I've become convinced that the UK government must a giant map somewhere, where power projects and communities are shifted around like so many pieces in a game of chess. Of course, for people who live nowhere near any of these projects, it's quite easy to be abstract and detached.
For people who have to live in the shadow of them for the rest of their lives, it can be a living hell.
Some communties seem quite happy to accept what's foisted on them. Others take a stand and fight back. And sometimes, they win. The fact that many of those communities happen to be in England, however, can create problems for poorer areas of the UK, where people may be happier to accept a few crumbs off the table.
Take Canvey Island, Essex, for example. The local council took a stand and fought off a proposal by Calor Gas, Centrica and Japan LNG to build a giant LNG terminal in the area. The scheme was earmarked to be operational by 2011. But in October of this year Calor Gas announced that they were withdrawing from the scheme, effectively killing the project.
This created a problem for the UK government. Canvey was provisionally earmarked to bring in 5.4 billion cubic metres of gas every year, a substantial proportion of the UK's overall demand. With the scheme dead, that supply will now have to come from somewhere else.
So goodbye Canvey, and hello Amlwch. And by sheer coincidence this scheme has been earmarked to be up and running by 2011 too! It all fits together so neatly...
Amlwch, however, is already a much bigger project, by Canatxx' own admission;
"When operating the plant is designed to regasify up to 3 bcf per day of LNG. This represents between 25% and 33% of UK daily total demand for gas. It will take 24 hours to discharge a tanker. At peak it is estimated that three tankers would be discharged a week."
With this plant up and running, by the UK government's target date of 2011, Amlwch, combined with Milford Haven in the south, will be importing approximately 50% of the UK's total gas requirement. Anybody who wants to take it out will know where to come.
But with a much lower population density, West and North Wales are much safer bets to site these controversial projects. People are desperate for the jobs, and planners and our representatives are happy to nod them through. So what price a couple of thousand Welsh lives, compared to the much more densely populated areas of the south east of England?
6 comments:
Got gas central heating? If you don't want the gas importing, then turn off your heating, and whilst you're at it, convince everyone else to do the same. You'd better turn your lights off too as a good chunk of the UK's electricity comes from gas powered generation too.
Bit defensive, aren't we? So I take it you're not disputing all the facts presented here then? Thanks!
And if you're concerned with people objecting to gas, I suggest you pop down the road and take your complaint to Canvey Island's local council - they're the ones who threw out a key infrastructure project after all...
Draig,
I'm not disputing your facts. But it's hardly fair to assume that this is an anti-Welsh thing is it??? Most of the UK's gas has flowed in through a Scottish gas terminal for many years, and it is only with the decline in production in the UK gas fields that the UK has had to start sourcing its gas further afield, necessitating projects such as those at Milford Haven and Anglesey.
At the end of the day, as you point out yourself, parts of Wales have a much lower population density than the rest of the UK. Therefore doesn't it make sense to site the projects in these locations?
And "a couple of thousand [Welsh] lives rather than the more densely populated areas of SE England." The national identity of the people in question is hardly relevant is it when you're considering HUMAN lives? Unless you're Xenophobic that is.....
Anonymous,
It may make more sense to you (as someone in the industry, probably) to site these projects in less populated areas, but this doesn't answer the question of whether these projects are safe or not. Can you answer that question for me?
And in any case, you've contradicted yourself.
On the one hand you take a rather high-handed attitude and claim that it should be about "human" lives, and on the other you reason that it makes more sense to site these projects in "less populated areas". Why? Because they'll kill less people?
If "humanity" is really so important to you then all lives have intrinsic value, and whether it kills one or one thousand is hardly the point.
These projects should be put where the demand is, but I supect if the wealthier areas of the UK were forced to eat the true consequences of their appetite for energy, they wouldn't be so keen to consume it so recklessly...
To be honest, I agree with your thoughts on relentless energy consumption. So maybe our view points aren't a million miles apart after all!
Have you come across the film "A Crude Awakening" - goes hand in hand quite nicely with Al Gore's "An Inconvient Truth".
We're a Hydro Carbon obsessed society, and unfortunately we'll do anything to feed this hunger.
LNG is safe... though as with most things, as long as it is handled properly. Trust me, the industry does have a vested interest in NOT killing people!
Is the word "England" intentionally emblazoned all over Wales on the map? Was it part of the point of the article?
Post a Comment