Ministers have been “misled” over the environmental impact of a proposed new gas-fired power station in Aberdeenshire, environmentalists have claimed.
Friends of the Earth (FoE) say that emissions from the Peterhead 2 facility, which would be built alongside the existing power station, could be five times higher than the site’s developers SSE and Equinor have disclosed in planning documents.
Research commissioned by the group reveals that there were “serious omissions and shortcomings in the developer’s environmental impact assessment (EIA) report, resulting in a severe underestimation of the project’s climate impact”.
READ MORE: Thousands sign petition calling on government to reject new gas plant.
This included a failure to consider “upstream” emissions from the extraction and transportation of gas to the power station which, the research said, would increase over time as supplies of North Sea gas dwindle and the plant – which is due to run until 2059 – becomes reliant on liquified natural gas imported from overseas.
FoE also said the EIA overstated the effectiveness of the carbon capture and storage (CCS) plant that would be built as part of the facility, which would see emissions captured and pumped into depleted oil wells in the North Sea.
They described the 90-95% carbon capture level that has been projected by SSE as “wildly unrealistic” as it does not take into account periods of “unplanned outage” of the CCS, and is at a level that has never before been achieved by a CCS facility.
“Scottish Government ministers have been misled through selective carbon accounting and wildly unrealistic forecasts.
“In a bid to lock in expensive fossil fuel burning for another 30 years, these greedy energy companies are making claims about carbon capture that do not stand up to the slightest scrutiny.
“These companies seem willing to say whatever it takes to get this project built, leaving the Scottish public to bear the cost of its inevitable failure.”
READ MORE: Labour carbon capture policy 'Tory playbook painted red', expert says.
FoE also said that by 2044 the plant would account for between 50-80% of Scotland’s total carbon budget, and so would put pressure on other sectors of the economy to reduce emissions more rapidly.
The group called on the Scottish Government to order SSE and Equinor to produce an “honest assessment” of the full environmental impact of the proposed power station.
It pointed out that a similar carbon capture gas power station in Teesside was recently ordered by the UK Government to resubmit planning documents, and to include analysis of the emissions from producing and transporting the gas that would fuel the plant.
Alex Lee added: “When the Scottish Government sees the true climate harm of this project, the only rational response will be to reject it and focus instead on rapidly building up Scotland’s renewable energy future.”
A petition earlier this year calling for the proposed development to be scrapped was signed by more than 13,000 people.
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “It would not be appropriate to comment on a live planning application.
“A decision will be taken by ministers in due course, following consideration of the application information, consultation responses and representations made by members of the public.”
A spokesperson for SSE Thermal said: “With the UK Government committing £22 billion to carbon capture, there can be no doubt over its role in delivering net zero. Carbon capture will help to displace older unabated assets and will be absolutely critical if we’re to achieve a clean power system.
“Our planning application, submitted in early 2022, sets out the huge emissions reductions the proposed flexible plant at Peterhead can deliver with the ability to capture at least 90% of emissions.
“In line with evolving planning policy, we are in the process of submitting additional information to the Scottish Government’s energy consents unit.
“We remain fully confident that planning consent will be granted and that a decarbonised Peterhead will help to keep the lights on, unlock a renewables-led system and create and retain good jobs.”
Equinor declined to comment.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel