Representation by Adam Myers
- Date submitted
- 4 September 2022
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Dear Sir / Madam, I am writing to register my objection to Drax’s application to add BECCS carbon capture technology to two of its wood-burning towers. My objection is based in my belief that the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework [Redacted] . It is not compatible with increasing productivity, supporting communities’ health, protecting our natural environment or improving biodiversity. Carbon capture will reduce the net efficiency of the biomass boilers to just 28.49% because 28% of the energy generated by each unit will be needed to capture and compress CO2, according to Drax’s planning document. The real figure could potentially be even higher. By decreasing electricity generation, there is a high chance that this will result in 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. The potential harm to human health is also a concern of mine. The potential for significant harm arises from the amine chemicals which Drax is planning to use to separate the CO2 from the other flue gases. These amines can form other compounds when they are emitted, including nitrosamines and nitramines. These are potential carcinogens [Redacted] . Yorkshire and Humberside already have high levels of air pollution [Redacted] , and there is a lack of research into the impacts of these chemicals on public health. Drax’s Ecology Report [Redacted] for the project states that this development will 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. This whole application is based on an unproven technology, the huge investment in building works (involving huge amounts of imbedded carbon) the irreversible impact on wildlife and the health issues all being risked on a gamble that the technology works. Furthermore, the application for BECCS makes no sense without a method for long term-storage of any CO2 that is captured, a pipeline under the North Sea is being considered. Strangely, this has not been included in the application so the whole venture is being proposed without a complete picture of what the necessary infrastructure will be. Because of this fragmentation of the project into separate parts, no real assessment of the impact of the project overall can be made. This piece-meal approach risks a scheme being accepted by stealth with each piece of the overall infrastructure being justified by the acceptance of the previous one. In my opinion, the application should be rejected until a complete scheme is on the table. 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 [Redacted] . These groups highlight that burning wood is as bad for the climate as fossil fuels and that Drax’s claims that BECCS can achieve “negative emissions” are based on the false assumption that logging, transporting and burning trees in power stations can be “carbon neutral.” [Redacted] . To make matters worse Drax diverts huge sums of public moneys from sustainable energy production, and the BECCS project will increase this trend. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax’s BECCS application. Yours sincerely, Adam M