Leith Biomass plans - more detail revealed in MSP letter

Shirley-Anne Somerville is not by any means the only politician critical of the Forth Energy Biomass plans. However, by publishing a written response that she has received from Forth Energy she certainly deserves plaudits for acting with such transparency. In response to the Forth Energy letter she said, "This letter has done nothing to change my view that these proposals should be rejected." The letter certainly makes interesting reading, and reveals more detail about the way the plans are developing.

When Forth Energy announced their Biomass plans a great play was made of the fact that most of the fuel would be brought in by boat. They neglected to mention the number of lorry journeys that would be associated with the plant. In the letter, they give a combined figure of 54 HGV vehicle journeys per day, associated with the plant - this includes supply of fuel and the removal of ash. There will also be an additional 46 daily car movements associated with the plant too.

Whilst Forth Energy claim that this level of activity will be 'undetectable within the day to day variation of traffic flow on the local road network,' no mention is made of the fact that many of the main roads in the area are already at risk of breaking EU air pollution rules. It is large HGV lorries that are one of the main sources of this pollution, said to kill 2000 people each year in Scotland alone. Given the council is busy trying to manage HGV traffic away from the streets of Leith in order to avoid stringent EU fines in the future, it is hard to see how adding more than 50 HGV journeys per day into the local road network is compatible with this.

In our previous blog post on the biomass propals, we noted that the FSC logo was mysteriously included in the Forth Energy presentation to Dundee councilors, implying that Forth Energy would only use fuel that has been FSC certified, and thus be sustainably sourced. We note in the letter to Shirley-Anne Sommerville that no commitment to sourcing independently certified sustainable fuel is given. Local residents have calculated that Forth Energy will receive at least £40million a year in public subsidy for 'renewable energy generation' for the Leith plant alone - and this is in addition to the commercial value of the electricity. 

To justify this mammoth subsidy we believe Forth Energy must do more to prove that the fuel they are using in the plant is genuinely sustainable. Without, this they cannot reasonably claim to generate renewable energy. Greener Leith has called for a commitment from Forth Energy to use only FSC certified virgin timber (or equivalent) fuel, and a full, public disclosure on an annual basis of all the other types of fuel used in the plant that should include details of where it was sourced. To date, we have only seen a wooly commitment to 'sustainble' sourcing.

On the subject of the socio-economic impact of the plant, we note that Forth Energy are now indicating that they do not intend to pay a proportion of the profits into a local communtiy benefit fund for use by local projects, despite telling us that they'd seriously consider it in February. They also do not wish to 'speculate' on the impact of the plant on local property values, despite the fact that the plant will be sited very close to residential areas, and the commonly held view that the plant will be regarded as a 'bad neighbour' development.

Forth Energy also seem to be trying to imply to our politicians that without the giant Biomass plant, it will be much harder to attract other 'green jobs' to the docks.

 However, all of the points Forth Energy make in the above paragraph, apply equally to adopting a more decentralised, diversified, smaller scale approach to district heating and renewable energy generation in the docks redevelopment. Indeed, somewhat ironically, this is the very approach that Forth Ports are pursuing in a parallel planning application for the Harbour development.In that proposal they propose to incorporate two smaller energy centres. We understand one will be a 'water source heat pump' and the other a natural gas powered CHP plant. This latter approach is one we whole heartedly support as it has a number of other advantages.

Firstly, it allows for a diversity of fuel supplies and energy sources to be used. This helps to maximise our 'fuel security'. The 'all or nothing' approach embodied by the Forth Energy Biomass plant proposal puts all of our future energy eggs in one basket. Indeed, if all the currently planned Biomass plants in the UK alone were to get the go ahead, the Forest Energy Monitor says we'd need to import the equivalent of "17million tonnes or wood pellets...more than is currently imported by Japan’s pulp and paper industry, which for years has been by far the world’s biggest wood chip market." As far as we can work out no-one really knows where all this wood will come from, whether it will be possible to source this much extra fuel sustainably and how much it will cost.

Secondly, a decentralised approach allows for a greater diverstiy of ownership. According to the planners we have spoken to, Forth Ports claim that they can't make the smaller, more decentralised approach stack up financially without significant public subsidy (remember that £40million annual subsidy they'll get if the Forth Energy Biomass plant gets the go ahead) - even though there are countless examples of smaller projects working elsewhere, like this one in Aberdeen. And smaller renewable plants will still qualify for many of the same renewable energy generation subsidies.

Whilst we acknowledge that smaller scale projects also requires public sector funding, and no doubt a more complex leadership role from the City of Edinburgh Council, we suspect that Forth Ports are downplaying the feasibility of building the decentralised, diversified renewable system in the Harbour development because it may be much less profitable. Forth Ports could choose to work with the city council, and indeed an organisation like the Edinburgh Community Energy Co-op to take these smaller projects forwards as the Harbour is built. This could bring real community benefit to local people and deliver a more secure, low carbon future for the area. It would certainly not prevent more 'green jobs' being sited on the docks.

Instead, Forth Energy seem more intent than ever on pursuing a plant that everyone thinks is far too big, in the wrong place, and now we know that it will likely deliver even less local community benefit than we'd hoped.

The Forth Ports planning application for "The Harbour" developmentis set to be considered later this month, and representatives for Greener Leith have been asked to make a deputation to the planning committee. Needless to say, we'll take the opportunity to formally raise many of the points above with the committee, and to advocate strongly for the retention of the smaller scale energy centres in the plans.

A google group email list has been set up to help local residents share information about the Biomass plans. If you want join the Google group you can sign-up at: http://groups.google.com/group/leithbiomass