Drax Re-power

Representations received regarding Drax Re-power

The list below includes all those who registered to put their case on Drax Re-power and their relevant representations.

SourceRepresentation - click on an item to see more details
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sally Clark
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace its final two coal-burning units with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the decision in March this year by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland. The incompatibility of the proposed mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that burning gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. As the recent Oil Change International report states: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international climate change commitments. • Drax proposes to build the largest ever gas-burning power capacity in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that greater reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports or dependence on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a FOI request to the Department for BEIS has revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022. (https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) • Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of the potent greenhouse gas, methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Methane leakage in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions. • Drax’s plan to replace coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise and will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “There is no bridge fuel and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Biofuelwatch
"I would like to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace Drax's final two coal-burning units with ones that burn gas. The proposal is incompatible with a transition to a lower carbon future and is not a sustainable development, as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework. Earlier this year the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government rejected planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay. The incompatibility of the proposed mine with climate goals was a reason for the decision: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is not a sustainable development Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that burning gas at the power station will “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” To meet our obligations under the Paris Climate Agreement, it is vital for the UK to phase out fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. As the recent Oil Change International report states: “Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations to burn large quantities of gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its climate change commitments. Drax proposes to build the largest ever gas-burning power capacity in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that greater reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports or dependence on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a FOI request to the Department for BEIS has revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022. (https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) Unconventional gas production is associated with far more leakage of methane than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research shows that gas plants can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than coal ones if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Methane leakage in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions. Unconventional gas production is a controversial and unpopular process, which has historically inspired large protests opposing it. The industry and government response to this has so far been to repress protest, for example through the injunctions on protest activities imposed around Ineos and Cuadrilla's (https://bit.ly/2mvsCms) sites in 2018 and the proposed 'permitted developments' (https://bit.ly/2LyRMeM) categorisation for fracking activities. This is detrimental to local democracy and to communities' engagement with the planning process. Drax’s plan to replace coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise and will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert Howarth states: “There is no bridge fuel and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) Rather than paying for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ben Tarr
"Dear Sir / Madam, No one has the right to make fun of, or hurt, or abuse, or exploit, or murder, any other animal, for any reason. Humans are animals, and no more special than any other creature. I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Breathe Clean Air Group
"I represent the Breathe Clean Air Group. Although I live many miles away from the Drax site, I am concerned about the nation's lack of urgency about Global Warming and Climate Change and the Nation's health which is having massive impacts from air pollution caused by the burning of carbon-based fuels. I believe that the way forward is to invest in solar, wind, hydro, tidal and wave energy, which are genuinely carbon free energy sources. Therefore I wish to object to the Drax proposal to replace former coal burning power stations with larger natural gas power stations. I believe that the project is NOT a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy framework, since it is NOT compatible with a transition to a low carbon future. In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees C it is vital that the UK phase out fossil fuel (carbon based) emissions. I am most concerned that with the Government encouraging the Fracking of methane, Drax will be forced to use this dirty methane which will produce even more air pollution. The Fracking process will also liberate methane to air, contaminate ground water and use masses of public water supply which will be permanently contaminated. Research published in the Journal Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal-fired plant if just 3% of gas leaks into the atmosphere. The Drax proposal will extend the burning of fossil fuel into the 2030s and beyond. The Government needs to be looking ahead and reducing the burning of carbon-based fossil fuels as quickly as possible. Professor Robert W Howarth of Cornell University states "the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing Global Warming." (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU). I urge you to take notice of these wise words. A global catastrophe is closer than we think. The cause of our demise will be the burning of carbon based fossil fuels. It will also lead to air pollution with massive ill-health impacts. I say NO to Drax methane power plants. You should REFUSE permission to the Drax methane power plants. Yours sincerely"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carol Cooper
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Charles Nelson
"Dear Sir / Madam, I object to the Drax proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. Indeed recent information on the extreme temperature anomolies in the Arctic suggest we are heading to above 2.0 degrees. "(http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Stephen Wakeley
"Hello Gas is still a fossil fuel and I suggest it would be better to replace these units with renewable energy such as wind or solar. We have a difficult enough task to keep climate change within reasonable limits, without switching this plant to another fossil fuel. Or let it be phased out at the government end date. Kind regards Christopher Wakeley "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Clare Pargeter
" I would like to strongly object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Geall
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Hope
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Somervell
"Dear colleagues, I object in the strongest possible terms to the so-called "Drax Repower" proposal at Drax to burn natural gas. The proposal is absolutely not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” To enable the UK to meet our Paris Accord obligations to try and keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out all fossil fuel emissions as soon as practicable, not increase them. Since the Oil Change International report is very clear that “... the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields [and thereby new fossil fuel consuming facilities] is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn natural (fossil fuel) gas will undoubtedly push global climate disruption beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. Drax proposes to build the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) Please consider the following points when considering the application: 1. Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. 2. The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. 3. Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) Please recognise that more fossil fueled developments merely prolong the huge risk of climate disruption and potentially constrain options for renewable energy from wind and solar contributing to the rapid decarbonisation of the national grid. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Deborah Sawday
"I am objecting to this planning application to allow Drax to use gas as well as bio fuels to power the station. We must phase out our fossil fuel emissions as soon as possible in order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep the global temperature increase to a maximum of 1.5 degrees. Drax is already the largest emitter of CO2 emissions in the country - it is vital for us and the survival of the planet as we know it to take positive action now - and this involves using renewable energy, energy efficiency and reducing energy use over-all . Hence my objection to this planning application."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Duncan Law
"I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elspeth Barraclough
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Esme North
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: - Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” - In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. - Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) - Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. - The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. - Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gabby Taylor
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Grace Onions
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to submit an objection to the Drax Repower proposal to replace two coal-burning units with much larger ones to burn natural gas. My objection is because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. For clarity, I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Please note reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development - * Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” * In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) * Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. * Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO). * Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. * The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. Therefore Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU). I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jackie Oversby
" I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas.The proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. Planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland was refused earlier this year because the proposed coal mine was not compatible with climate goals. It was said, “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). The Drax repower proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus is not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jacqui Butterworth
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jon Skoyles
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” [Redacted] Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.”[Redacted] Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022[Redacted] + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production [Redacted]Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. [Redacted]Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” [Redacted] I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, Jon Skoyles"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jonathan Boyne
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julian Goodare
"I would like to add my voice to that of those submitting objections to the recent proposal to build new natural gas power station units at Drax power station. We don't need more power stations burning fossil fuels and releasing greenhouse gases. We need sustainable power, and we need energy conservation. The sooner we make the transition away from fossil fuels, the less painful it will be. I do hope that you will refuse this application by Drax."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julie Wreford
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
June Bostock
"I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kristrn Kleps
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Laura Goody
"Dear Madam / Sir, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Linda Lever
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Line Ringgaard
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lisa Stewart
"Don't use fossil fuels. Use renewable energy souces. For the sake of our children and our children's children."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Low Carbon Trust
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, Mischa Hewitt"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Hollinrake
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, Mark Hollinrake "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Knowles
"To whom it may concern, I am writing with concern as I understood climate change to be a major global issue that international co-operation was required on to help manage and slow. Unto this end we rightly signed the Paris 2015 Climate Agreement. However, I have seen remarkably little action in the course of us progressing into a low carbon economy, and have if anything seen a reverse. Regardless, this action of development and expansion of Drax is potentially locking the UK into a high carbon economy with poorer quality air than we should have. Perhaps the likely flooding of London and large swathes East Anglia in a couple of decades due to rising sea levels will make this moment one of many follies, giving the go ahead to fossil fuel energy infrastructure expansion and continuation. Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Martyn Rose
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” [Redacted] Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” [Redacted] Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022[Redacted] + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production [Redacted]Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. [Redacted] Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” [Redacted] I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, Martyn Rose"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mary Robertson
"This proposal seems incompatible with the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees. Opening new fossil gas fields is surely inconsistent with the Paris climate goals? We should be aiming to phase out fossil fuel emissions, not increase them."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Rosalind Collier
" Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicola Frances Gladys Packer
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Professor Patricia Howard
"Dear Sir / Madam, I am a Professor who focuses on biodiversity and ecosystem services, as well as global environmental change, at the University of Kent and at Wageningen University in the Netherlands. I am also a permanent resident of the UK. I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Bater
"Dear Sir / Madam, I understand that there is a proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones which will burn natural gas. I would like to register my objection because I don't believe the proposal represents a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. Actions to pursue a low-carbon future have been made elsewhere, for instance the decision in March this year by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited specifically as one of the grounds for the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). I cannot see that the Drax proposal differs in any significant way. Reasons I would cite why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development are: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I am firmly of the opinion that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Helson
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Roland Pargeter
"Dear Sir / Madam, I write to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ruth Griffiths
"I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Shirley Swan
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Steve Manchee
" Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Steve Overton
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Fairweather
"I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Thomas Collett
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” [Redacted] I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, [redacted]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Timothy Mullen
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Adrian Appley
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Barry Hodson
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brenda McAuliffe
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chantal Buslot
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Darren Burling
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Callow
"It is important to do more to reduce CO2 emissions. Whilst the change from coal to gas is an improvement it does not go anywhere near enough to meet the requirements to bring about a substantial reduction in emissions. I would therefore request that these plans are abandoned."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Foley
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David SmartKnight
"Dear Sir Every single peer-read revue of the climate situation says we humans are putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than the earth can sustain without creating catastrophic climate change. Indeed the UK is committed to reducing it's carbon footprint. If granted, the DRAX repower application to replace coal burning units with natural gas would completely flys in the face not only of all the science, but of the UK's National Planning Policy Framework for sustainable development, since it is entirely incompatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. On those grounds, and on behalf of the unborn generations that have no means to vote, let alone fight, for a healthy planet to be born on, I wish to register my strongest possible objection to this application. yours sincerely"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Davy King
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Geoffrey Mead
"I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Jane Milton
"I am extremely concerned to hear that you are proposing to replace coal with natural gas and wood as fuel for the Drax power station. We are perilously close already to severe and irreversible global warming. Carbon emitting fuel must be kept to an absolute minimum. This must be an absolute priority, and short term goals must be set aside for the sake of the welfare, ultimately the very survival not just of our own species, but of countless others. Any reference to 'sustainably sourced wood' is pure self deception by the way- in practice a lot of this wood comes from unsustainable and uncontrolled sources in Russian and South America, and in any case it produces as much carbon dioxide as any other 'biofuel' or indeed coal."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Peter Hirst
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elizabeth Potts
"Hello I would like to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). I believe that the reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy, and thus not a sustainable development, are as follows: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead be able to invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which is far more likely to help us to meet our climate targets. Please please PLEASE take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. With many thanks in advance for your consideration"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jessica Winkler
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kristine Vaaler
"I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” [Redacted] In my opinion, extending the use of fossil-fuel plants in this way would also adversely affect climate change and the policies put in place to minimise it."
Members of the Public/Businesses
L Warren
"I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lauren Mackenzie
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lyn Brayshaw
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Margaret Anne Evans
"I am a climate scientist. Climate Paleontology indicates that at global average surface temperatures above 14.44'C, ice sheets melt rapidly; 12,000 years ago a Canadian outburst raised global sea levels by 12 metres in 24 hours. 8200 years ago a Greenland outburst raised global sea levels 12 metres in just one day. 5000 years ago a West Antarctic outburst raised global sea levels by 10 metres. 3600 years ago, 3480 years ago and 3200 years ago, rising sea levels triggered the 3 Santorini eruptions, with 33 metre high tsunamis, 60 metre high pyroclastic flows and 270 metre high funneling up valleys. In 325 AD The Super-volcano beneath the West Antarctic Ice Sheet exploded creating a 200 km2 hole in the ice sheet, a global flood and 24,000 km2 ashfall, which ended the Medes and Persian Empire of the day. At Global Average Surface Temperatures of 14.5'C global sea levels are usually 5 metres above now. At 14.7'C sea levels are normally 7 metres above now and at 15'C sea levels are usually 10 metres above now. At 410ppm/m3 CO2 there is enough carbon in the air to trigger an 11 metre rise, however there is a 25 year lag between CO2 emissions and actual sea level rises. So our climate is currently responding to CO2 levels of 341 ppm/m3 from 1993. But as we head towards 410ppm/m3 over the next 25 years, sea levels may rise accordingly - unless we reduce carbon levels dramatically before any more years go by. We need an immediate reduction in gas, coal, and oil fired power and a massive expansion of renewable energy, desalination and desert greening to reduce sea levels, azolla fern planting in sub arctic regions, reafforestation of desertifying areas, with seed bombing and the grounding of all aeroplanes that do not meet best practice emissions standards. That would allow greenhouse gas emissions to escape out to space, potentially cooling the climate by 1'C and saving us from frying. We need to close down gas fired power stations and decommission nuclear power stations, located at sea level for water cooling, which rising seas may inundate. Dungeness for example may soon be 2 miles off-shore in the middle of the ocean. The super-volcano beneath West Antarctica currently has 138 active volcanos as part of the Pacific Ring of Fire and could explode at any time. When we hear the roar and see the fire it will be too late to act, so we need to switch to renewable energy directly or face the consequences. Thanks for listening "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Margaret Morris
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that the UK should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, ADD NAME"
Members of the Public/Businesses
May Erskine
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michelle Hayward
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mike Baker
"I object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mike Williams
"I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ms Heather Marsden
"Dear Madam / Sir I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours faithfully "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ms Rosemary A Clarke
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nikki Jones
"I am objecting to the conversion to gas of two Drax coal plants for the following reasons: 1. The full life cycle analysis of gas, when fugitive methane emissions are included, means that gas is no improvement on coal; 2. We are now adding 2 - 3 parts per million of CO2 pear year. This year we peaked at over 412ppm: 450 is considered to be the level at which we get to two degrees of warming from pre-industrial times. We cannot build more fossil-fuelled power plants; 3. The government should be taking the advice of the Committee on Climate Change and implementing fast, cost-effective measures such as the repeal of the ban on onshore wind and more efficiencies. In a recent survey, more than 80% of companies stated they are in a position to consider demand-side response but have not yet done so. As the CEO of the National Grid has pointed out, 'baseload' is 'outdated'. Nikki Jones "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Westlake
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. Climate change has now reached crisis point and we cannot afford the smallest degree of back-sliding in fighting it. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Howarth
"Object. Grounds: Climate Change To continue to build large fossil fuel infrastructure is to facilitate climate genocide."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Roger Wortley
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sally Burley
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Steve Harris
"The proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development and should therefore not be accepted."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Buss
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Chapman
"Dear Sir, I want to object to the Drax Repower proposal to repower the last coal-burning units with bigger ones for natural gas. Please stop burning my (and everyone else's) hard-earned lifetime's money. People are dying, our harvests and soils now threatened. Our seas a plastic, acidifying soup. Coral griefs on their way out. So far the world has not acted with the urgency required at speed and scale to solve the climate crisis as the poor people now caught up in forest fires are discovering. It is total insanity to carry on humanity's dangerous addiction to hydrocarbons when just 100 gigafactories can transition the whole world to clean energy. Batteries are a game-changer. Our house is 100% renewably sourced and has a battery (Tesla Powerwall) . When our own solar does not supply us in winter Ecotricity gives us the clean energy we need. And I'm a pensioner. Pathetic Bournemouth thinks it's a Green Economy Leader but is only 1.6% renewably sourced. Since the mayor of Cape Town warned the people they were about to run out of water a few months ago there has been a dramatic behavioural shift, with every drop of water now being respected. Professor of Global Change Science Simon Lewis of University College London and the University of Leeds warns that climate change should be a political priority. It is a greater threat to the Uk than EU directives, terrorism or a foreign power invading. Separately, a letter sent to Theresa May signed by 135 members of the UK's climate change research community , urged her to speak to Donald Trump about climate change impacting our security risk our overseas interests. It's odd that Donald, who wants a seawall to protect his Irish assets against climate change, does not seem to understand the deadly effects of Grenfelling our selves! The Irish themselves are, like the Church of England, divesting from fossil fuels. No more filthy dangerous muck energy thanks. Renewables and batteries please- as now being installed all over the world."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susie Laan
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Guy Simmons
"Dear Sir / Madam, This is my objection to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. The proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: + Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. You are urged to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carl-Luis Obrist
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. As such the Drax Repower proposal is an utterly irresponsible project. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
D Prentis
"I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Philippa Berry
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework. It is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elisabeth Bechmann
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Esther Juhl
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graham Gill
"I personally disagree with Drax repalcing two coal burning units with two larger ones to burn natural gas - we need to shift away from all fossil fuels. Additionally, gas production from the North Sea is in decline whilst natural gas from fracking is generally very carbon intensive."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Philpot
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Martin Alcock
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Neil Bye
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Paice
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Deane
"I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Palgrave
"Dear Sir / Madam, I am writing to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones that wil burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, as it is incompatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). The Drax Repower proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will make avoiding the 1.5 degree limit even less posible, and prevent the UK from meeting its statutory and international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary and damaging gas development, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy with energy storage and energy conservation measures, in order to manage climate change. Please refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Francis
"Dear Planning Inspectorate, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: "The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance." The proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development, because Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will "represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts." In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. This would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK, at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. The plant would therefore require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons) or reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane, making it worse for the climate than coal if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. Drax's plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units would exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. The alternative to this proposal is the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will "extend their operation into the 2030s." I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Teresa Belton
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Adam Quartermaine
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alan Fleming
" Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Clements
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chloe Tetley
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, Chloe Tetley"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Conor Coulter
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Woods
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Doreen Jaques
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
John H. Brogden
"This is my objection to the proposals listed as ENO10091"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Philip Greswell
"I will be making representation objecting to the proposed Planning Application providing reasons why it is not in the interest of the Governments in it's ambition to reduce harmful emisions which affect global warming and as a result, will create damaging climate change."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Veronica Clark
"Dear Sir or Madam, I am writing because I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I am extremely concerned that the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alexander Davey
" Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Finney
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind,l and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anne Archer
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, Dennis Archer"
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Callander
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Matilla
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr.Guy Johnson
"I do not believe that Drax should be given permission to continue burning very large quantities of fossil fuels, i.e gas and biomass, at a time when it is essential that UK CO2 emissions are reduced quickly to meet our international commitments under the Paris climate agreement, and to imrove the chances of limiting global temperature rise to within 1.5 degrees C"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Fred Mann
"Producing even more CO2 by burning fossil fuels is the wrong way to go as we can be almost certain that it is one of the main drivers of climate change. Other pollutants will also be released."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jan Palmer
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jane Wilding
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Martina Weitsch
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel does not help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Melanie Underwood
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Mitchell
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Pauline Moylan
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Roy Meddings
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Almuth Ernsting
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Calum Harvey-Scholes
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Charles Metcalfe
"Dear Planning Inspectorate people, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chris Hesketh
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christian Stuart Keegan
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Brown
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jamie Osborn
"I object to introducing natural gas-burning units at Drax. Replacing coal with gas is jumping from the frying pan into the fire - replacing dirty fossil fuel with dirty fossil fuel. The open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay was rejected planning permission earlier this year on grounds of climate change. That should equally apply to any future developments. We should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. Kind regards, [Redacted]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Janice Long
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Utting
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sue Rule
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: 1. Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. 2. Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) 3. Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. 4. The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. 5. Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I feel you should also take into consideration the huge weight of popular opinion against the development of fracking sites which has led to a number of local councils refusing permission. It is clear what route the electorate want to pursue when it comes to meeting the UK's energy needs. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sue Smith
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” [Redacted] Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” [Redacted] Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022. [Redacted] + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production [Redacted]. Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. [Redacted]. Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” [Redacted] I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, [Redacted] "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tessa Cowley
"Draxs, planning application should be refused. There is no need to use fossil fuels. Other technologies mean we can now have clean energe. If Draxs application is allowed, the climate will be effected. It is time to start halting climate change and time to protect our environment ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
William Boggia
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Thornon
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Davina Blake
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Faith Kenrick
"Dear Sir / Madam, I place my objection to the Drax Repower proposal; replacing the final two coal-burning units at Drax with huge ones to burn natural gas. I make this objection since I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, due to being incompatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. In reference to the recent decision by the prior Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year; The inappropriateness of the proposed coal mine to UK climate goals was given as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal doesn't relate to a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide, conceding in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” So to actually meet the Paris Climate Agreement of 2015 to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and stops the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel does not activate our commitment to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we through Drax and other agencies should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Larry Lima
"I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rich Felgate
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Parkin
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Foster-Collins
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alice
"I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). A gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise. I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary and backwards-looking gas development, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Food & Water Europe
"Dear Sir / Madam, I would like to object to the Drax Repower proposal which consists in replacing the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 or even 2 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural gas, which is a fossil fuel with significant impact on the climate, will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports, or, more likely, reliance on LNG imports and unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal plant if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. Until now, methane emissions, which can happen all along the life-cycle of gas, are not appropriately/at all measured and not taken into account when comparing the climate advantage of fossil gas over coal. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in energy efficiency measures and genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Heather Grinter
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Janet Chapman
"Fossil fuels must stay in the ground if we are to have any chance of preventing runaway climate change. Gas is better than coal, but it is still not good. Drax is one of the companies that emit the most carbon dioxide to produce energy. They use biofuels that in some case come from clear-felled forests. They need to clean up their act and converting from coal to gas will not do this. Converting the power station will tie them in to burning oil for decades to come. We need clean renewable energy. I object to this planning proposal."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rob Parsons
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rosamund Howe
"I object to the Drax Repower proposal to build new units burning natural gas. While I am aware that burning coal emits more carbon dioxide than burning natural gas, the objective should be to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels of any kind and to maximise the use of renewable forms of energy. The proposal runs counter to this objective. Given the finite nature of our reserves of natural gas, the proposal also appears extremely short-sighted, raising the fear that fracking may be envisaged as offering a different source of fuel with incalculable environmental risks. [Redacted]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Allen
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, [redacted]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Baker
"“Natural gas” is mainly composed of methane, which is an extremely powerful greenhouse gas – 86timesstrongerthanCO overaperiodof20years. 2 • Building this infrastructure will lock us in to decades more of fossil fuel burning, at a time when we need to be dramatically reducing our carbon emissions. • Building a new gas-fired power station will support demand for fracking, a dangerous and polluting process which communities across the UK and elsewhere in and beyond Europe have clearly said they don't want. • Transitioning to burning gas instead of coal is a way of keeping Drax open and continuing to receive subsidies for burning biomass, much of which comes from threatened forest ecosystems in the southern US. • Neither coal, biomass nor gas should still be being burnt in our power stations. Instead of building new fossil fuel capacity, we need to massively reduce our energy use, and energy we do use should come from genuinely renewable sources such as wind, waves and sun. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Philomena Grimley
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) We have wind power and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Sincerely [redacted]"
Other Statutory Consultees
The Coal Authority
"I have reviewed the proposals and checked the site location plan against our coal mining information and can confirm that, whilst the proposed development site falls within the coalfield, it is located outside of the defined Development High Risk Area, meaning that there are no recorded coal mining legacy hazards at shallow depth that could pose a risk to land stability that would need to be considered as part of this proposal. Accordingly, the Coal Authority has no comments or observations to make on this consultation. "
Other Statutory Consultees
response has attachments
Forestry Commission
"The Forestry Commission is the Government experts on forestry & woodland and a statutory consultee (as defined by Schedule 1 of The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedures) Regulations 2009)[1] for major infrastructure (Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPS)) that are likely to affect the protection or expansion of forests and woodlands (Planning Act 2008)."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Caroline Stevenson
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, [redacted]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
F D Simpson
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, [redacted]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Frances Sleap
"Dear Sir / Madam, My objection to the Drax Repower proposal is based on the danger of tying the UK into further longterm dependence on fossil fuels at a time when the habitability of the planet relies on a swift and drastic worldwide reduction of this dependence. As time goes on the progressive effects of climate change come closer to home. The increasing demand for air conditioning (for those who can afford it) as temperatures rise seems likely to further contribute to this acute global threat which stands to devastate innumerable human lives. I believe the Drax proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. So much is at stake. Yours sincerely, [redacted]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Simon Barton
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, [redacted"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rebecca Coulthard
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours faithfully, [redacted]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Greenpeace
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, [redacted]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jacqueline Walkden
"As someone who is and will be affected by climate change I want to make the point that the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, as it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. The Secretary State has set a precedent for this by refusing permission for open-case mining and stating “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” "
Members of the Public/Businesses
James Kavanagh
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. yours faithfully [redacted]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Clare Matheson
"Dear Sir / Madam,  I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State:  “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5)  Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change.  +  Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO)   +  Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. +  The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2emissions. +  Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy.  Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, [redacted] "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Treadwell
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” . Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, [redacted]"
Local Authorities
Durham County Council
"I can confirm that Durham County Council has no comments or objections to make in relation to this proposal. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julie Plumridge
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, [redacted]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Hollinrake
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, [redacted]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Matthew Burns
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely [redacted]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Melissa McClements
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Natalie Payne
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, [redacted]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Edwards
"We must stop using fossil fuels as a source of energy. We are destroying parts of our earth that cannot be replaced by us, species are going extinct at an unprecedented rate and the earth's ability to deal with increasing amounts of CO2 is severely diminished. Humans have great power and great responsibility here and unless we switch to renewables as soon as is physically possible - not financially but physically - then we have failed. Armed with all the data available any moves to continue with fossil fuels is not only irresponsible it is evil (as I understand it)."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stuart Toll
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, [redacted]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Zoe Whiteside
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. [redacted]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Lally
" wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, [redacted]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Frances Bowen
" I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graham Oliver
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, [redacted]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lauren Tindle
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours Sincerely Lauren Tindle"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Charles Marshall
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Humble
"Dear Sir/Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State:  “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5)  Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change.  +  Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO)   +  Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. +  The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. +  Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy.  Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, [redacted]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Simon Erskine
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely [redacted]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christine Way
"I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal because it is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future for the following reasons: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris Climate Agreement. In order to meet these goals to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, the UK needs to phase out fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report the extraction and burning of fossil fuels from currently proposed projects would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. ” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. This proposal to build by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This would require an increased reliance on Russian gas imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons) or a reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Although Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise. Switching from coal to shale gas will accelerate rather than slow global warming according to the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University. (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that we should invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets rather than paying for an unnecessary gas development which will contribute to climate change. I urge you to heed these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, [Christine Way] "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Emily Scrivener
" I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Brown
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, [Mark Brown]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carole Shorney
"“Natural gas” is mainly composed of methane, which is an extremely powerful greenhouse gas – 86 times stronger than CO2 over a period of 20 years. Building this infrastructure will lock us in to decades more of fossil fuel burning, at a time when we need to be dramatically reducing our carbon emissions. Building a new gas-fired power station will support demand for fracking, a dangerous and polluting process which communities across the UK and elsewhere in and beyond Europe have clearly said they don't want. Transitioning to burning gas instead of coal is a way of keeping Drax open and continuing to receive subsidies for burning biomass, much of which comes from threatened forest ecosystems in the southern US. Neither coal, biomass nor gas should still be being burnt in our power stations. Instead of building new fossil fuel capacity, we need to massively reduce our energy use, and energy we do use should come from genuinely renewable sources such as wind, waves and sun"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Felix Haslam
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. Humankind cannot survive without the ecosystems which are being irreversibly destroyed by emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels (as well as the extraction of them), and so much worse human suffering will be caused if pollution like that continues. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, [Felix Haslam]"
Non-Statutory Organisations
Fuel Poverty Action
"Fuel Poverty Action strongly oppose the “Drax Re-power” proposal to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It is extraordinary that at a time when the reality and devastating effects of climate change are more evident every day, a proposal to extend and prolong the life of a fossil-fuel plant should even be considered. Outline: A. “Negative climate impacts” cost lives, and also have major financial costs, for heating, cooling, food, and health care. We cannot afford this development. B. These negative impacts set up vicious circles exacerbating climate change including through the need for air conditioning. C. Expanding any gas-fired generation is incompatible with climate commitments, and fracking, which Drax would rely on, is worse, because of methane emissions. D. The UK public rejects fracking, embraces renewable energy, and cannot accept the argument that increasing use of gas is a transition to a low carbon future. Text: A. Energy customers are often told that fossil fuels are the only (relatively) cheap and realistic way to “keep the lights on” and avoid unaffordable bills. The truth is that we cannot afford these fuels. Drax, already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide, admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that repowering to burn gas will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” “Negative climate impacts” cost lives, and also have major financial costs, for heating, cooling, food, and health care. The intolerable UK average of 9,700 excess winter deaths a year due to people being unable to heat their homes and eat may soon get worse: early hopes that bills might be brought down in the UK by “global warming” have been shredded not only by research but by the experience of winter 2017-18 with its intense prolonged cold: a predicted effect of “climate chaos”. (https://bit.ly/2vlsydR)(https://bit.ly/2vigmdE) Now many in fuel poverty struggle in the summer as well, to keep food or medicines cool, and people who are elderly, ill or in other ways more vulnerable to heat now need air conditioning to survive. Many who do not have/cannot afford air conditioning, both in the UK and in hotter countries, die of the heat. The 70,000 death toll from Europe’s summer heat wave in 2003 makes the World Health Organisation’s estimate of 250,000 deaths a year caused by climate change by 2030 look extremely conservative. There were an extra 650 deaths in just two weeks of the June-July 2018 heatwave in England and Wales alone. Meanwhile climate change is leading to higher food prices as agriculture suffers, worsens air quality (in terms of pollution, ozone, pollen) and leads to other major health costs as laid out by the World Health Organisation, who anticipate a $2-4 billion annual cost to health by 2030. (https://bit.ly/2vjlHBG) B. The “negative climate impacts” are not only immediate but in many ways set up vicious spirals exacerbating climate change. Air conditioning stands to contribute substantially to a vicious circle, producing higher temperatures which make more air conditioning necessary (https://bit.ly/2LS13ml). The unpredictability of a world in “climate chaos” is itself expensive, forcing energy suppliers to make provision for peaks in demand which push up the cost of fuel and which may rely on emergency diesel or other fossil fuel generators with even worse carbon emissions than “normal” power plants. Meanwhile, both droughts and floods, rising sea levels and fires in forests, moors, and even urban green spaces, impose major costs on individuals and on governments, and cause more vicious spirals of warming. C. With oil production in decline, it is likely that a major source of gas for Drax would be fracking. While “Opening new fossil gas fields” of any kind is “ inconsistent with the Paris climate goals”, fracking, with its high leakage of methane gas, is worse. Methane is 25 times more damaging than carbon dioxide. BEIS’s Public Attitude Tracker says only 18% of the public support fracking, and it is furiously opposed by local populations who face destruction of their environment, water, and air quality. It is therefore utterly shocking that the government expects there to be 30 to 35 sites by 2022 (https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO). The expansion of gas fired power generation at Drax would help lock in this plan, which defies all reason, as well as defying the Paris agreement and National Planning Policy Frameworks which define as unsustainable developments which are incompatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. D. We do not believe the UK public will ever accept the idea that creating the biggest ever gas-burning power station will create a “transition” or “bridge” to decarbonisation because gas is not as bad as coal. Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). But the effects of increasing gas capacity go much further, and include the substitution of gas for developing genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar sources of energy, and also heat sources for homes (eg via heat pumps and using waste heat). The arguments against the spurious “bridge” argument are well laid out in the recent and widely endorsed study, "Debunked: The G20 Clean Gas Myth". (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). In sharp contrast to fracking, 85% of the UK public support renewable energy. For keeping homes warm, insulation and other energy saving measures are often the most effective, and cost-effective choice. The investment required to repower Drax could instead insulate homes. We believe that the Planning Inspectorate has a moral, and arguably a legal responsibility to refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. It would be a development that UK energy users cannot afford, in terms of our personal finances, our health and life expectancy, our well-being, and our futures. A fully referenced version of this submission is available at fuelpovertyaction.org.uk "
Non-Statutory Organisations
response has attachments
Harrogate District Friends of the Earth
"See attachment"
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Snowdon
"I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s current production and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit globally and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. 1. Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) 2. Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. 3. The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. 4. Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. Please note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely [J. Snowdon]"
Non-Statutory Organisations
NATS LTD
"NATS anticipates no impact from the proposal and accordingly has no comments to make on the application. Regards [S. Rossi] NATS Safeguarding Office"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Daw
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours faithfully, [Peter Daw]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Janet Milton
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, [Janet Milton]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alicia Forsberg
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, [Alicia Forsberg]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Shirleen Stibbe
"I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gilian Cleeve
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. Drax’s plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in more efficient use of energy. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, [Gilian Cleeve]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graham Lingley
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, [Graham Lingley.]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Andrews
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax proposal to replace two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting on the grounds that the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, because it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future, primarily because it will rely on fracked gas. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is essential for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas which is likely to be fracked. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Barry Dalgleish
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) The evidence is clear. Rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely [Barry Dalgleish] "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Philippa Roddis
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, [Philippa Roddis]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rebecca Wade
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, [Rebecca Wade]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Keene
"I wish to oppose the application on the grounds that it could lead to runaway climate change, resulting in the death of billions of people worldwide this century"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Claudia Riccomini
"Dear Sir or Madam, I am writing to you to express objections to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. The proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. The then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government rejected planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year, citing the incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Why is this proposal incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development? Firstly, Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. Secondly, Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. Increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. Thirdly, Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, [Claudia Riccomini]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Anna Johnson
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, [Anna Johnson]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Greg Peakin
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, [Greg Peakin]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jamie Russell
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, [Jamie Russell]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Katarina Kositzki
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kevin Daws
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, [Kevin Daws]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Melanie Cartwright
"I am writing to object to the Drax proposal for a gas powered power station, because as a country we have signed up to Paris Accord and so we should not be increasing our CO2 emissions. Instead we should be building more wind farms, onshore as well as off shore."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robin Gill
"I oppose the Drax application principally because: 1. The current trend in power generation in the UK and elsewhere is moving away from traditional large centralised carbon-burning power stations such as Drax to a more sustainable distributed generation mix that includes an increasing proportion of low cost renewables. 2. The UK's commitment to the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement requires us to reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050; moreover the government has plans to reduce fossil carbon emissions further to net-zero in the next 30 years. The increase in fossil carbon emissions implied by the Drax application does not meet either of these requirements, hampering the UK's transition to a sustainable low carbon future. 3. Gas production in the North Sea is predicted to decline from 2022. Fuelling the proposed huge gas Drax in coming decades therefore implies Russian gas imports or the use of unconventional gas, which is environmentally unsustainable. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen Vardigans
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, [Stephen Vardigans] "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Teresa Fitzsimmons
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, [Teresa Fitzsimmons]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Plunkett
"Burning gas at Drax is ridiculous if we want to meet climate change targets. However these are not just some philosophical “targets”. This will be the world that our grandchildren and future generations will have live with, especially if bad decisions like this are made now. Climate damage now will be irreversible. We do not need to switch any current UK power stations to another fuel type, especially Drax that would need imported gas or fracking as its source. Gas reserves are limited and will only last another twenty years or so. It is far better to shut this polluting plant down now. We also do not need expensive nuclear plants, which have so much capacity to go wrong, as we have seen at Chernobyl or Fukushima. This is classic short term thinking to just convert the polluting power plant into gas. The Uk and the world need to develop green energy (solar, wind, tidal) and grid storage in battery capacity. This is an uneconomic plant, but the owners should not try to switch to gas. Instead it should put the research, finance and employment opportunities into battery power storage. The rest of the world really needs battery storage capacity. The owners must realise that the UK could become a market leader in power storage, but not when companies just concentrate on their share price and look backward. The government must reject this proposal."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Nicola Hall
"Dear Sir or Madam, I write to object to the Drax Repower proposal that would replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with far larger, natural gas ones. I object because this proposal is not "sustainable development" (as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework) - it is not compatible with transition to low-carbon future. The recent decision (March 2018) by then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, rejecting planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland is salient. Incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was one of the grounds for the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). The proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development because: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide. Its Preliminary Environmental Information Report admits that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station would: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” To meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, the UK MUST phase out fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. A recent Oil Change International report said: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) To permit power stations like Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. Drax proposes to build by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever in the UK, although the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) will peak soon - circa 2022. So increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant methane leakage, far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology points out that a gas plant can become an overall bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if a mere 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping due to wind and solar generation) and so contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper, not help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) Instead of paying for, and buying into, unnecessary gas development that is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave, tide and solar energy to meet our climate targets. Please act on these vital concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, [Nicola Hall (Dr)]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joseph Nicholas
"I am writing to object to Drax Power's proposal to replace its final two coal-burning units with much larger ones to burn natural gas, which is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework because it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. Drax is the UK's single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that burning fossil (natural) gas at the power station will "represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have negative climate impacts". But if the UK is to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for fossil fuel emissions to be phased out, not increased. According to a recent Oil Change International report: "the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits". Permitting Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas means that the UK will exceed the 1.5 degree limit and prevent it from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. 1. Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) has said (in response to an FoI request) that the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022. 2. Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane, far more so than conventional gas production. Research published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal plant if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. 3. The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. 4. Drax’s proposal to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the UK’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax claims that gas is a useful "transition fuel" between coal and renewable energy as the burning of unabated coal is phased out by 2025, but the real alternative to its proposal is the closure of the two coal power units, which would result in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help the UK to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will "extend their operation into the 2030s". As the ecosystem scientist Professor Robert Howarth of Cornell University says, "the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming". I believe that, rather than paying for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, the UK should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I therefore urge you to refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas."
Other Statutory Consultees
Natural England
"PART I: Summary of Natural England’s advice. Natural England does not consider that the proposal is likely to have a significant impact on any nationally or internationally designated nature conservation sites or nationally designated landscapes, and that sufficient mitigation measures have been put in place to avoid significant impacts on protected species. PART II: Natural England’s detailed advice 1.1. Natural England’s advice in these relevant representations is based on information submitted by Drax Power Ltd in support of its application for a Development Consent Order (‘DCO’) in relation to Drax Repowering. 1.2. Natural England has been working closely with Drax Power Ltd to provide advice and guidance since October 2017. 1.3. These relevant representations contain a summary of what Natural England considers the main nature conservation, landscape and related issues to be in relation to the DCO application, and indicate the principal submissions that it wishes to make at this point. Natural England will develop these points further as appropriate during the examination process. It may have further or additional points to make, particularly if further information about the project becomes available. 1.4. Natural England has worked successfully with Drax Power Ltd and there are no substantive outstanding matters. 2. The natural features potentially affected by this application 2.1. The following European / nationally protected species may be affected by the proposed project: 2.1.1. Great crested newt 2.1.2. Badger 2.1.3. Water vole 2.1.4. Bats 2.1.5. Reptiles 2.1.6. Nesting birds ? Part II: NATURAL ENGLAND’S RELEVANT REPRESENTATIONS IN RESPECT OF DRAX REPOWERING 3. Planning Inspectorate Reference: EN010091 3.1. Natural England has no objection to the project for the following reasons: 3.1.1. The applicant has submitted a thorough Environmental Statement which we are satisfied demonstrates beyond reasonable scientific doubt that there would be no significant effect on the integrity of any European sites. 3.1.2. All protected species issues (including any licensing requirements under the Habitats Regulations or the 1981 Act) can be addressed by the proposed draft DCO requirement 16. 3.1.3. Natural England welcomes the biodiversity enhancements as set out in the Landscape and Biodiversity Strategy which will have a positive effect on the natural environment by creating and enhancing habitats of biodiversity value on the site. This is in accordance with the principles set out in paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Natural England notes that this commitment is reflected in proposed Requirement 8 of the draft DCO. Natural England therefore advises that this requirement should be secured by a suitably worded requirement in the DCO, if the project is approved. 3.2. Natural England’s headline points are that on the basis of the information submitted: 3.2.1. Natural England is satisfied that the potential impacts of the project on nationally and internationally designated nature conservation sites, nationally designated landscapes and protected species have been adequately addressed. 3.2.2. Natural England advises that, if approved, the project must be subject to all necessary and appropriate requirements which ensure that unacceptable environmental impacts either do not occur or are sufficiently mitigated. Natural England 16th August 2018 "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Deirdre Henderson
"ear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, [Deirdre Henderson]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nancy Inness
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, [Nancy Inness]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Deborah Loe
"Dear Sir/Madam I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Commmunities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds for the decision by the ecretary of State: "The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance." (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx) REASONS WHY THE PROPOSAL IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH A TRANSITION TO A LOW CARBON ECONOMY AND THUS NOT A SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. *Drax is already the UK's single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will "represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts." In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out its fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report "the coal, oil and fossil gas in the world's currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals." (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power station such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. *Drax proposes to build what would be by by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK, coming at a time when the UK's North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons) or more likely reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed that the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022. (https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) * Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methan - far more so that conventional gas production. (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Research published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere . (https://bit.ly/2uOhG3v) Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. *The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer=term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping reaplidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. *Drax's Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the UK's transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful 'transition fuel' between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of 'unabated coal' by 2025. The alternative to Drax's Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will "extend their operation into the 2030s". As the ecoscientist Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states "the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming." (http:/biy.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. I have to say that I can now see why the Government is so keen on fracking! Yours faithfully [Deborah Loe] "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Erik Williams
"Dear Sir/Madam I am writing to express concern at the proposed replacement of coal with gas at the Drax Power Station. I believe that substituting one fossil fuel for another will not help us fulfil our commitments under the Paris Climate Agreement, especially as Drax is the UK’s single biggest emitter of carbon dioxide and the proposal is to burn gas until the 2030s. The government is obliged to take environmental consideration into account when considering developments such as the one proposed for Drax. If the third runway at Heathrow is built, the UK will be in any case hard put to it to reduce its greenhouse emissions under the Paris agreement. There is also the question of the source of the gas for Drax. Supplies from the North Sea are, or shortly will be, in decline. And Russia can hardly be regarded as a reliable long-tern source. Fracking is not a safe means of extracting gas as far as the environment and global-warming are concerned. Renewable fuels are a much safer source of energy than gas and I hope you will promote these rather than allow Drax to go over to gas. Yours faithfully [Erik Williams] "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Adrian Fielding
"Dear Sir / Madam, I have not copied and pasted the following well worded and reasoned argument blithely. I have read it carefully and decided that it is a succinct representation of a very sensible view that I share and that I could not put it better in under 500 words. I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” [redacted] Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” [redacted] Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022[redacted] + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production [redacted]). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. [redacted]Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” [redacted] I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, Adrian Fielding"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Glyn Roberts
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” [redacted] Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” [redacted] Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” [redacted] I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, Glyn Roberts"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Patricia Keogh
" Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, [Patricia Keogh] "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Roshan Lal
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” [redacted] Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.”[redacted] Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022. [redacted] + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production [redacted] Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. [redacted] Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” [redacted] I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, Roshan Lal"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Caroline Snow
"I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Pascoe Sabido
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, Pascoe Sabido"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ceri Pryke-Hendy
"As an environmentalist, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future (please see the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year, https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: + Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.”. In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Connolly
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. It is time to build a responsible future for our children and our planet. Yours sincerely, Dr Christopher Connolly "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Frack Free Exmoor Quantocks and Sedgemoor
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, Kevin Ogilvie-White "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Global Justice Now
"Dear Sir or Madam, Please accept the submission below which describes why we object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. Like many others, we are objecting because we believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. We refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). We believe that the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development for the following reasons: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) We believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, investment should instead be made into genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. We urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, Liz Murray Global Justice Now (Scotland)"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Martin King
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, Martin King"
Other Statutory Consultees
Public Health England
"Thank you for your letter that invites Public Health England (PHE) to provide a Registration of Interest relating to the above Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP). We note that we have replied to earlier consultations as listed below and this response should be read in conjunction with that earlier correspondence. Request for Scoping Opinion 6 October 2017 Section 42 Request 28 February 2018 We are pleased to see that the comments PHE provided following the Section 42 process have been addressed as part of the environmental statement. On this occasion we have no additional comments to provide at this stage of the NSIP application. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or concerns. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Steve Rolfe
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely, Steve Rolfe"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Eleanor Leach
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power stations such as Drax to burn large quantities of natural (fossil fuel) gas will push us beyond the 1.5 degree limit and prevent the UK from meeting its international commitments to tackle climate change. + Drax proposes to build what would be by far the largest gas-burning power capacity ever built in the UK. It comes at a time when the UK’s North Sea gas production is in long-term decline and Norwegian gas production (the main source of gas imports) is predicted to peak around 2022. This means that increased reliance on gas would require either increased Russian imports (an unlikely option for geopolitical reasons), or, more likely, reliance on unconventional gas, especially hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and horizontal drilling. There are already 3 active shale gas sites in the UK and a Freedom of Information request to The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) revealed the government expects there to be approximately 17 sites by 2020 and around 30 to 35 sites by 2022.(https://bit.ly/2z2rmQO) + Unconventional gas production is associated with significant leakage of methane – far more so than conventional gas production (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5). Research published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology suggests that a gas plant can become a bigger source of greenhouse gas emissions than a coal one if just 3% of the gas leaks into the atmosphere. (https://bit.ly/2u0hG3v). Leakage of methane in the production of gas for Drax would therefore significantly increase carbon emissions over and above the smokestack emissions of burning the gas. + The smokestack CO2 emissions from new gas units will exceed the longer-term average CO2 emissions per unit of electricity (which have been dropping rapidly due to greater wind and solar power use) and thus contribute to higher long-term UK CO2 emissions. + Drax’s Repower plan to burn large quantities of gas will hamper rather than help the U.K.’s transition to low carbon energy. Drax argues that gas can be a useful ‘transition fuel’ between coal and renewable energy as the UK government phases out the burning of ‘unabated coal’ by 2025. The alternative to Drax’s Repower proposal will be the closure of the two coal power units, resulting in genuine and significant carbon reductions. Replacing coal with another fossil fuel cannot help us to decarbonise, particularly since Drax has said that repurposing two coal units to burn gas will “extend their operation into the 2030s.” As the ecosystem scientist, Professor Robert W Howarth, from Cornell University, states: “the only path forward is to reduce the use of all fossil fuels as quickly as possible. There is no bridge fuel, and switching from coal to shale gas is accelerating rather than slowing global warming.” (https://bit.ly/2AtUBeU) I believe that, rather than being forced to pay for an unnecessary gas development which is bad for the climate, we should instead invest in genuinely renewable wind, wave and solar energy which can help us to meet our climate targets. I urge you to take note of these concerns and refuse permission for Drax to start burning gas. Yours sincerely,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Felicia Ronnholm
"Dear Sir / Madam, I wish to object to the Drax Repower proposal to replace the final two coal-burning units at Drax with much larger ones to burn natural gas. I am objecting because I believe the proposal is not a sustainable development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, since it is not compatible with a transition to a low-carbon future. I refer to the recent decision by the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to reject planning permission for an open-cast coal mine at Druridge Bay in Northumberland in March this year. The incompatibility of the proposed coal mine with climate goals was cited as one of the grounds of the decision by the Secretary of State: “The negative impact on greenhouse gases and climate change receives very considerable adverse weight in the planning balance.” (https://bit.ly/2pvXoxx). Reasons why the proposal is incompatible with a transition to a low carbon economy and thus not a sustainable development: Drax is already the U.K.’s single largest emitter of carbon dioxide and admits in its Preliminary Environmental Information Report that the burning of fossil (natural) gas at the power station will: “represent a significant net increase in greenhouse gas emissions and have therefore negative climate impacts.” In order to meet the Paris Climate Agreement to keep global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees, it is vital for the UK to phase out our fossil fuel emissions, not increase them. According to a recent Oil Change International report: “the coal, oil, and fossil gas in the world’s currently producing and under-construction projects, if fully extracted and burned, would take the world far beyond safe climate limits. Opening new fossil gas fields is inconsistent with the Paris climate goals.” (https://bit.ly/2NkdGE5) Permitting power