August 2022
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I object to the application. It seems ambiguous or misleading in a number of instances. These include the proposal's energy penalty, the unroven ability of the technology proposed to capture the stated amount of CO2, and the lack of information about the health risks posed by the amine solvent (which has been used nowhere worldwide in industrial applications) and how related emissions will be mitigated. If the technology were as certain (coupled with downstream infrastructure - above all the lack of guarantee that storage will be permanent) and needed with such great urgency, then demolishing two large generating units - in use in order to ease the current energy crisis - and building much of the carbon capture facility on their footprint would be counterproductive (especially if those two units were converted to burn biomass) and handicap further expansion. There is plenty of otherwise unproductive industrial land available adjacent the site (where ash from the power station is stored). This begs questions about the real purpose behind the application. I reserve the right to submit further comments once registered (?again).