Sponsored by
Yorkshire at heart of green energy revolution
A GREEN energy revolution is set to transform the economic fortunes of the Humber after plans for a £130m biomass power plant in Hull pushed the total planned investment in the renewable energy sector on the estuary towards £1bn.
As well as adding to the potential green jobs boom, Real Ventures’ Reality Energy Centre on Queen Elizabeth Dock, which would burn virgin wood from harvested timber, would provide enough “green” electricity to power 95,000 homes – a third of the size of Hull – and cut carbon emissions by 190,000 tonnes a year.
It is mirrored by an identical scheme planned for Immingham, and the announcement comes just days after national planning body, the Infrastructure Planning Commission, accepted an application from Able UK to build Europe’s largest offshore wind park on the south bank of the Humber – a £450m development which alone would create more than 4,000 jobs.
And in the spring planning applications will be considered for the proposed Green Port Hull development, which would see Europe’s largest engineering company, Siemens, create a £210m facility on Alexandra Dock to assemble and manufacture offshore wind turbines, employing 700 skilled engineering workers and potentially supporting thousands of other jobs in associated industries.
Last October Hull Council’s planning committee gave the go-ahead for Energy Works, a £150m renewable energy power plant on the east bank of the River Hull. The development by Hull-based Spencer Group would convert household waste into green energy and would be the first facility of its kind in the UK.
The latest biomass project has been widely welcomed.
Energy Secretary Chris Huhne said: “Yorkshire has, since the beginning of the industrial revolution, always been at the heart of Britain’s energy economy, and I’m not surprised to find that the same thing is happening again today.
“People understand in this part of the world that we have got to have energy, and we’ve got to produce it in an economic way – and that’s exactly what’s happening.
“Biomass is a very important part of what we are doing on the renewable strategy, but obviously what we do have to do is make sure the biomass we are using is sustainably sourced.”
Steven Bayes, Hull Council portfolio holder for economic regeneration and employment, said: “The proposed investment by Real Ventures further reinforces Hull’s position at the forefront of the low carbon economy. Hull is rapidly developing as both an offshore and green energy hub and we will offer all assistance to try to make this project a reality to the mutual advantage of the company and the Hull city region.”
Associated British Ports is working with Real Ventures and Siemens to deliver both dock developments.
Matt Jukes, ABP port director for Hull and Goole, said: “As energy in the UK is generated on an increasingly renewable basis, the port and city of Hull are already well positioned to take a leading role in this green revolution with the exciting Green Port Hull development.
“The Reality Energy Centre is another welcome renewable energy project that fits well with this vision and we look forward to working with Real Ventures over the coming months.”
Under plans revealed yesterday, forest “residue” would be processed into pellets and shipped directly to the plant, which would need about 700 tonnes a day.
Real Ventures chief executive Ray Tucker said: “There are significant reserves of fuel from sustainable sources. The European Environment Agency has estimated that 100 million tonnes of forestry residues alone are sustainably available for biomass fuel every year in the EU alone.
“These residues are currently largely wasted, producing greenhouse gases as they are left to decompose on the forest floor.”
The Hull biomass plant, which could be operational by 2015, would create up to 250 construction jobs and 35 permanent posts.
UK ‘comes first’ approach adopted
THE Humber Local Enterprise Partnership will become the lead contact for co-ordinating inward investment across the sub-region after signing a memorandum of understanding with UK Trade and Investment.
The Government body, which works with UK-based businesses to ensure their success in international markets, said it would be adopting a “UK first” approach.
Martin Phelan, director of investment at UKTI, said: “The Hull and Humber area with its enterprise zones, port facilities and existing industry strengths, makes a great contribution to the UK’s inward investment offer.”
Email to a friend
Print this page- Leeds lose Ward to Palace: Is there anyone they can afford now?
- Sheffield Wednesday leaving it late to hijack Leeds United over Ward
- As Snodgrass dithers over Leeds, Warnock throws a lifeline
- Ball is in Leeds United’s court over contract - Snodgrass
- Police turning blind eye to Asian voter fraud, says MP
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Yorkshire
Saturday 26 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 23 C
Wind Speed: 17 mph
Wind direction: East
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 23 C
Wind Speed: 15 mph
Wind direction: East
Comments
There are 6 comments to this article
Page 1 of 1
BrianW
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 08:55 PMThe recent Yorkshire Post articles on energy proposals highlight the need for decision makers to fully appraise all impacts. The proposal to source feedstock from European forest floors raises concerns. This will remove a vital link from the biodiversity chain, impacting on wildlife, plant life and natural recycling. Fallen trees will often be diseased or contain pests posing risk transmission, Chernobyl disaster created widespread radioactive pollution locked into trees in Europe presenting further impact concerns. Sustainability and renewable credibility of biomass becomes dubious when anticipated biomass needs across Europe are considered. The Gov decision to increase emissions limit for biomass combustion confirms the combination of high hazardous content and low operational efficiency will create air quality damage 60 times higher than alternative combustion. The Gov confirmation of health and environmental impact costs resulting from the air quality damage points to their placing of dirty energy in this Eastern Coastal Region which helps avoid widespread UK damage but relies upon prevailing wind to minimise impact. Data published to date confirms there will be substantial external and social costs resulting from the pollution created , these costs surely need to be quantified and apportioned to parties responsible prior to approval of any further burning proposals. The developers appear determined to promulgate biomass myths, claims of carbon neutral proved incorrect by a wealth of peer reviewed evidence, claims of general GHG savings compared with fossil fuel use contradicted by official reports e.g. straw combustion can result in 35% increase in GHG, much higher NOX and SO2 burden 70 times higher than gas per unit of power out. SO2 pollution indicates building fabric damage, Waste to Energy projects indicate SO2 pollution up to 400 times higher than equivalent gas. Biomass chlorine content varies by a factor of 20 depending on type and where grown and chlorine content indicates creation of highly carcinogenic dioxins and furans in emissions. It is hoped joined up thinking, due diligence and duty of care can be applied to all burning proposals in the Region to ensure minimum damage when we are aware there are truly green and clean alternatives for provision of energy. Rgds Brian Wilson
BrianW
Saturday, January 21, 2012 at 07:16 PMIn response to comments made by Xianvasse I can only repeat call for serious in depth scrutiny of biomass combustion because UK data published to date causes concern.” Strict and effective regulation” is good practice when applied but a simple comparison between UK and Continental waste incineration performance highlights concerns. German data details emissions volume of 3000-5500 cubic metres per tonne of waste incinerated and typical NOX emissions of 70mg per cubic metre. A recent EFW project in Yorkshire details volume of emissions per tonne processed 20,000 cubic metres and NOX 165 mg per cubic metre with the sulphur dioxide burden per unit of useful power out detailed to be 260 times higher than equivalent gas. Far superior particulate mitigation is applied to Continental plants but not considered economical BAT in the UK. Fine particle pollution is confirmed to be the most hazardous air pollutant and biomass combustion confirmed to produce mainly submicron particles allowing easy access to the bloodstream. Anyone doubting health impact of fine particles should view the extensive peer reviewed evidence confirming need to minimise exposure to this pollutant in order to save lives, health and environment. The recent Yorkshire Post articles highlight need for serious scrutiny of biomass sourcing claims. Two articles detail removal of fallen timber from forests for fuel but another confirms negative impact on biodiversity resulting .Claims of European availability conflict with large users already importing biomass thousands of miles from Americas. Developers claim carbon neutrality for biomass combustion but there is extensive evidence proving this untrue. Harvesting, processing, transport of low energy density material etc. GHG impact of emissions need to be compared with alternatives plus additional impact of low efficiency, Gov detail 27% against 58% for gas. Projects detailed to date show little use of CHP. Can anyone see the logic in spending £billions to import millions of tonnes of low energy density material which will deliberately degrade air quality . The Gov confirm impact will create need to spend further £billions on the damage to health and environment. There is also the question of impact in Country of origin.
Mark Harrop
Saturday, January 21, 2012 at 07:05 PM(allegedly, even)
Mark Harrop
Saturday, January 21, 2012 at 07:01 PMI much prefer the Chris Huhne that has become something of an advocate of Nuclear power. Burning off of waste biomass together with incineration of combustible domestic and industrial waste could well be a good thing but not as something to solve our energy requirements and as for then needing to import timber this would seem to be a case of diminishing returns; suspect but certain people can uphold their political correctness. I'm not sure whether it's fair to lump biomass together with wood but a comparison of energy densities gives wood as a third of coal and uranium 2 million times that of coal (http:www.cleanenergyinsight.orginterestinghow-far-will-your-energy-go-an-energy-density-comparison). Of course Huhne presses the right buttons by stating this will greater utilise the port of Hull and create lots of jobs but these are make work schemes producing expensive energy and will likely slow down the pace of life (which may suit Huhne. Alledgedly).
xianvassie
Saturday, January 21, 2012 at 12:13 PMGood to see progress on biomass. What is unclear from this article is whether or not district heating forms a part of these proposals. The proposed incinerator for York and North Yorkshire looks set to go ahead despite the plans calculatedly involving a waste of around £1 billion of heat of twenty years. This waste will occur because of political failure to insist on the plant being located close enough to homes to be able to make good use of the waste heat, in spite of the UK being committed to expanding Combined Heat and Power. With regard to the alleged health issues listed in BrianW's comment. I would invited anyone to look at the Eurostat statistics for: Incinerations, life expectancy, urban exposure to particulates, death from chronic disease, infant mortality and so on. They clearly show over the period of the last ten years that there is no link between incineration and health in Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, all nations that incinerate vastly more than we do in the UK. If BrianW were correct you would expect to see that health in all those nations, on the factors listed above, would be worse than in the UK. The reverse is true. In all those countries incinerators, or biomass plants, are constructed in or near cities in order to make good use of the waste heat, saving residents hundreds of pounds on fuel bills and reducing carbon emissions at the same time. The key, it appears, is modern plants with the latest scrubbing technology, and strict and effective regulation.
BrianW
Friday, January 20, 2012 at 09:56 PMThe announcement of additional biomass combustion in the Region raises serious concerns when we are aware a 2009 Gov UK Energy report detailed proposed transfer to biomass for energy provision would degrade air quality and add £billions to health and environmental costs. The emissions data used to anticipate costs in 2009 were found to be a gross under estimate , a Mar 2011 report increased hazardous emissions limits for biomass combustion, 20-30g per Gj for the most hazardous air pollutant particulates and 50-150g per Gj for NOX. This confirms the biomass power stations will certainly not be environmentally friendly. The fact that PM pollution will be 30 times higher than equivalent gas means proposals will create basic air pollution equating to exhaust emissions from diesel vehicles travelling 36 million km per hour in this area. There is little information on the particular biomass to be burned in each plant but we are aware hazardous content can vary considerably, 20 times difference in chlorine content presents serious cancerous dioxinfuran concerns. At least one featured proposal is specifying biomass that will create sulphur emissions 70 times higher than equivalent gas. The additional NOX pollution created by biomass combustion is a precursor to secondary particulate formation and tropospheric ozone, damaging to both health and environment. There is no lower safe limit for exposure to the pollution produced so priority becomes reduction certainly not deliberate increase in pollution which we are aware directly correlates to increase in COPD, asthma ,strokes , cardiovascular and respiratory problems. Who pays for the damage? The provision of feedstock raises concerns, confirmed 90% import requirement to fuel proposals, the current large users apparently sourcing from Americas not Europe as implied in current proposals. The use of forest floor material raises biodiversity concerns and transboundary disease transmission. Biomass combustion emissions are known to impact locally irrespective of chimney height and this cluster is positioned to create air quality degradation over the general area downwind. The good people of Humber Region and East Riding surely deserve in depth scrutiny of all the consequences surrounding these biomass proposals.
Page 1 of 1
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.