Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner. Facebook Messenger An icon of the facebook messenger app logo. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Facebook Messenger An icon of the Twitter app logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. WhatsApp Messenger An icon of the Whatsapp messenger app logo. Email An icon of an mail envelope. Copy link A decentered black square over a white square.

Forth Energy still undecided on pursuit of biomass plan

Five months ago Dundee City Council decided to formally object to the £325 million proposal for the citys harbour.
Five months ago Dundee City Council decided to formally object to the £325 million proposal for the citys harbour.

Forth Energy have still to decide whether to pursue their plans to build a giant biomass plant at Dundee.

Five months ago Dundee City Council decided to formally object to the controversial £325 million proposal for the city’s harbour a decision that triggered a public inquiry.

Forth Energy would have to present their case at the inquiry, for which no date has yet been set. They said after the council decision that they would consider their position on the project, and that situation remains.

A spokesman told The Courier: “We continue to consider our position on our proposals for a combined heat and power renewable energy facility in Dundee.”

The lack of a date for an inquiry and Forth Energy’s reluctance so far to commit to that stage of the process could put the project in doubt.

The Dundee biomass proposal could take two years to go through the Scottish Government’s public scrutiny judging by the time taken for the company’s proposal for Grangemouth to be approved.

If the Dundee proposal follows a similar path, and does receive Scottish Government backing, that decision may not be taken until 2016.

There would then be another three years for further air quality tests and construction, meaning the project may not be completed until 2019. Extending the timescale could affect the viability of the project, if it is going to take until 2019 to produce electricity and heat, and make any money.

The company, a joint venture between Forth Ports and Scottish and Southern Energy, did defend the environmental credentials of the Dundee project in response to continued criticism from Friends of the Earth Tayside.

FoE said a new report had put Forth Energy’s claims that the proposed Dundee plant would be environmentally sustainable into further doubt.

The study by Biofuelwatch, the World Rainforest Movement and a Brazilian group, said that during the public inquiry about Forth Energy’s successful Grangemouth biomass application, the company’s consultants tried to rebut concerns about sustainability by referring to wood from fast-growing eucalyptus plantations certified as ‘sustainable’ in Brazil.

The study has found that these plantations had been created by bulldozing a biodiverse ecosystem on which traditional communities depend for their livelihood. Territories and forests had been removed from the communities who had been stopped from maintaining their way of life.

Andrew Llanwarne of Friends of the Earth Tayside said: “The city council decision in June focused on the local impacts of the proposed biomass power station, on air quality and the appearance of the Waterfront.

“This investigation confirms that the damaging impacts of big biomass projects extend much further, to social and environmental destruction in the countries where timber is harvested.”

Forth Energy say the wood pellets they would ship to Dundee would come from an abundant supply in North America and not from eucalyptus plantations in Brazil.

The Dundee biomass plant was first delayed for more information about impact on air quality. Tests concluded that nitrogen dioxide emissions from the plant would be negligible although this was disputed by the scheme’s critics.

The plant would employ up to 500 people during construction and about 70 permanent staff thereafter.

Its near 100 metre stack would dominate the area and opponents said it would spoil views along the waterfront. The V&A said they would have no problem with the site as a near neighbour, however.