Comments on: The misuse of renewable electricity subsidies for businesses

By: Carol

Carol — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:37:58 +0000

Well spotted Sir. You are correct Pete: it is 300 MW output on a continuous base. The error (mine) was as stated in the information hand out provided in the planning application.

Even more to the point though is the fact that there are other projects of similar misused subsidies. Here are two others:

1) The Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority (Project for Municipal Solid Waste Incineration/Gasification) is also going to be the recipient of huge subsidies for the sale of electricity and enhanced gate fees (to be paid for by the Residents of the Area) for treatment of the waste which will exist for over 35 years.

Isn’t this a case where the subsidies are forcing the costs of these projects up? It appears so!

2) The Dublin (Poolbeg) Incineration Programme where the Corporation of Dublin together with the neighbouring Local Authorities have joined up to create an over-sized project to treat (BURN) waste from the area to make electricity and heat. This project which is already flouting European Union Procurement Rules under the Services Directive and which has had its scope changed several times has failed to take on board the implications of the needs for a thorough Environmental Impact Assessment as well as the Stockholm Protocols on POPs is proposed to handle over 400,000 tonnes per year of Solid Waste from Municipal Sources and at a budget of €380 million is phenomenally expensive. It again will receive huge subsidies for the sale of electricity as well as a hike in Gate Fees for treatment that will exceed €85-00 per tonne (December 2009 rate) and does not even include an allowance for the disposal of the residue of between 50,000 to 80,000 tonnes per year toxic ash produced from the process which has now been costed at €190-00 per tonne!

So what does the EU do about these projects? Ireland in particular cannot afford this, it is a country that is on its needs financially and the Tax Payers will be paying subsidies to a major US Company for a service they do not want and for which there is no need.

By: Pete

Pete — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:29:10 +0000

“This plant is supposed to generate 300 MW of electricity a year”

Either the plant has a nominal power capacity of 300 MW (which is the most likely), or it produces 300 MWh of electrical energy per year .

MW per year is a meaningless unit in this context. If you want to get taken seriously, get your units right.

By: Brian Wilson

Brian Wilson — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:48:38 +0000

Very interesting letter Geraldine, I am unable to understand logic in massive subsidies being paid to biomass combustion projects and UK Gov have now announced further subsidies . In Sep 2006 UK.Gov produced a report detailing biomass combustion systems produce hazardous emissions higher than oil and far higher than equivalent gas especially with regard to NOX and fine particles which we know WHO rate most hazardous air pollutant. Plant efficiency appears to be much lower than alternatives with useful power output between 15-34% and current projects display NOX burden between 3-7 times higher than gas per unit of electricity.
I note current burning proposals will require import of 70 m tonnes of biomass per year from Nth and Sth Americas, Sth Africa and Baltic regions.It would appear all environmental credibility will be lost before biomass reaches UK, we are informed shipping emissions are 38 times higher than land transport per tonne per km. Each tonne of import brings risk of pests and diseases that could devastate indigenous crops. What is the predicted impact on Countries of origin and environment? 7 million plus Ha to be dedicated to biomass for burning in UK when it could be used for local food or ethanol for local transport use.
Hope this adds to discussion.
Kind Regards
Brian Wilson