Two sides to the biomass debate - Return to main Dundee biomass page

'MIDWEEK with John J. Marshall' The Courier and Advertiser, Wednesday, January 19, 2011

SO AFTER almost a year of being invisible on the subject, there's finally no hiding place for Dundee's councUlors. On Monday they will be forced into giving an opinion on proposals to site an incinerator at the city's waterfront.

SNP administration leader Ken Guild, in his most memorable statement on the topic, has just pronounced that it is important that members take a "balanced view" of the matter.

Indeed. Given the background to the affair, however, and the Nationalists' evident desire to see the plant installed on the uniquely beautiful setting, it is entirely possible that some of the facts may be overlooked.

Here, to assist, are some of the details free-thinking councillors will naturally want to keep in mind.

First, the case being made for the plant. It is based on three main platforms, namely that it will produce an eco-friendly form of renewable energy; provide 40 permanent jobs; and that the harbour setting will allow ships to unload waste shipped in from around the world. As far as the operators of the incinerator, Forth Energy, are concerned, the other attraction is that will make them significant amounts of money, thanks to heavy subsidies from the taxpayer arid the levies being placed on our power bills. Scottish & Southern Energy, one of the principal partners of Forth Energy, is extremely familiar with how profits work. Last year they made £1.2 billion — or £2454 a MINUTE.

The case against takes considerably longer to detail.

On the crucial issue of dangers to health alone, it would be possible to fill the remainder of this article with information from leading health authorities about the pollution threat posed by so-called biomass plants, even those located in sparsely
populated areas, far less those in the heart of a city. With an existing incinerator a short distance away as the fumes fly, Dundee, would, of course suffer a double whammy.

The consequences of exposure to excessive levels of the pollutants are well-documented and range from headaches to damage to the central nervous system and to the developing foetus. It is why many places ban them from urban areas.
An incinerator at the waterfront would bring additional health threats. Based on Forth Energy's admission that much of the waste would require to be transported by road, it is estimated that an extra 22,000 lorry runs a year would pass through certain parts of central Dundee, including areas where there are already hotspots of unacceptabty high pollution. The number of vehicle movements would increase as the import of shipped timber inevitably decreases due to the unsustainability of unlimited supplies of wood.

Forth Energy themselves admit their present proposals could expose some 19,000 people — one in seven of the population — to an increase in nitrogen dioxide levels. 

They assure us this would have only a "negligible or slightly adverse" effect, whatever that means.
However, it is unlikely to be of much consolation to the unlucky 19,000. A smaller number identified as being in a "medium increase" group are presumably considered expendable.

Considering that in the past Dundee councillors have repeatedly voted against the likes of much less offensive mobile phone masts because of their potential to harm health, it will be interesting to see how they react to an acknowledged danger.

Describing the proposed plant as eco-friendly is so inaccurate as to be laughable. The exact opposite is the case. What is "green" about shipping waste around the world in ships and lorries that devour vast quantities of fuel in the process?
The promise of 40 jobs might normally be welcomed, but that should be put in perspective. Would they not also be provided if the incinerator was built in a safer, more remote setting? And in terms of the land-grab at the riverside, is 40 a fair exchange for what is being lost, always bearing in mind how many more could be created by other uses of the site?

Dundonians will also note that just a few weeks ago their councillors voted down an application to build a hotel near the airport on ground currently used to house storage sheds, losing many new jobs in the process, to say nothing of what some would see as a much-needed amenity in that part of town.

The jobs issue can also be further exposed as a red herring with the announcement from the wood industry that 8700 jobs in the sector — many of them in Scotland — would be lost if approval is given for all the biomass plants under consideration.

Then there is the effect on another development lined up for the Dundee waterfront. The spectacular Victoria & Albert museum will be located a few hundreds yards away and it is difficult to imagine a more unsuitable neighbour than an ugly incinerator belching fumes from a 300-foot smoke stack. Indeed, the proposition sounds more like something from an Ealing Studios comedy. Realistically, the pairing might have disastrous consequences for the V&A project, the single scheme most likely to rid the city of its reputation for being a cultural backwater.

The museum could act as the springboard for extended improvements at the waterfront, going far beyond the limited proposals that exist. Other cities would already be preparing plans to open up as much of their riverfront as possible to welcome the new tourists and cruise ships that might be attracted, as well as the bonus of countless new Jobs.
Put an incinerator next door and all that can be forgotten. There is even a chance that some of the £15 million of private money required to kick-start the museum scheme could suddenly become unavailable if an unsightly, unhealthy and very permanent neighbour is permitted. Maybe not. But why risk it?

It is quite likely than none of the above will matter much to certain Dundee councillors who will be inclined to put political dogma before the interests of those they are supposed to represent. There has already been abundant evidence of that from leading local SNP figures whose evasiveness and disregard for public feeling and has been frankly shameful. The best they can do is apparently admit to having no opinion on the subject, a stance which makes you wonder why they bothered seeking election in the first place.

It is also more than possible that on Monday some councillors will endeavour to continue to fence-sit by deferring a decision until an air quality survey "shows" the plant will have no adverse effect on health.

It should not be necessary to remind them that every incinerator ever built in the civilised world is approved on that basis — even the ones subsequently shut down because they have contaminated the local population.