Home > FOE Cymru > Press Releases > 2004: Anglesey gas plant would be a waste of gas and LNG terminal may be dangerous say environmental campaigners

Making life better for people by inspiring solutions to environmental problems

Ymddiheuriadau. Dim ond yn y Saesneg mae datganiadau i'r wasg Cyfeillion y Ddaear i'w cael. Am ragor o wybodaeth gweler ein Cynllun yr Iaith Gymraeg.

Anglesey gas plant would be a waste of gas and LNG terminal may be dangerous say environmental campaigners

A proposal for a large gas power station on Anglesey should be turned down on grounds of low energy efficiency especially as it would use liquid natural gas (LNG) imported from the Middle East, environment campaigners said today (1). Friends of the Earth Cymru has pointed out that there are much more efficient methods of burning gas for power which would reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and could create more jobs.

The environmental campaigners say that the LNG terminal itself could, depending on size and location, pose a public safety risk and that the threat of terrorism should be considered as part of the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) risk assessment and planning application process. A US Congress/Senate report on LNG terminals warns that a LNG tanker fire would cause second degree burns at two miles in less than one minute, and that LNG facilities should not be located near people. Two similar LNG terminals in Milford Haven were given the green light by Pembrokeshire National Park Council in recent months (2).

Neil Crumpton, energy campaigner at Friends of the Earth Cymru said,

"We think the gas plant idea should be turned down because of its low energy efficiency. Indeed in terms of emissions of climate changing carbon dioxide, using LNG imported from the Middle East to fire combined cycle gas plants is little better than the emissions from coal burnt in new coal power station technology, and the security and safety risks are far smaller with coal.

“At a time when we need to be reducing our dependence on fossil fuels from the Middle East it is a pity that old fashioned, inefficient technology such as this should be proposed for North Wales.

"As for the LNG terminal itself, it could pose a public safety risk depending on its size and location. And there are strategic questions regarding energy security. The UK could quickly become very dependent on LNG gas from Middle East as the UK sector North Sea gas resources run down in the next few years. Possibly 10-20% of the UK's forecast gas demand for 2010 could be supplied by LNG through Milford Haven and now possibly Amlwch. Politicians and the public need to be much more aware about the UK's increasing dependence on importing LNG gas from an unstable Middle East. Decision-making at national level and a national strategy are needed rather that strategic decisions being taken by local politicians.

"A national strategy is also needed for energy storage infrastructure in the UK. There is a strong case for increasing gas storage capacity and the ex-Shell tank-farm site may be appropriate. Yet the recent Energy White paper while saying storage capacity should be increased for energy security reasons, gives little further detail."

Notes

1) The proposal by Canatxx, an American company, which wanted to build a CCGT gas plant on Anglesey several years ago, would use LNG from a new terminal proposed to be built at the Great Lakes chemical site near Amlwch. The LNG would be imported from the Middle East.

The energy used in liquefaction and re gasification of LNG is an energy-intensive operation. The gas's carbon reduction value reduces by up to 30% overall making it doubly inefficient for electricity generation in combined -cycle gas plants (CCGT) - the type likely to be chosen in rural locations - which compare poorly with CHP gas plants (60% versus 80+%). LNG from Qatar would emit 660 grammes/kW hour if used in CCGT electricity generation and 695 grammes / kWhour using gas from Russia. This compares to 440 grammes / kWhour using North Sea gas in CCGT. This also suggests a 30% plus reduction in its carbon reduction value.

By comparison 'clean coal' (IGCC) is 705 grammes / kWhour which is not much greater than imported LNG - and renewables are obviously much much less.

2) Two similar LNG terminals in Milford Haven were given the green light by Pembrokeshire National Park Council in recent months. Soon afterwards the HSE said in a public meeting to reassure Haven residents about safety, that the threat of terrorism was NOT considered in the risk analysis. This is despite the fact that the gas would come from the Middle East and the terminal would a major and vulnerable American owned facility located in Britain (Exxon are closely associated to US/ Bush's energy policy).

The campaigners say that proposals for gas storage at the ex-Shell tank-farm site may be viable and extra storage capacity is needed in the UK. They think that the public and many politicians are unaware how dependent the UK could become on imported LNG from an unstable Middle East. They would like to see more debate and a national strategy on energy security issues, particularly LNG imports and UK gas storage capacity, with decisions taken at national level.

Friends of the Earth Cymru website for press releases about LNG safety and LNG terminal developments in Milford Haven

LNG is a huge public safety risk from accident but more importantly terrorism - if a tanker catches fire it would cause second degree burns at two miles in one minute - and yet the Pembrokeshire terminals are only one mile from towns, communities, oil refineries etc around the Haven. Friends of the Earth Cymru pressed environment minister Carwyn Jones to call the planning application in (for the Exxon terminal) but he did not and Pembrokeshire NP Council passed it on grounds of economic regeneration and local jobs. A few weeks later the HSE finally gave a public presentation on safety aspects – and they said that the terrorist risk was no assessed - so no advice was given to councillors on a major public safety hazard.