Evening Times: click here to return to our homepage
£2bn plant unveiled to power Scotland
 
This multi-fuel power station at Avedore in Denmark is similar to the one planned for Hunterston
This multi-fuel power station at Avedore in Denmark is similar to the one planned for Hunterston
 

ALMOST 2000 jobs could be created in Ayrshire if a £2billion power station is built.

The venture would see the new plant sit next to the existing nuclear reactor and coal terminal at Hunterston and could provide power across Scotland.

Planning permission for the new-generation plant is being sought next summer and strengthens the case against further nuclear reactors being built.

It could create 1700 jobs.

Fuelled by "clean coal" and biomass fuel, the plant would be the biggest completed in Scotland.

Last night, there was broad approval for the scheme from politicians, but environmental groups pushing to reduce Britain's heavy dependency on polluting fossil fuels were sceptical about the project's green credentials.

According to those behind the plans, the power station, which would be fuelled by coal and up to 15% biomass with an output of 1600 megawatts, would use state-of-the-art technology to deliver the highest standards of efficiency. It could provide average levels of electricity for two million homes.

Its backers insist "clean coal" is distinct from old coal technologies while the plant will also be suited for generating power from burning biomass - by- products from forestry and farming.

On coal alone, it is claimed, the new technology would reduce carbon emissions by up to 25% compared to conventional coal-fired power stations.

The first of two 800 megawatt plants could be operating by 2014, but a more realistic timetable is for a switch-on in 10 years time.

Up to 1500 jobs would be created during the construction phase and up to 150 posts when it is operational. Denmark's state-owned energy company, Dong, is behind the proposal, with partners Peel Energy.

It is hoped the Hunterston location may reduce planning objections while the deep-water port facilities would remove the need for further transportation of imported coal.

Secretary of State for Scotland Jim Murphy said: "It could form a welcome step forward in addressing a future energy gap."

Owen Michaelson, chairman of Peel Energy, said renewable energy facilities alone could not supply all the fuel required.

Jens Kragholm, project manager at Dong, added: "We are at a very early stage in the process and just starting the initial environmental investigations based on an outline design."

The plans come just two days after the Scottish Government issued guidance stating that new fossil fuel power stations should be ready for carbon capture technology.

However, Duncan McLaren, of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said: "No new coal-fired power station should be approved by the Scottish Government unless it operates carbon capture from day one.".

Publication date 21/11/08

Posted by: Helmut de Smegma, Glasgow on 1:25pm Fri 21 Nov 08
1700 potential well needed jobs and our Friends of the Earth friend is focused on "carbon capture".
Posted by: Heidthebaw, Glasgow on 1:47pm Fri 21 Nov 08
The greens don't want nuclear, now they don't want coal and biomass. They have already voiced their dislike of wind farms.

Do we just go back to the stone age and kid on we never discovered fire ?

Perhaps they could give us an idea of what we COULD do, instead of whining about other folks ideas.

Solar power in scotland makes about as much sense as a hydro-electric project in the Sahara.

We could all buy 10,000 hamsters and put them on wheels to generate power in our homes.
Posted by: Brad on 1:54pm Fri 21 Nov 08
Scotland has excellent renewable energy resources. Coal is the dirtiest form of energy around, although it might still be necessary in the short-term.

We can't afford to save the planet, of course.
Posted by: The Missing City, Glasgow on 1:55pm Fri 21 Nov 08
Out of a full edition of this newspaper - usually the biggest being on a Friday, the editorial is allowing YOU to comment on three stories.

One of them is pathetic spin for Liebour dinosaurs, the other is complaints from tree huggers but no mention of a farce in Denmark and the other is not worth commenting on.

That's poor by any standard.

At the BBC, they allow you to comment on various issues, even the Murray - Reid spat.

Its like a Saddam regime controlling the news here.
Posted by: victor meldrew, condorrat on 5:11pm Fri 21 Nov 08
Do I understand from this, it will be powered solely by 'imported' coal? -while Scottish mining communities are now ghost towns. - Mrs Thachers chickens coming home to roost? Very sad.
Posted by: 2for1, Glasgow on 6:52pm Fri 21 Nov 08
victor meldrew wrote:
Do I understand from this, it will be powered solely by 'imported' coal? -while Scottish mining communities are now ghost towns. - Mrs Thachers chickens coming home to roost? Very sad.
Am I being a bit naïve here... the fact that coal is imported and not sourced in Scotland is down to what? Cost? So, surely, had Thatcher not closed the mines, we would be either using our own higher priced coal (and thus depleting our stocks for hundreds of years time when future generations might need it more than we do. Selling the family's dirty silver so to speak!) Or, our industry would be facing severe competition from Europe and its cheaper coal! You only have to look at ship building to see how well that's doing these days - an industry she didnt close down.

So, I guess, Thatcher did what was enevitable. I would agree, it could have been done better, but in time, the industry would have declined and it would be another problem on our countries already long list!

Or am I wrong!?

And as for the greens, well... 'nuf said!

2f1
Posted by: J brown, Paisley on 7:01pm Fri 21 Nov 08
Build an Nuclear Power station that is the way
forward, or are we going to be left behind the rest of the world.
Posted by: I Predict A Riot, Glasgow on 7:02pm Fri 21 Nov 08
It's unlikely the new power station would be pumping out any more smoke than some of the buses running around Glasgow:-(
Posted by: R U Crazy?, Arlington on 5:22am Sat 22 Nov 08
If you are trying to get a zero carbon footprint, do you really think a coal burning power plant is the way to go? Even with a 25% reduction in carbon, so what?....75% carbon emissions still exist. Do you need to be a rocket scientist to do the calculation?
Add your comment
Please note: to publish your comment you must be registered on this site. If you are already registered, please enter your details below.
Email:
Password:
Travel Shop
Airport Parking
Travel Insurance
Car Hire
Copyright © 2009 Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights Reserved
Terms of Use