Representation by Amari Young
- Date submitted
- 5 September 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 result in more fossil gas being burned in other power stations. This is contradictory to the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy’s [Redacted] commitment to reduce energy from fossil fuel use. I am also worried about the potential harm to human health from the amine chemicals 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 which are possible carcinogens [Redacted] . Amines have been identified as a health hazard by Jang, 2016 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4821893/). The visual disturbances linked with amines may also lead to more accidents such as trips and falls. This presents a potential risk to the community's health and an increase in accidents and injuries. 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. I feel it is of the upmost importance to protect and conserve these species and their habitats. 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] Drax states that at the peak of the construction phase its 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, and in the subsequent operation and maintenance phase (2029 to 2050) the figures are 375 direct, 960 indirect and 1,800 induced jobs. The number of jobs rapidly drops from around 10,000 to around 3,000 – a potential unemployment ‘time bomb’ for the area. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax’s BECCS application. Yours sincerely, Amari Young