By JAMES KANTER
Published: June 7, 2010
BRUSSELS — The European Commission will seek to salvage its beleaguered biofuels policy on Thursday by announcing a quality-certification process for biodiesel and ethanol and clarifying limits on fuels from sensitive areas like forests and partly drained peat lands.
Ensuring that biofuels are a credible source of low-carbon energy that deliver greenhouse gas savings compared with fossil fuels is a key component of European Union efforts to set standards worldwide for lowering emissions over the next 10 years.
Europe plans to rely on biofuels to “do most of the work” reducing emissions from cars and trucks, the commission, the executive arm of the European Union, said in a statement Monday. Reducing transportation emissions was “particularly hard to achieve and reliance on imported oil is particularly high,” it said.
Commission officials spoke on condition of anonymity about the details before the official announcement, by the E.U. energy commissioner, Günther Oettinger, scheduled for Thursday.
The 27 member countries of the European Union agreed two years ago to generate 10 percent of their transportation fuel from renewable sources by 2020. A large proportion is supposed to come from biofuels. The remainder would come from other sources, like electric vehicles.
But the green credentials of the policy were badly dented as energy experts issued a stream of reports suggesting that many of the biofuels on the market were causing more emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing the fuels were taken into account.
A sudden spike in food prices at about the same time served to highlight the potentially negative effects biofuels, which some experts said were displacing food crops and making corn, wheat and soy harder to obtain for human nutritional needs.
Some companies that import palm oil into Europe have already made commitments to follow sustainability guidelines under development by environmental groups and by industry groups.
Mr. Oettinger’s endorsement represents a way for the commission to certify that those guidelines meet E.U. standards, and commission officials said he planned to call on companies to apply for the quality stamp before year-end.
The announcement on Thursday will be Mr. Oettinger’s first major policy statement on renewable energy. Commission officials said the statement showed his commitment to restoring the green credentials of the fuels.
Mr. Oettinger also plans to clarify on Thursday that companies must not interpret existing E.U. rules to cut down forests or sow crops on partly drained peat lands for biofuels, commission officials said. Even partly drained peat land still contains significant amounts of stored carbon, which can escape as carbon dioxide gas once the land is cultivated and contribute to climate change.
But the tighter rules on peat lands could anger countries like Indonesia and Malaysia, which are the major suppliers palm oil used to make biodiesel for European motorists.
Officials said trade experts at the commission had established that the measures would be compatible with international trade rules, partly because they would apply equally to biofuels producers growing crops inside and outside the bloc.
Mr. Oettinger’s quality stamp, “Recognized by the European Union,” also could prove controversial.
He still must reach a decision on how to calculate the emissions created when food crops have been displaced by fuel crops, and when areas containing high stores of carbon like grasslands, peat lands or forests are chopped down to produce the food crops elsewhere.
E.U. officials said Mr. Oettinger’s stamp could include criteria on Indirect Land Use Change, in the jargon of emissions experts, once he decides on the scale of its effects at the end of this year.
But experts warned that the stamp risked ending up being criticized for legitimizing unsustainable practices.
A “labeling system which is not dealing with the indirect effects will not be regarded as a guarantee for sustainability,” said Jan Ros, project leader for bioenergy at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, a Dutch national institute for environmental research and planning.
“The real challenge is to find biofuels that do not create these indirect effects like fuels from crops grown on degraded lands or fuels generated from waste products,” Mr. Ros said.
E.U. officials said the stamp would be added to the labels used by sustainability programs managed by governments, civil society organizations or industry bodies that meet E.U. criteria.
Although the certification would last for five years, it would also rely on annual checks done by outside auditors, but those audits would be paid for by fuel producers.
Companies would also be free to decide how to display the stamp, and that could limit its use to farmers and processors.
But commission officials said they were hopeful that fuel companies would also begin voluntarily displaying the label at fuel pumps, so that motorists seeking greener options would feel assured that their purchase was making a contribution to the environment.
Commission officials also said they wanted to use a light touch in regulating how biofuels were labeled, so that companies achieving higher-than-average reductions in greenhouse gases compared with fossil fuels, or companies applying even more ambitious sustainability criteria, could devise their own certification programs.
Wednesday, 9 June 2010
Climate groups call on FTSE to remove BP from ethical stock market indices
By Nikhil Kumar
Wednesday, 9 June 2010
Environmental groups are calling for BP's removal from stock market indices tracking socially and environmentally responsible companies.
The oil major, which is battling to contain the Gulf of Mexico spill, is listing on the FTSE4Good indices, which select companies based on their progress towards "environmental management", "climate change mitigation and adaptation" and other criteria. BP is also part of the FTSE4Good Environmental Leaders Europe 40 index, which lists European companies with "leading environment practices".
Related articles
•PJ Hahn: 'BP has lied to us from day one. We could have stopped the oil'
•Rupert Cornwell: 'No Drama, Obama' style of leadership is no match for this crisis
•David Prosser: It is time for BP's friends to come to Hayward's rescue
Search the news archive for more stories
Greenpeace said BP's continued inclusion "beggars belief" and called on FTSE Group, the index compiler which also oversees London's FTSE 100 index of leading stocks, to remove the company in light of the Gulf of Mexico spill.
"You have to wonder what a company has to do before FTSE has an ad hoc meeting and removes it, instead of waiting until the next review," Ben Ayliffe, a senior climate campaigner at Greenpeace, said.
Mike Childs, the head of climate change at Friends of the Earth, also argued for BP's exclusion, saying the oil major "should never really have been" included to begin with. "Under the leadership of their former chief executive, John Browne, they were trying to begin to shift to being a company more in favour of renewable power. But when Tony Hayward took over he clearly moved them away from promoting renewables and into deepwater oil extraction, which has been both a disaster for the company and the environment," Mr Childs said.
FTSE said an independent committee revisits the make-up of the FTSE4Good indices twice a year and will be looking at the Gulf of Mexico spill alongside BP's compliance with the inclusion criteria in time for the next review in September. The index compiler added that, so far, a constituent had never been removed on an ad hoc basis.
The calls follow the decision by Dow Jones Indexes, the American index compiler, and SAM, an investment group, to remove BP from the Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes (DJSI). "The extent of the oil spill catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico and its foreseeable long-term effects on the environment and the local population – in addition to the economic effects and the long-term damage to the reputation of the company – were included in the analysis leading up to BP's removal," DJSI said in a statement announcing BP's exclusion last week.
Barrick Gold and Essar Energy to join blue chips
Commodity focused stocks are expected to tighten their grip on the FTSE 100 when the results of the latest index reshuffle are announced after the end of business tonight. Essar Energy, the Indian power, oil and gas giant which made its market debut in May, and African Barrick Gold, the African arm of the world's largest gold miner, are expected to join the ranks of the blue chips, supplementing an already sizeable and heavily weighted contingent of mining, oil and gas, and power companies.
London Stock Exchange, which posted a 19 drop in full-year earnings in May, and which only returned to the blue-chip index in June last year, is expected to be relegated to the junior FTSE 250 index. The travel group Thomas Cook is also seen as a candidate for demotion.
The reshuffle, which encompasses the FTSE 100, the FTSE 250 and the FTSE All Share indices, is based on figures from the close of business last night, and approved changes will take effect following the end of play on 18 June.
The inclusion of Essar and African Barrick Gold would be another marker in the internationalisation of the FTSE 100, which is often more responsive to movements on the commodity markets than to news on the UK economy.
Wednesday, 9 June 2010
Environmental groups are calling for BP's removal from stock market indices tracking socially and environmentally responsible companies.
The oil major, which is battling to contain the Gulf of Mexico spill, is listing on the FTSE4Good indices, which select companies based on their progress towards "environmental management", "climate change mitigation and adaptation" and other criteria. BP is also part of the FTSE4Good Environmental Leaders Europe 40 index, which lists European companies with "leading environment practices".
Related articles
•PJ Hahn: 'BP has lied to us from day one. We could have stopped the oil'
•Rupert Cornwell: 'No Drama, Obama' style of leadership is no match for this crisis
•David Prosser: It is time for BP's friends to come to Hayward's rescue
Search the news archive for more stories
Greenpeace said BP's continued inclusion "beggars belief" and called on FTSE Group, the index compiler which also oversees London's FTSE 100 index of leading stocks, to remove the company in light of the Gulf of Mexico spill.
"You have to wonder what a company has to do before FTSE has an ad hoc meeting and removes it, instead of waiting until the next review," Ben Ayliffe, a senior climate campaigner at Greenpeace, said.
Mike Childs, the head of climate change at Friends of the Earth, also argued for BP's exclusion, saying the oil major "should never really have been" included to begin with. "Under the leadership of their former chief executive, John Browne, they were trying to begin to shift to being a company more in favour of renewable power. But when Tony Hayward took over he clearly moved them away from promoting renewables and into deepwater oil extraction, which has been both a disaster for the company and the environment," Mr Childs said.
FTSE said an independent committee revisits the make-up of the FTSE4Good indices twice a year and will be looking at the Gulf of Mexico spill alongside BP's compliance with the inclusion criteria in time for the next review in September. The index compiler added that, so far, a constituent had never been removed on an ad hoc basis.
The calls follow the decision by Dow Jones Indexes, the American index compiler, and SAM, an investment group, to remove BP from the Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes (DJSI). "The extent of the oil spill catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico and its foreseeable long-term effects on the environment and the local population – in addition to the economic effects and the long-term damage to the reputation of the company – were included in the analysis leading up to BP's removal," DJSI said in a statement announcing BP's exclusion last week.
Barrick Gold and Essar Energy to join blue chips
Commodity focused stocks are expected to tighten their grip on the FTSE 100 when the results of the latest index reshuffle are announced after the end of business tonight. Essar Energy, the Indian power, oil and gas giant which made its market debut in May, and African Barrick Gold, the African arm of the world's largest gold miner, are expected to join the ranks of the blue chips, supplementing an already sizeable and heavily weighted contingent of mining, oil and gas, and power companies.
London Stock Exchange, which posted a 19 drop in full-year earnings in May, and which only returned to the blue-chip index in June last year, is expected to be relegated to the junior FTSE 250 index. The travel group Thomas Cook is also seen as a candidate for demotion.
The reshuffle, which encompasses the FTSE 100, the FTSE 250 and the FTSE All Share indices, is based on figures from the close of business last night, and approved changes will take effect following the end of play on 18 June.
The inclusion of Essar and African Barrick Gold would be another marker in the internationalisation of the FTSE 100, which is often more responsive to movements on the commodity markets than to news on the UK economy.
Why no big energy bill?
You'd think the time was exactly right for a big new energy bill, right? I mean, if the American public is ever going to be attuned to these issues, it would be now, with all those images of those poor pelicans trying vainly to flap their oil-soaked wings.
Well, things don't work that way in 2010 America. Yes, it's true, there's a new poll out showing a majority opposing offshore drilling for the first time in a while. But look how close the numbers are:
With oil continuing to stream into the Gulf, a majority of Americans - 51 percent -- say the costs and risks of increased offshore drilling are too great, according to a new CBS News poll.
That's ten points higher than one month ago and an increase of 23 points from a poll taken in August 2008, when Republican rallies regularly broke out in chants of "drill, baby, drill."
In the new poll, 40 percent said they favor increased offshore drilling. That's a drop of five points from last week and 22 points from August 2008.
I say 51-40 isn't exactly a massive margin. To be honest with you, I can't even say how I would have answered that question. My position is probably more like yes, but with far more regulation and redundancies that have existed heretofore, measures industry and Republicans would oppose. So in some ways that's a functional no, but for the purposes of such a poll it's a functional yes.
Anyway, it would seem logical that a big catastrophe happens, and the people want the government to do something both about the crisis at hand and to try and prevent future such crises. That's sort of the normal course of things, right? Wrong. There's a new normal in America.
While certainly people want the government to clean up the current spill, it's not at all clear that there's much public sentiment in support of broad legislation that would make us less reliant on fossil fuels. Instead, in Congress, we have things like this, from Alaska GOP Senator Lisa Murkowski, as told by Ezra Klein:
Murkowski plans to offer a resolution barring the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon emissions. In other words, Murkowski plans to offer a resolution making it less likely we move away from fossil fuels, making it less likely we act to prevent a foreseeable catastrophe (in this case, global warming) from occurring, blocking regulators from doing their jobs, and disrupting one of our best opportunities to prevent climate change rather than scramble to respond after its incalculable effects rip through our atmosphere.
Murkowski says that her effort is much simpler than all that. "My decision to introduce this measure is rooted in a desire to see Congress – not unelected bureaucrats – lead the way in addressing climate change," she wrote. But Murkowski has not led the way in addressing climate change. She has not joined with Lindsey Graham, Joe Lieberman and John Kerry in their efforts to negotiate a bipartisan climate bill.
Now, granted, that probably won't pass. But Kerry-Lieberman isn't going anywhere either. From TPM today:
In the latest blow to the prospects of climate and energy legislation, the third ranking Democrat in the Senate suggested today that Dems will start small, instead of bringing a comprehensive bill to the floor.
Appearing on MSNBC this morning, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) confirmed that Majority Leader Harry Reid will move an energy-only bill next month, based on a template authored by Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, and predicted that Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) will have a chance to offer their much farther-reaching climate change legislation as an amendment to the base package.
"Kerry has a proposal that has pretty broad support," Schumer said. "He's going, in my opinion, going to get a chance to offer it in the form of an amendment."
Sad to say, this is the right tack to take politically. There isn't enough congressional or public support for big climate-change legislation. But read the comments below the TPM post, and you'll see a lot of furious liberals. I think they're right on the substance (that the planet is warming and we have to change our ways and have to do it now), but we're just not in that political climate, and Obama or Harry Reid or anyone else can't make that happen.
As I said above, I'm still okay with drilling under new and tougher conditions. I'm for more nuclear power, and being from the state I'm from, I'm not even a coal-hater. I'm a believer in technology, and while carbon sequestration may not be feasible now, it may be 15 years from now. But I'm also for some kind of carbon levy, probably more just a straight-out carbon tax than a cap-and-trade scheme, and I'm for doing many things to encourage the development of alternatives, which, yes, won't cover a significant percentage of our energy needs for many years, but that's no reason not to start moving aggressively in that direction.
In other words, I support a balanced and middle-of-the-road energy policy, one that includes a little bit or a lot bit of everything. It's what the Obama administration is for too, incidentally: they aren't enemies of coal, and they're strong advocates of nuclear.
So we ought to be able to get a balanced energy policy in this country. But guess what? One of our two political parties (with the exception of Lindsey Graham) won't negotiate because all taxes and regulation are evil, and because "drill baby drill!" is such fun to scream. So we have the largest environmental tragedy in our history, and nothing will happen, because one side won't permit it. And they'll probably benefit from it politically. Pretty depressing state of affairs.
Well, things don't work that way in 2010 America. Yes, it's true, there's a new poll out showing a majority opposing offshore drilling for the first time in a while. But look how close the numbers are:
With oil continuing to stream into the Gulf, a majority of Americans - 51 percent -- say the costs and risks of increased offshore drilling are too great, according to a new CBS News poll.
That's ten points higher than one month ago and an increase of 23 points from a poll taken in August 2008, when Republican rallies regularly broke out in chants of "drill, baby, drill."
In the new poll, 40 percent said they favor increased offshore drilling. That's a drop of five points from last week and 22 points from August 2008.
I say 51-40 isn't exactly a massive margin. To be honest with you, I can't even say how I would have answered that question. My position is probably more like yes, but with far more regulation and redundancies that have existed heretofore, measures industry and Republicans would oppose. So in some ways that's a functional no, but for the purposes of such a poll it's a functional yes.
Anyway, it would seem logical that a big catastrophe happens, and the people want the government to do something both about the crisis at hand and to try and prevent future such crises. That's sort of the normal course of things, right? Wrong. There's a new normal in America.
While certainly people want the government to clean up the current spill, it's not at all clear that there's much public sentiment in support of broad legislation that would make us less reliant on fossil fuels. Instead, in Congress, we have things like this, from Alaska GOP Senator Lisa Murkowski, as told by Ezra Klein:
Murkowski plans to offer a resolution barring the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon emissions. In other words, Murkowski plans to offer a resolution making it less likely we move away from fossil fuels, making it less likely we act to prevent a foreseeable catastrophe (in this case, global warming) from occurring, blocking regulators from doing their jobs, and disrupting one of our best opportunities to prevent climate change rather than scramble to respond after its incalculable effects rip through our atmosphere.
Murkowski says that her effort is much simpler than all that. "My decision to introduce this measure is rooted in a desire to see Congress – not unelected bureaucrats – lead the way in addressing climate change," she wrote. But Murkowski has not led the way in addressing climate change. She has not joined with Lindsey Graham, Joe Lieberman and John Kerry in their efforts to negotiate a bipartisan climate bill.
Now, granted, that probably won't pass. But Kerry-Lieberman isn't going anywhere either. From TPM today:
In the latest blow to the prospects of climate and energy legislation, the third ranking Democrat in the Senate suggested today that Dems will start small, instead of bringing a comprehensive bill to the floor.
Appearing on MSNBC this morning, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) confirmed that Majority Leader Harry Reid will move an energy-only bill next month, based on a template authored by Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, and predicted that Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) will have a chance to offer their much farther-reaching climate change legislation as an amendment to the base package.
"Kerry has a proposal that has pretty broad support," Schumer said. "He's going, in my opinion, going to get a chance to offer it in the form of an amendment."
Sad to say, this is the right tack to take politically. There isn't enough congressional or public support for big climate-change legislation. But read the comments below the TPM post, and you'll see a lot of furious liberals. I think they're right on the substance (that the planet is warming and we have to change our ways and have to do it now), but we're just not in that political climate, and Obama or Harry Reid or anyone else can't make that happen.
As I said above, I'm still okay with drilling under new and tougher conditions. I'm for more nuclear power, and being from the state I'm from, I'm not even a coal-hater. I'm a believer in technology, and while carbon sequestration may not be feasible now, it may be 15 years from now. But I'm also for some kind of carbon levy, probably more just a straight-out carbon tax than a cap-and-trade scheme, and I'm for doing many things to encourage the development of alternatives, which, yes, won't cover a significant percentage of our energy needs for many years, but that's no reason not to start moving aggressively in that direction.
In other words, I support a balanced and middle-of-the-road energy policy, one that includes a little bit or a lot bit of everything. It's what the Obama administration is for too, incidentally: they aren't enemies of coal, and they're strong advocates of nuclear.
So we ought to be able to get a balanced energy policy in this country. But guess what? One of our two political parties (with the exception of Lindsey Graham) won't negotiate because all taxes and regulation are evil, and because "drill baby drill!" is such fun to scream. So we have the largest environmental tragedy in our history, and nothing will happen, because one side won't permit it. And they'll probably benefit from it politically. Pretty depressing state of affairs.
'Sloppy' errors in coal-power station plans, say campaigners
Ayrshire Power's proposal to build the £3bn carbon capture plant contains 'serious errors', green groups say
Severin Carrell, Scotland correspondent guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 8 June 2010 17.43 BST
The power firm hoping to build the UK's first new coal-fired power station equipped with carbon capture technology has been accused of making a series of "sloppy" and "serious errors" in its planning application.
Environmentalists claim the mistakes in Ayrshire Power's proposal to build a £3bn 1,800MW coal-fired plant close to Hunterston nuclear power station raise significant questions about the credibility of its plans.
Ayrshire Power, solely owned by the Manchester-based property and airports firm Peel Holdings, claims that 25% of the new plant's CO2 emissions will be caught by its carbon capture and storage (CCS) equipment when it begins operations.
The first power station application to be made in Britain under tight new UK and Scottish government climate change regulations, it aims to have nearly all of its CO2 emissions (90%) captured by CCS within five years of the technology being proven.
However, Dr Richard Dixon, the director of WWF Scotland, said his analysis of the planning application suggested that Hunterston would only initially capture up to 22% of its carbon emissions.
The documents were surprisingly "sloppy", he said, and suggested that Ayrshire Power's application was now less credible after Dong, the Danish energy giant, withdrew from the Hunterston consortium last year, citing the drop in demand for power due to the recession.
While it owns windfarms and 24% of mining company UK Coal, Peel Holdings had never built a power station and is continuing to use the designs for Hunterston developed by Dong. "Its technical credibility has gone right out of the window," Dixon said.
The firm's project description states it will capture 327MW equivalent of CO2 when it first starts operation, while the electricity sent to the grid would total 1,625MW - 20.1%.
There were other errors in the planning application, Dixon said. It mistook kilograms for grams in its "CO2 emissions study". In one passage, it gave the carbon intensity of overall UK electricity supplies as 560kg per kilowatt hour rather than 560g/kwh. It also gave confusing and apparently contradictory figures on the number of bulk container ships bringing in coal and biomass fuel from abroad.
It said there were either 40 ships or 40 shipping movements involving biomass fuel. Dixon said a shipping movement was a one-way trip either in or out of port, so 40 shipping movements would involve just 20 ships. On coal deliveries, it talked about 40 ships docking each year in one part of the document, leading to 80 shipping movements, and 40 shipping movements in another.
Dixon said: "It rather suggests that this company isn't credible and shouldn't be allowed to build a £3bn power station."
Duncan McLaren, the chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said
it was very surprising the errors identified in the application had not been picked up by Scottish government officials in the "gatekeeping" document verification stage before Ayrshire Power filed its planning application.
"It's surely indicative that this is a small organisation relying on other people for the data and figures," he said. "If this application shows such gross errors, then the Scottish government should've just said 'go away'."
Ayrshire Power refused to respond directly to these criticisms, but said in a statement it was "100% committed to the use of carbon capture and storage technology."
The statement added: "From day one the power station will have a fully operational demonstration carbon capture and storage unit in place which will result in at least 25% fewer carbon dioxide emissions. Once fully fitted with CCS technology the power station will be capable of capturing 90% of the carbon dioxide it produces. This will put Scotland at the forefront of carbon reduction and deliver safe, secure energy supplies for generations to come."
Severin Carrell, Scotland correspondent guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 8 June 2010 17.43 BST
The power firm hoping to build the UK's first new coal-fired power station equipped with carbon capture technology has been accused of making a series of "sloppy" and "serious errors" in its planning application.
Environmentalists claim the mistakes in Ayrshire Power's proposal to build a £3bn 1,800MW coal-fired plant close to Hunterston nuclear power station raise significant questions about the credibility of its plans.
Ayrshire Power, solely owned by the Manchester-based property and airports firm Peel Holdings, claims that 25% of the new plant's CO2 emissions will be caught by its carbon capture and storage (CCS) equipment when it begins operations.
The first power station application to be made in Britain under tight new UK and Scottish government climate change regulations, it aims to have nearly all of its CO2 emissions (90%) captured by CCS within five years of the technology being proven.
However, Dr Richard Dixon, the director of WWF Scotland, said his analysis of the planning application suggested that Hunterston would only initially capture up to 22% of its carbon emissions.
The documents were surprisingly "sloppy", he said, and suggested that Ayrshire Power's application was now less credible after Dong, the Danish energy giant, withdrew from the Hunterston consortium last year, citing the drop in demand for power due to the recession.
While it owns windfarms and 24% of mining company UK Coal, Peel Holdings had never built a power station and is continuing to use the designs for Hunterston developed by Dong. "Its technical credibility has gone right out of the window," Dixon said.
The firm's project description states it will capture 327MW equivalent of CO2 when it first starts operation, while the electricity sent to the grid would total 1,625MW - 20.1%.
There were other errors in the planning application, Dixon said. It mistook kilograms for grams in its "CO2 emissions study". In one passage, it gave the carbon intensity of overall UK electricity supplies as 560kg per kilowatt hour rather than 560g/kwh. It also gave confusing and apparently contradictory figures on the number of bulk container ships bringing in coal and biomass fuel from abroad.
It said there were either 40 ships or 40 shipping movements involving biomass fuel. Dixon said a shipping movement was a one-way trip either in or out of port, so 40 shipping movements would involve just 20 ships. On coal deliveries, it talked about 40 ships docking each year in one part of the document, leading to 80 shipping movements, and 40 shipping movements in another.
Dixon said: "It rather suggests that this company isn't credible and shouldn't be allowed to build a £3bn power station."
Duncan McLaren, the chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said
it was very surprising the errors identified in the application had not been picked up by Scottish government officials in the "gatekeeping" document verification stage before Ayrshire Power filed its planning application.
"It's surely indicative that this is a small organisation relying on other people for the data and figures," he said. "If this application shows such gross errors, then the Scottish government should've just said 'go away'."
Ayrshire Power refused to respond directly to these criticisms, but said in a statement it was "100% committed to the use of carbon capture and storage technology."
The statement added: "From day one the power station will have a fully operational demonstration carbon capture and storage unit in place which will result in at least 25% fewer carbon dioxide emissions. Once fully fitted with CCS technology the power station will be capable of capturing 90% of the carbon dioxide it produces. This will put Scotland at the forefront of carbon reduction and deliver safe, secure energy supplies for generations to come."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
