Facts & Myths about the Proposed Forth Energy Biomass Plant

Sunday

Dec192010

This page aims to provide an independent assessment of the proposals by Forth Energy to build a large Biomass plant on Leith Docks. In summary, the Greener Leith management committee have come to the conclusion that the plant is too large, in the wrong place - and will not help Scotland achieve it's carbon reduction targets. On the current information we have, we do not believe it should be built.

Greener Leith aims to promote sustainable development and action on climate change. However, we believe better renewable energy outcomes could be achieved by building one, or more, smaller CHP plants, using a variety of fuels, that operate at much greater efficiencies. Smaller plants would also minimise the negative local and global impacts of the scheme.

Greener Leith has been a consistent critic of the Forth Energy proposals. Forth Energy have their own "facts and myths" page about their plants where they accuse other groups of misrepresenting their plans. Greener Leith has never sought to misrepresent Forth Energy proposals. However, we have been concerned by quality of the information promoted by the developers in a bid to build plants that will attract many hundreds of thousands of pounds of public subsidy over their first years of operation.

This page therefore aims to provide an alternative assessment of Forth Energy proposals, and to provide clear evidence to support our claims from independent sources wherever possible. You will note the the equivalent Forth Energy page contains very little information from independent parties to corroborate their claims.

Below, we aim to provide a clear, easily understandable reference to people who wish to write an objection to the plant. We have based our comments on the best information we have available. We will add to this and revise it as more local information becomes available. It was last updated at 1/2/2011

We based our formal objection to the Forth Energy proposals on much of the information below. Our objection supercedes the information on this page. You can read it here:

Forth Energy Leith Biomass Objection

Quality of Environmental Information

Forth Energy have cited carbon savings of 91% for their plant compared to coal fired electricity generation for the Edinburgh plant, with similar savings claimed for the Leith one. This is said to be achieved over the 'lifetime of the plant'.

In our view these carbon saving claims are extremely misleading. However, it should be noted that despite repeated claims by Forth Energy, in the press that this claim is based upon 'independent' research, and that all data is in the environmental statements that accompany the planning documents for each plant, this is not true in an academic sense. It has not been peer reviewed.

The Environmental statements supplied by Forth Energy do not provide sufficient information on the assumptions, data sources, or methodology that is used to derive the carbon savings claims. This means that their claims cannot be checked directly by independent academics or the public sector officials who are responsible for assessing the plants. Greener Leith has repeatedly requested the full report from Professor Paul Jowitt at SISTECH, who was paid to produce the 'independent' report, and Forth Energy. Neither SISTECH nor Forth Energy will release the detailed report that would allow for an independent verfification of the claims made by Forth Energy. The report has not been peer reviewed, and takes no account of the latest research that we highlight below.

Despite this, we have nevertheless been able to indentify the following issues based on the information provided by Forth Energy.

Security of Supply

Forth Energy claim that the size of the plant is justified, in order to ensure that Scotland can 'keep the lights on' when other forms of renewable energy are not generating. The latest government policy and independent research, by the largest independent renewable energy consultancy in the world, show that this is not the case.

In fact, Scotland is expanding the amount of energy generated from other renewable sources so quickly that this security of supply question is not an issue. In the coming decades Scotland will be able to close all the large fossil fuel plants that are currently operating and replace them with renewables from other sources.

Key Resources:

Use of Heat - Feasibility

Guidance for applications under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 states that developers should show that they have explored fully any opportunities for existing and likely local business or community uses of heat. Although Forth Energy have produced a map of the area around Leith with coloured dots on it, said to highlight 'potential users of the heat' poduced by the plant, our own research using the Freedom of Information Act suggest that neither Forth Energy, nor agents acting on their behalf, have made a serious attemopt to comprehensively survey local organisations to discuss the scope for using the heat produced by the plant.

We know with certainty that the Scottish Parliament, Lothian Buses, The Royal Botanic Gardens, Lothian and Borders Police, Lothian and Borders Fire Brigade, The National Museaums Scotland (who own customs house at the Shore) & Telford College have never been contacted as potential heat customers - despite the fact that Forth Energy staff have named some of these organisations as examples of potential customers during local consultation events and in their planning documentation. They have contacted the Scottish Government regarding supplying Victoria Quay, with heat, and there has been a 'small amount of correscpondance' with the NHS regarding two local properties. The City of Edinburgh Council refused to answer our FOI request.

The Forth Energy documents acknowledge that a district heat network would cost £1million per kilometre to build, and in addition, retrofitting CHP heating systems to existing dwellings would cost around £3000 per dwelling. Building a heat network would also involve considerable disruption to transport networks, and involve complex legal negotiations over land ownership and 'way leave' agreements. Given this when Forth Energy say a heating network is only likely to be built if it is 'commercially feasible,' in the current economic climate it is hard to foresee circumstances when any developer would regard investing in a district heating system as 'commercially viable'.

In a meeting of Leith Harbour and Nehaven Community Council meeintg, a representative of Forth Energy said that no heat network is likely to built without additional public subsidy. Indeed, we note that Forth Energy do not even commit to supplying Ocean Terminal with heat from the plant, despite the fact that Forth Ports owning the shopping centre, all the land in between it and are a partner in Forth Energy - the company developing the proposed plant.

Given this, we propose that this evidence strongly suggests that no serious attempt has been made by Forth Energy to indentify potential heat customers, and that there is very little evidence that it is practically likely that the proposed plant will ever be developed as a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant, despite detailed phasing plans submitted by Forth Energy that imply that the heat will be used.

Lastly, there is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the claims that Forth Energy make about the use of the heat generated in Leith. Forth Energy claim that the plant will operate for 20 years, at which point it will be removed, as regeneration of the docks area moves from eastwards from Western Harbour. However, unlikely this may sound, the suggestion that the plant may be decomissioned after 20 years will only serve to undermine any business case for the considerable investment required to construct a district heating system of the scale that would be required to use all the heat produced by a plant of the scale proposed.

Taken together, this points suggest that the Leith plant is likely to operate predominently as an electricity generation plant for it's entire 20 year projected lifespan.

Key resources:

Carbon Savings - Use of Heat

We have identified some assumptions contained within the environmental statement for Edinburgh that serve to massively inflate the likely carbon savings that the plant will deliver. Firstly, and most importantly, the Environmental Statement assumes that all specified heat output from the plants will be used. This does not reflect the reality of how the plant in Edinburgh is likely to operate, as we have shown above.

This makes a huge difference to the operational efficency of the plants. Instead of operating at around 80-90% efficiency if the heat is used, the Forth Energy plants will operate mainly as 'electricity generation' plants. This means they will operate at little more than 30% efficency. This is a significant factor that leads to a massive overstatement of the carbon savings that the Forth Energy plants are likely to deliver during their operational lifetime.

The savings that Forth Energy claim are only likely be delivered by Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plants that operate to the governments CHP Quality Assurance (CHPQA) standards. There is no commitment from Forth Energy to operate their plants to CHPQA standards. In a recent submission to the Scottish Government, Greener Leith has called for all public subsidies for large biomass plants to be withdrawn unless they operate to CHPQA standards. Partly, as a consequence of this, the Scottish Government has announced a review into the public subsidies available to large, electricity only biomass plants.

Key resources:

Carbon Savings - Displacement of Coal

The carbon savings figures that Forth Energy cite in the press compare the emissions of the proposed biomass plant with the emissions of a coal fired plant. This is a misleading comparison. As identified above, in Scotland, and indeed the UK as a whole, coal fired power plants, without 'carbon capture and storage' technology are likely to become a thing of the past during the lifetime of the proposed biomass plants.

Whilst coal plants have emissions rating of around 1000 kg Co2 per MWh, the Environment Agency predicts that the 'carbon intensity' of electricity in the national grid will be about 10% of this by 2030. By 2030, there will be very little, if any coal generation to "displace." It is therefore questionable whether this is a useful comparison to make. By using it - Forth Energy massively inflate the real carbon saving the plant is likely to deliver.

Similarly, in Forth Energy planning application the carbon savings they claim by comparison to grid electricity use out of date figures that are irrelevent to the likely carbon intensity of the grid over the lifetime of the plant. Again, this serves to overstate the claimed carbon savings.

Key resources:

Carbon Savings - Use of "Waste" as Fuel

All the Forth Energy plants will burn a proportion of 'energy crops' and 'recovered waste.' As far as the waste element is concerned, this is claimed to be made up of waste paper and cardboard. The Environmental Statement assumes that this waste would otherwise be sent to landfill and lead to an immediate release of methane. In the words of the Forth Energy Dundee Environmental Statement this means that "even though the overall percentage of wood waste to be included in the fuel mix is very small, the avoided methane emissions are significant.”

Research commissioned by Scottish Government Agency, WRAP, shows that recycling this type of waste delivers a greater carbon saving that burning it. Therefore, if it can be separated from the waste stream, it is should be recycled not burnt.

To use the more technical language of the environmental regulator, SEPA, burning cardboard and paper in the Leith plant is not likely to be the Best Practical Environmental Option (BPEO), particularly given that Viridor have recently been given permission to build a "Waste to Energy" facility in East Lothian, that will be fully integrated with other recycling processes. The Forth Energy plant in Leith will be competing for 'waste fuel' with this plant, the Waste to Energy plant proposed for Millerhill, and indeed the other Forth Energy plants too. If all of these plants are to be fueled by waste, it would seem likely that this will lead to an overall decrease in recycling of paper and cardboard, and hence greater national carbon emissions.

Secondly, even if waste cardboard or paper is sent to landfill, it would not decompose immediately. Modern landfill sites also capture a large proportion of the methane, and burn it to produce electricity, carbon dioxide and water. The Forth Energy Environmental Statements wrongly assume that all landfilled material generates an equivalent, immediate release of methane, which is a much more potent climate change gas, than carbon dioxide. Therefore, this is another 'convenient assumption' that has been made by researchers paid by Forth Energy that serves to inflate the claimed carbon savings of the Forth Energy proposals.

Key resources:

Carbon Savings - Use of Energy Crops

Research relating to the carbon savings that energy crops deliver, published by the Environment Agency, suggests that when crops such as straw are burnt to generate electricity, without using the heat, the resulting carbon emissions can be greater than burning natural gas in an efficient modern power station. Similarly, other types of energy fuels must be used at maximum efficiency to achieve that 91% saving over coal, claimed by Forth Energy. Is this tenable, when we know the Edinburgh plant is likely to operate at a much lower efficiency because the heat will not be used?

As the Environment Statement provided by Forth Energy assumes that the all the heat is used, when it won't be, the carbon savings associated with the use of these fuels is also likely to be overstated.

Key resources:

Biomass: Carbon sink or carbon sinner?

Carbon Savings - Timescales

Scottish Government legislation enshrines a commitment to reduce our national carbon emissions by 42% by 2030 and 80% by 2050. Forth Energy claim that their proposed biomass plants will help Scotland to meet these targets.

However, there is strong evidence to suggest that the Forth Energy proposals will in fact hinder national attempts to cut carbon emissions in the timescales set out by Scottish Legislation. Burning biomass creates an immediate release of CO2, like any other carbon based fuel. In the short term, Biomass plants release more carbon, per unit of useful energy generated, than burning coal or gas. This means that every biomass plant creates a 'carbon debt,' compared to burning fossil fuels, that is only paid off after many decades.

Independent research suggests that for large scale, mainly electricity generating biomass plants, like the proposed Forth Energy plants, this process can take many decades, with net carbon emissions likely to be higher than an equivalent sized coal fired plant after 30 years of operation. Indeed, a research review by the Clean Air Task Force in the US concludes that plants like those proposed by Forth Energy should not be permitted as they are ,ʻa threat to climate and forests.ʼ

Forth Energy claim the lifetime of the plant is 25 years. If this is the case, we believe that public subsidies will be better used to invest in technologies that will generate a reduction in carbon emissions in the timescale we need.

Forth Energy claim that the research we base these claims on cannot be applied to their proposals. In one sense they are right - each proposed plant is different, and so the precise numbers will differ. However, it is clear to us that the principles that underpin the research below and the model they use can be applied to any plant. Greener Leith has repeatedly asked Forth Energy to provide specific information on how long it will take their plants to pay off their 'carbon debt'- relative to simply burning fossil fuel. They have not provided this information - although their independent researcher acknowledges that there will be one. Forth Energy's own hired researcher has this to say about the carbon debts associated with large biomass plants:

The size of any short-term "carbon deficit‟ associated with the use of biomass fuel (i.e. the carbon deficit that arises between CO2 emissions from combustion of the first cropping and subsequent CO2 re-capture from the re-growth of replacement crops) depends on the source of the biomass and the management of the biomass resource. Using hardwood timber with a re-growth period of 40 years will obviously lead to a bigger deficit than using other species which achieve maturity in a shorter timeframe.

A minimum of 70% of the fuel for the Forth Energy plants will come from virgin timber. The earliest that the Leith Biomass plant is likely to become operational is 2015. If it operates for 25 years, it will close in 2040. Even based on the advice of SISTECH, the researchers paid by Forth Energy, the earliest that the plant could become close to delivering a 90% carbon savings they claim for the plant is 2080, but we think that other credible, independent research suggests that the likelyhood is that it could be significantly longer than this.

This is because it is not sufficient to base a carbon debt analysis, in comparison to using coal as an energy source, simply on the lifecycle of a tree, as the SISTECH response implies. In fact, the Manomet study we link to below demonstrates that there are a number of other factors that must be considered. These include the way the biomass fuel is used. If it is used primarily to generate electricity, without using all of the heat, the Forth Energy plants will take many, many decades to deliver a carbon saving over burning coal. You will see from the graph above, that models a hypothetical, electricity only biomass plant burning wood - that after 32 years, carbon emissions are still 147% greater than a coal fired plant.

Besides, as we discuss above, in a Scottish context, the comparison with coal will, by 2080, be thoroughly irrelevant in any case.

Of course, until Forth Energy, or the Scottish Government, actually pay for a detailed appraisal of the carbon debt associated with their proposals it is not possible to know when their proposed plants will deliver a carbon saving with certainty. This is why Greener Leith has called for a moratorium on all large scale biomass plants, and a withdrawal of public subsidies for the types of plant that Forth Energy propose, until processes are put into place to verify the carbon savings claims made by the developers.

Key resources:

Carbon Savings - Sustainability of Fuel Sources

70-90% of the fuel used in the Forth Energy power plants will be virgin timber, mostly sourced from abroad. Forests can be managed to provide a sustainable source of timber, and to act as a carbon sink. However, where forests are managed intensively - they can provide a sustainable yield of timber, but act as an overall carbon source. There are currently no forest management certfication schemes that guarantee that forests are managed to act as a 'carbon sink.'

Forth Energy say that they will guarantee that one tree will be replanted for each one that is burnt. Simply replanting a replacement tree does not guarantee that all the carbon lost during harvesting shall be recovered during the lifetime of the tree. This full carbon recovery depends on the way that the forest the tree comes from is managed. If the forest is converted from a semi-natural rainforest to a Eucalyptus plantation, then there will be a net carbon emission.

Also, Forth Energy have not committed to using only Forest Stewardship Certified (FSC) timber. This is widely held as the most reliable standard. There are other "sustainable forest management" standards in existence, however these have been shown to be significantly less robust than FSC. Without a commitment to FSC certified fuel - there is an increased chance that the timber used in the Leith plant will be sourced from illegal suppliers, and may not in fact be replaced.

Forth Energy give contradictory commitments on the regions of the world where they will source their timber. To date, no biomass plant operators in the UK have been given approval for a plant with a binding planning condition on the source of their fuel. For example, Last year, DECC approved MGT Power's application to build a 295 MW biomass power station at Teesside Port. Shortly after winning planning consent they signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Suzano Papel e Celulose for most of the wood to come from Brazilian eucalyptus plantations despite pledging to source fuel from North America in their planning application.

As a mimimum, Forth Energy should be required, by a specific planning condition, to use FSC certified fuel, and that all fuel is sourced from specific geographical areas - (North America and the EU.)

Key Resources:

Local Air Quality - Human Health and Nature Conservation Impacts

The Forth Energy Planning Application for the Edinburgh plant includes a study into the cumulative impact of the Power Plant, combined with other planned developments on the docks. It concludes:

"The results indicate that at most of the properties close to the assessed roads the annual mean nitrogen dioxide concentrations in 2015 are forecast to range from 32.2μg/m3 – 46.9μg/m3. This range exceeds the annual mean air quality objective of 40μg/m3."

The study acknowledges that the plant will lead to an increase in NOx levels on many streets throughout Leith, but somehow contrives that the role of the plant in the cumulative increase in the coming years will not lead to 'new exceedences' of air quality standards. It blames other planned developments on the docks. This conclusion seems illogical and wholly untenable.

Furthermore, we note that the baseline information used to estimate the weather and background levels of other emissions produced by the plant are based on survey measurements as far away as Staffordshire.

Despite the claims made in the Environmental Statement, we believe that detailed studies into baseline particulate levels in Leith, as well as other pollutants need to be conducted in order that politicians can make an informated decision on the health impacts of the plant.

Parts of Leith are already designated as Air Quality Management Areas, as air pollution is getting worse year on year due to increased traffic. This means that the areas in question exceed, or are at risk of breaking EU air quality laws already. The fact that air pollution is already a problem in these areas, is a good reason in itself not to add another significant point source of air pollution to the urban landscape - even if the emissions from the plant, and related transport activities are, when analyised in isolation, viewed as insignificant.

The Lothian Joint Health Protection Plan states: "The physical environment plays a significant role in the causation of the top ten diseases which contribute to death in Lothian." Local research, summarised in the presentation below, suggests that poor air quality in Edinburgh leads to around 1000 extra GP admissions each year. It also notes that the impact of poor air quality has a disproporionatly high impact on people who are in low income groups. Many parts of Leith fall into this category, particularly around the parts of Leith with the worst air quality. In these areas, poor air quality already takes nearly 227 days off an average persons life expectancy over 75 years.

Edinburgh air quality health impact

Feedback from local health experts suggests that their local research is broadly in line with the figures produced by the latest UK research report into the impacts of small particulate matter called (PM2.5s).

There are many sources of PM2.5, and the new Forth Energy power plant is likely to act as a source - from the chimney, and from the processing and transport of the fuel, and from the movement and transport of ash. However, we do not know the details of this as that information is not yet in the public domain. Nevertheless, this report shows that even a small variation in long term concentrations can have a significant health impact. Despite this, there is currently no statutory air quality target for PM2.5 and the information used to baseline pm2.5 estimates in the Forth Energy planning application is based on information from the other side of the city at St Leonards.

There is evidence from the other Forth Energy planning applications that the predicted cumulative impact of the Rosyth, Grangemouth and Leith plants will have a significant, negative impact on many of the local protected sites for wildlife in and around the Firth of Forth.

Furthermore, we note that in Dundee, where a similar plant is proposed by Forth Energy, the local council has been so concerned by the poor quality of the information provided by Forht Energy on the health impacts of the project that they have demanded that the Scottish Government delay making a decision on whether the plant should go ahead, until more detailed information is made available.

Key Resources:

National Energy Policy

The latest Draft Electricity Generation Policy Statement summarises the latest view on biomass thus:

"The Scottish Government would prefer to see biomass deployed in heat-only or combined heat and power schemes, off gas-grid, at a scale appropriate to make best use of both the available heat, and of local supply."

It continues:

"Whilst the Scottish Government is not categorically opposed to large scale development, it is likely that the larger the proposed scale, the more difficult it will be for the developer to utilise the heat generated and to source supply locally. Hence any development should be scaled appropriately to make efficient use of the available heat and local supply. Large scale developments which do not maximise heat use may also displace supply from our priority of delivering our heat target."

The current proposals by Forth Energy are not scaled to maximise the use of heat, nor are they off the gas grid. Therefore, it is difficult to see how the proposals support National Energy Policy.

Similarly, The Scottish Renewable Heat Strategy explicitly supports the development of CHP schemes to provide renewable heat. The Scottish Energy Efficiency Action Plan has also identified that 56% of the Scottish Government's carbon emission reduction target in domestic buildings must be delivered through CHP with district heating. Despite the rhetoric of Forth Energy, it is clear that their current proposals for Leith, designed to generate more electrcitiy than heat, runs counter to both the Renewable Heat Strategy and the Energy Efficiency Action Plan.

Key resources:

Planning - National Planning Framework Document (NPF2)

The National Planning Framework (NPF2) Document states that "Biomass plants should be sited where they can make best use of locally available resources" (para 148). The Forth Energy plant is designed primarily to generate electricity. Therefore, given the distance and quantity fuel will be required to travel to supply to the plant, it is difficult to see how the Forth Energy proposal for Leith could be said to be of an appropriate scale, or in an appropriate location to comply with this policy.

The same document also states, "Harnessing components of the waste stream and other biomass offers the potential to develop new, smaller combined heat and power ( CHP) stations close to communities" (para 164). Again, the size, scale and poor efficiency of the Forth Energy proposals in Leith appear incompatible with this statement.

National Planning Framework

Planning - Edinburgh City Local Plan

The proposed site for the Forth Energy power plant is not supported by the Edinburgh City Local Plan. There is land earmarked for a power plant to the east of the docks - near Seafield sewerage works. However, the site proposed by Forth Energy is currently zoned primarily for use as public green space in the future.

Key Resources:

Edinburgh City Local Plan

Planning - Leith Docks Outline Planning Application

Forth Ports obtained outline planning permission to redevelop the docks, largely in accordance with the Edinburgh City Local Plan above. The Forth Energy proposals for Leith run counter to this outline planning consent. Forth Energy and Forth Ports claim that the impact of the global economic recession has slowed the pace of regeneration in the docks - and therefore that the proposed power plant will be built, and then removed after 25 years of operation - when the 'regeneration edge' has moved from Ocean Terminal eastwards. When the plant is removed, Forth Ports claim that they will revert to the original OPA.

In our view, this vision is not credible, and Forth Ports must present a revised vision for the regeneration of the whole docks to accompany this proposal. If the power plant is built, it is unlikely that mixed use regeneration will ever move eastwards from Ocean Terminal - given the widespread perception that large power plants are 'bad neighbours'.

Key resources:

Leith Docks Outline Planning Application

Planning - The Harbour, Leith Docks Masterplan

Forth Ports already has permission to build two smaller, 'energy centres' to provide heat and power to the mixed use developments associated with the Leith Harbour masterplan. These proposals gained planning consent in 2010. In light of this, it is difficult to understand how the larger proposal is compatible with these plans.

Therefore, it is reasonable to question whether the huge visual impact, and potential carbon emissions associated with the much larger plant proposed by Forth Energy is required at all?

Key Resources:

Planning - Public Support

Forth Energy have consistently tried to misrepresent the views of local community groups and organisations, as supportive of their proposals. In the displays they toured around North Edinburgh, they claimed that 96% of Leithers were supportive of the plans. It later transpired that this statistic was based on the views of fewer than 100 people in Ocean Terminal - who may not even have been local residents.

A transparent approach from Forth Energy would see a more constructive dialogue, and an acknowledgement of the real concerns local people have raised.

In fact, there is a wide ranging list of individuals and organisations opposed to the plant. Not to mention cross party political opposition to the Leith Biomass plans at every level of government.

The lack of public support for the Forth Energy plant contrasts vividly with the local public support for a Waste-Energy plant propposed for Millerhill. A more convincing report by Keep Scotland Beautiful shows that 85% of local residents support the proposals there.

Key Resources:

Visual Impact

The proposed plant will be large - with 120m high chimney. They will have a significant visual impact on the whole of the city, not just Leith. Indeed, the Director of Forth Energy has acknowledged that the proposed Forth Energy plant "certainly will not be attractive."

To date public information provided by the developer has been sparse, unrepresentative and in some cases designed to deliberately mislead the public.

We note for example, that photographs have been taken so that nearby signs, or trees, deliberately obscure key parts of the site from some viewpoints. Guidance by the City of Edinburgh council has been ignored. Some of the materials presented to the public show give illustrations from points that are physically impossible to see the plant from. Visual mock-ups of how the site will appear do not include the plume from the top of the chimney.

The Forth Energy proposals appear to disregard a key component of the original outline planning application for the docks - "the view corridors." These view corridors were said to safeguard key views into and out of the Edinburgh World Heritage site, and were based on an Edinburgh skyline study undertaken in 2007. It would appear that the plant will block views along at least two of the 'protected' view corridors that were established in the OPA. As the diagram, taken from Forth Ports own application shows, these are two of the most important views out of the city - the one from the castle, the and the one from Carlton Hill.

UNESCO conducted an investigation last year into the management of the Edinburgh World Heritage site. In their report it says:

"The mission specifically considered that the skylines study (Colvin & Moggridge) was an important and proactive tool to protect important views...and to ensure the visual integrity of the World Heritage property and its skyline. This tool can be used to assess any new developments and specifically high-rise buildings in the future."

Given the significant visual impact of the plant, and the importance of tourism to the Edinburgh economy, Forth Energy must justify why it is needed.

Socio - Economic Impacts - Regeneration choices

Forth Energy have been keen to 'talk up' the economic impact of the project, with the figures they have presented growing in every mention in the press. In earlier reports, Forth Energy said the project would be estimated to generate up to 250 construction jobs, and just 60 operation jobs. In the planning application there will now be 750 jobs and 75 operational jobs. They maintain that the construction of the plant will not affect the ongoing efforts, pursued by Forth Ports themselves, to promote mixed use regeneration in other neighbouring parts of the docks. They also maintain that the proposal will have no negative economic impacts on the Shore, or the wider area.

Both Forth Energy and Forth Ports fail to mention that the original plan to promote mixed use regeneration of the docks, whilst temporarily stalled, would, according to Forth Ports own figures, generate the following:

15,900 new homes
11,600 direct jobs
6,000 net additional jobs.
£194 million per annum Gross Value Added (GVA) for the Edinburgh economy.
For the Scottish economy as a whole there will be a predicted 7,500 net additional jobs and GVA growth of £248 million per annum. The development will provide an additional estimated £28 million in Council Tax revenue and a further £28 million in business tax revenue.

Of course, if the biomass plant is built, some of this growth may happen anyway. However, whatever Forth Energy say, the power plant will be regarded by many as a 'bad neighbour' development. There are considerable socio-economic beneifts available to Leith, Edinburgh and indeed Scotland as a whole, available by sticking with the original, democratically agreed regeneration masterplan. Conversely, it would appear that there are considerable downside risks associated with ripping the docks masterplan up, simply to allow Forth Energy to build a giant power plant.

Key resources:

Leith Docks Outline Planning Application

Socio - Economic Impacts - Public Subsidy

Forth Energy will not disclose the amount of public subsidy that they expect to receive for generating 'renewable energy' over the lifetime of the plant. However, our own calculations suggest that the plant will attract at least £1billion in public subsidy for renewable electricity generation alone in the first 20 years that it operates.This £1billion is addtitional to the money the company will receive for selling the electricity.

Forth Energy describe the plant as £600million investment in Leith. It would seem that, if the plant is given permission to operate, it is the public who pay for this plant through their fuel bills. Given that the plant is unlikely to deliver any carbon savings at all, compared to coal, in the first twenty years of its operation, it is reasonable to ask whether this plant delivers value for money. This is a particularly pertinent point given that increasing fuel bills are pushing more and more scottish householders into fuel poverty.

In addition to the considerable public subsidy provided to Forth Energy for the Leith Biomass plant, it is also pertinent to note that the Forth Ports is one of the chief beneficiaries of the Tax Incremental Funding initiative recently approved by the Scottish Government.

Key investments will be made in Forth Ports property, funded by an £84million tax payer backed loan, with a view to promoting mixed use regeneration of the docks area. The investment is likely to include the improvement of the Ocean Terminal Shopping Centre, The development of a cruise liner port, improvement to the lock at the mouth of the docks and better road transport links.

Given the significant visual impact of the proposed power station proposed by Forth Energy, it is difficult to understand how this can possibly be compatible with any strategy to promote increased tourism and mixed-use regeneration of the area. Indeed, whilst the risk associated with borrowing £84million to support mixed use regeneration of the docks remains with the local tax payer, we note that the profits associated with the biomass plant, supported by further public subsidy will be distributed to the shareholdres of Forth Energy - Forth Ports and Scottish and Southern Energy.

However, these are not the only significant public subsidies that are destined for Leith. Forth Ports also has a 'registered interest' in the Scottish National Renewables Infrastructure Fund. This is a fund that aims to support the development of Scottish ports to supply the growing offshore renewable energy industry. This could see an estimated £35million from the public purse invested in improving Leith Docks.

Most people might agree that this last investment might lead to some actual green jobs - manufacturing wind turbines and wave, or tidal power generators. Those 'green jobs' might be more credible if they were using electricity that is actually 'green' too. And as we have demonstrated above, in the coming decades power from the national grid is likely to be lower carbon than the power generated by the Forth Energy plant.

It's worth bearing in mind the scale of the total value of these various public subsidies is many times greater than the size of the cuts that the City of Edinburgh Council must make in the coming years as a consequence of the economic downturn. The fact that Leithers will soon start to see the impact of these public sector cuts in the neighbourhood makes it even more imperative that the various stakeholders involved work together to make sure that all tax payers get value for money.

The projects are not inexorably linked, and a manufacturing hub for renewable energy can be developed without the biomass plant, and indeed manufacturing may be more compatible with the mixed use regeneration of other parts of the docks. Furthermore, recent policy changes mean that the council itself can invest directly in renewable energy generation - and derive an income from the proceeds.

Smart partnership working between the public, private and community sectors could see much greater local economic benefits, whilst minimising the environmental and social costs of development. However, sadly this is not something any of the key stakeholders seem interested in pursuing.

In our view the Forth Energy biomass plant does not deliver social, economic or environmental benefits to justify the huge public subsidy it will receive.

Key Resources:

Email Article |

Reader Comments (1)

Well done. This covers just about everything! This project seems to be carried forward by it's own momentum and frankly greed on the part of Forth Energy. It doesn't seem to be based on good science or in any sense to be logical, coherent or wise. Hopefully good sense will prevail.

Well done again to however wrote this.

February 9, 2011 |

Steve Scott

Post a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »

Author:

Author Email (optional):

Author URL (optional):

Post:

↓ | ↑

All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.