• Pages

  • Advertisements

Banned in Denmark but OK here?

What would you do if you wanted to test carbon capture technology on dirty old coal but couldn’t do it in your own country? Yes, try it here in Scotland! According to an article in the Sunday Herald, the Hunterston proposal would not be permitted in Denmark because it causes too much climate-wrecking pollution. Environmentalists, experts and Danish politicians say that Dong Energy, based in Copenhagen, would not be allowed to build the kind of carbon-emitting plant it is proposing for the North Ayrshire port of Hunterston in its home country. But here in Scotland, we have a Government which thinks coal is great and a fuel of the future. Worse still, overall energy policy is reserved to Westminster, where hopes are hung not just on so-called clean coal but also on nuclear power. Houston – we have a problem…

If built, the new plant at Hunterston would be the first new fossil fuel power station in Scotland for 30 years. Without abatement technology, it would also hugely boost our carbon dioxide emissions, and jeopardise the government’s targets to cut climate pollution. Dong insists the plant will be “carbon capture ready”, enabling its pollution to be trapped and stored. But critics argue that this is a meaningless promise while carbon capture technology is still in its infancy and super-critical SANC don’t rate carbon capture as a solution at all.

“It is hypocritical and unacceptable for Dong to propose a plant in Scotland that would not win approval in their home country,” said Dr Richard Dixon, director of WWF Scotland. Yup, but what can we do? Answers here please!


2 Responses

  1. Dear Jim
    We have decided not to post your comment because using the term “Chinks” for the Chinese may be construed as offensive. However, we did wish to reply as your opinions are surprisingly common.

    While you may consider us numties (it’s numpties, actually!), our arguments against coal are based on what we believe to be robust research. For example, please read the Poyry report (http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/reports/implications-of-the-uk-meeting-its-2020-renewable-energy-targets), which clearly states that we do not need either coal or nuclear to keep the lights on.

    There are many technologies which, for whatever reasons, are not being pursued including Combined Heat & Power as well as wave, tidal and solar power. It is not all about windmills on hills. Furthermore, China spends a far higher proportion on green energy than the UK. Something like half of China’s emissions are due to its export trade with countries like ours. Too many people seek to blame others when they should be examining their own lifestyles and consumption patterns.

    We are perfectly happy to engage in reasoned debate on our website. If you would like to provide evidence to support your claims we will happily take a look, provided you takes a look at ours.

    SANC does not necessarily believe everything we are told by politicians and corporate businessmen with a financial interest in the coal industry. Reducing energy demand is paramount whether one believes that climate change is caused by fossil fuel emissions or not. Energy will become increasingly expensive and that will impact on all of us. Contrary to your belief, groups like SANC are trying to avoid a return to the dark ages.

    Yours sincerely

    SANC webmaster

  2. Communities Opposed to New Coal at Hunterston now have a website up and running. Web address is;



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: