DOCSLIB.ORG

$23-Billion Carbon Loophole at Drax: CO2 Emissions Disclosure

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
$23-Billion Carbon Loophole at Drax: CO2 Emissions Disclosure Pricing tomorrow’s cost of carbon today $23-billion Carbon Loophole at Drax: CO2 emissions disclosure requirements legitimately conceal the true cost of damage to the planet Drax Power Station - Carbon Value at Risk Case Study Executive Summary Edward Coe February 2018 About PAL PAL is the world’s only company to have scientifically determined the actual dollar cost of CO2 emissions. This carbon price is the foundation stone upon which PAL has developed and productised a comprehensive and sustainable solution for climate change. Published by PAL in June 2016, the book Predicting the Price of Carbon: How to tackle the climate change code for good1 by Richard Clarke, Director of Research at PAL, addresses the goals and strategies for tackling climate change and sets out the methodology of PAL’s carbon-pricing system. The underlying research and findings compare well with a recent, major, evidence-based study in the US by Hsiang et al2. This unique carbon-pricing system is embodied in PAL’s suite of complementary products and services. It covers every aspect of evaluating loss and damage caused by manmade climate change to provide dollar-costed Carbon Pricing, Enhanced Carbon Auditing plus the associated current and projected carbon liability across all sectors. Example applications include: Carbon Value-at-Risk Metrics: Using their analytically verifiable cost of CO2 emissions, PAL can put an accurate $ value on corporations current carbon footprint and their future carbon liability risk. The revolutionary technology behind PAL’s IP enables a huge range of unprecedented capabilities e.g.: • monetized carbon auditing of big-ticket projects such as nuclear power plants • measurement of carbon liability of, say, proven reserves of oil companies • assessment of carbon liability Value at Risk (VaR) for asset managers across all industry and energy types including renewables. Enhanced Carbon Auditing (ECA): PAL’s bespoke audits provide in-depth financial analysis of the real $/£/€ carbon costs impacting your enterprise. Effective carbon costing for Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) of projects involving all manner of major infrastructure or development planning can optimise decision-making and reduce costs. Carbon Pricing: PAL’s real-time carbon pricing data factors in the true cost of damage caused by CO2 emissions – past, present and future. A problem specific to carbon pricing is that a one-size-fits- all carbon price is too blunt an instrument for encouraging behavioural change. PAL’s spectrum of prices based on impact (PAL’s Carbon Intensity Weighting) is more effective as well as future-proof. Catastrophe Loss Modelling: PAL’s computing engine, PALgamma, provides algorithm-based forecasting of extreme weather-related disaster trends and loss events. It clearly identifies, in dollar terms, the financial impact of man-made climate change, as well as the most likely proximities and timelines of future loss events. For further information, please visit predictability.ltd.uk or email [email protected]. 1 https://predictability.ltd.uk/wp/publications/predicting-price-carbon/ 2 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6345/1362 2 Do carbon accounting rules hide the true cost of damage to the planet? Whilst significant change is underway as companies prepare to transition to a lower-carbon economy, a long-term quantitative risk approach is required to effectively measure the preparedness of individual companies and the rate-of-transition of global markets as a whole. Value at Risk (VaR) is a measure of the worst expected loss that a portfolio or company can suffer over a given time horizon and for a given confidence level. PAL’s Carbon Value at Risk metric is used to determine the extent of carbon liability risk - the loss and damage attributable to carbon emission related anthropogenic (manmade) climate change. This report provides a long-term analysis of the carbon value at risk for Drax Power Station. Drax power station is a large coal-fired power station in North Yorkshire, England, capable of co-firing biomass and petcoke. It is situated on the River Ouse between Selby and Goole. Its generating capacity of 3,960 megawatts (MW) is the highest of any power station in the United Kingdom, providing about 7% of the United Kingdom's electricity supply. Key Findings § Drax’s carbon emissions disclosures appear to fall within the regulatory requirements and are therefore quite legitimate. Drax imports wood pellets from the US and burns these in place of coal. According to the EU ETS rules, this biomass combustion equates to zero emissions. However this legitimate loophole, allowed under the rules and as used by Drax, exposes Drax to the risk that if the rules change (and for the sake of the planet the rules certainly need to change) their Value at Risk (VaR) is a $23 billion ‘black hole’. This ‘black hole’ is the difference between the expected loss and damage caused by carbon dioxide emissions over the next 25 years ($33bn) and equivalent loss and damage where biomass emissions are excluded ($10bn). § Drax is the largest emitter of carbon dioxide from fuel combustion in the UK3 (see figure 3 below). Whilst Drax’s annual report4 shows an overall 53% emissions reduction in fossil fuel usage last year, down to 6.2 million tonnes of CO2, its average combined scope 1 (direct) and scope 2 (indirect) emissions remain high at 18 million tonnes (historical average 22.5 million tonnes) when biomass combustion is included. § The reported carbon intensity - the emissions per gigawatt hour (GWH) of electricity generated – of 297 tonnes of CO2 per GWH excludes biomass combustion. When biomass combustion is included in emissions figures, carbon intensity becomes 847 tonnes of CO2 per GWH, almost three times higher. § Shipping and manufacture (scope 3) emissions are implicitly reported as an average supply 5 6 chain GHG emissions of 33.9 g CO2 (e)/MJ (122 tCO2/GWh ) . This equates to biomass supply chain emissions of 2.5 million tonnes of CO2. Adding this to scope 1 and 2 emissions provides a carbon intensity of 968 tonnes of CO2 per GWH. 3 UK Company Analysis (PAL), https://predictability.ltd.uk/wp/resources-insights/carbon-risk-analytics/carbon-value-risk-operators-by-country/?m=GB 4 Drax annual report 2016, https://www.drax.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Drax-Group-plc-annual-report-and-accounts-2016-Smart-Energy- Solutions.pdf 5 Drax annual report 2016 6 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516307017 3 § The 25 year Carbon Value at Risk (VaR) including biomass combustion is $33 bn, over three times the $10bn VaR excluding biomass, both numbers using a 95% confidence level (the certainty that climate loss & damage arising from carbon emissions will be no worse than that VaR amount). At a much lower 50% confidence level, 25 year VaR is $16bn including biomass, almost four times the $4.6bn VaR excluding biomass. Figures 1 - Carbon Value at Risk ($M) excluding biomass combustion Carbon Value at Risk (VaR) excluding biomass combustion over 25 years. 4 Figures 2 - Carbon Value at Risk ($M) including biomass combustion Carbon Value at Risk (VaR) including biomass combustion over 25 years. Note that VaR is 3-4 times larger when biomass combustion is included. Carbon VaR measures the carbon liability risk that a company or portfolio can be exposed to over a given time horizon and for a given confidence level. Carbon liability is the measure of climate loss & damage arising from carbon emissions. Here we use a 25 year time horizon and 95%, 75%, 50%, 25% and 5% confidence levels. 95% confidence implies a 95% probability that losses will be no worse than $33bn over the next 25 years. 5% confidence implies a 95% probability that losses will be at least $8.6bn over the same period. 7 By comparison, applying the Carbon Price Support Mechanism levy (£18 per tonne CO2 currently ) to current year emission levels of 6.2 million tonnes would result in £2.8bn ($3.9bn) carbon tax over the next 25 years. Confidence level 95% 75% 50% 25% 25 Year VaR excluding biomass ($billion) 10.4 7.0 4.6 2.6 25 Year VaR including biomass ($billion) 33.1 21.2 16.1 13.0 25 Year Carbon Price Support Mechanism ($billion) 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 Source: PAL 7 http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN05927 5 Figure 3 – Carbon Value at Risk Rankings for UK combustion of fuel, excluding biomass Rank Installation Company Name 25Y 1Y Cost Scope 1 VaR ($M) Emissions ($M) (MtCO2e) 1 Drax Power Station Drax Power Ltd 10,557 125.7 6.26 2 Aberthaw Power Station RWE Generation UK Plc 12,032 119.3 5.94 3 Pembroke Power Station RWE Generation UK Plc 14,846 98.6 4.91 4 Staythorpe Power Station RWE Generation UK Plc 10,115 73.3 3.65 5 VPI Immingham VPI Immingham LLP 6,609 69.0 3.44 6 Saltend Cogeneration Company Saltend Cogeneration Company 4,738 59.9 2.98 Limited Limited 7 Ratcliffe on Soar power station Uniper UK Limited 4,849 53.7 2.67 8 Grain CCGT-CHP Station Uniper UK Limited 6,918 50.5 2.52 9 Valero Energy Ltd Valero Energy Ltd 3,742 47.3 2.36 10 Didcot B Power Station RWE Generation UK Plc 3,672 46.4 2.31 11 Stanlow Manufacturing Complex Essar Oil UK Ltd 3,632 45.9 2.29 12 AES Kilroot Power Ltd AES Kilroot Power Ltd 3,370 42.6 2.12 13 Eggborough Power Station Eggborough Power Ltd 4,364 42.1 2.10 14 West Burton B Power Station EDF Energy (West Burton Power) 6,463 40.8 2.03 Limited 15 Marchwood Power Station MARCHWOOD POWER LIMITED 4,953 39.7 1.98 16 Connahs Quay power station Uniper UK Limited 3,143 39.7 1.98 17 Fiddlers Ferry Power Station Keadby Generation Limited 4,150 39.4 1.96 18 Damhead Creek Power Station ScottishPower Generation Limited 3,243 38.8 1.93 19 Spalding Power Station Spalding Energy Co Ltd 2,843 35.9 1.79 20 Longannet Power Station ScottishPower Generation Limited 4,318 32.9 1.64 21 Seabank Power Limited Seabank Power Limited 2,595 32.8 1.63 22 Rocksavage Power Station Rocksavage Power Company Ltd 2,516 31.8 1.58 23 Cottam Power Station EDF Energy (Cottam Power) Limited 3,233 31.4 1.57 24 Severn Power Limited Severn Power Limited 3,442 28.7 1.43 25 Coryton Power Station Coryton Energy Company Ltd 2,231 28.2 1.40 Source: PAL, EU ETS.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Objection to Environmental Permit Application EPR/EP3731XL/A001
    Halton Action Group Against The Incinerator (HAGATI) Objection to Environmental Permit Application EPR/EP3731XL/A001 PART TWO Response to the Environmental Permit Application Halton Action Group Against The Incinerator (HAGATI) Executive Committee Chairman Sir Kenneth Green Kt; BA; MA; DLitt; CIMgt Vice Chairman Mr Jeff Meehan HNC Elect Eng; End Electronics/Computing Secretary Mrs Sue Bowden (Local Government Officer) Treasurer Mr Alan Gorry (Company Director (Retired)) Committee Members Dr John Beacham CBE; DSc; FRSC Dr Simon La Frenais MB; ChB; DObstRcog Mrs Debbie Middleton JP Mr Mike Stackpool MSc; Cphys; MIinstP Advisers Professor John S. Dearden BSc; MSc; PhD; ACGI; MRPhrmS Mrs Susan Smith BSc. Hons. MInstP. CPhys . 2 Index PART TWO – Environmental Permit Application Page Section 1 Objection Overview 4 Section 2 Environmental Justice 11 Section 3 Chimney Height 16 Section 4 Size of Development 26 Section 5 Existing Industrial Pollution 29 Section 6 Filters and Abatement 32 Section 7 Fuel Variations 34 Section 8 Transportation 36 Section 9 Carbon Emissions 38 Section 10 Accident Risks 39 Section 11 Air Quality 40 Section 12 Emissions 42 Section 13 Existing Air Quality 46 Section 14 The Health Impact Assessment 47 Section 15 Best Available Technique (BAT) 48 Section 16 The Stockholm Convention 52 Section 17 Randle Island 63 3 SECTION 1 Objection Overview a) This is HAGATI’s formal objection to Permit Application EPR/EP3731XL/A001, recommending that a permit be refused, for the reasons detailed within. The objection, outlining our concerns, follows the same format as that of the Permit Application itself as far as possible, rather than any order of importance, with additional sections relating to Environmental Justice, Randle Island and other relevant issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report and Accounts 2006 Annual Report and Accounts 2006
    Centrica plc Annual Report and Accounts 2006 Annual Report and Accounts 2006 report Securing our customers’ energy needs Our vision is to become a leading integrated energy company in selected markets in order to maximise value to shareholders. In 2006 we focused on securing energy to meet our customers’ future needs. Our strategy Our strategy is to create a distinctive business model that delivers sustained profitability through the commodity cycle. We will achieve this by focusing on the following clear priorities: Transform British Gas Sharpen up the organisation and reduce costs Reduce risk by adding new sources of gas and power Build on our multiple growth platforms Our main activities Our upstream business Our downstream business We source energy internationally We supply energy to homes We find and produce gas predominantly in the UK We are Britain’s largest gas and electricity retailer, and have acquired licence blocks in Norway and supplying 49% of the residential gas market and 22% north and west Africa. We trade energy in the UK, of residential electricity. We are a growing North America and Europe and secure contracts force in North America, serving customers in five to bring gas to the UK. Canadian provinces and 15 US states. We generate energy We supply energy to businesses We generate electricity through our gas-fired power In Britain, we are a major supplier of gas and stations in the UK and US and through a growing electricity to the commercial sector. We also have portfolio of wind assets and purchasing agreements. customers in Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain.
    [Show full text]
  • Pembroke Power Station Environmental Permit
    Environment Agency appropriate assessment: Pembroke Power Station Environmental Permit Report – Final v 2.5 - 1 - PROTECT - Environmental Permit EA/EPR/DP3333TA/A001 Executive summary Purpose An ‘Appropriate Assessment’ (AA) as required by Regulation 61 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (in accordance with the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), has been carried out on the application for an environmental permit for a 2100 MW natural gas-fired combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power station, near Pembroke. This Appropriate Assessment is required before the Environment Agency can grant an Environmental Permit and consider the implications of the environmental permit on the Pembrokeshire Marine / Sir Benfro Forol Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Afonydd Cleddau / Cleddau Rivers SAC. Approach The purpose of the AA is to ensure that the granting of an environmental permit does not result in damage to the natural habitats and species present on sites protected for their important wildlife. In this sense, the AA is similar to an environmental impact assessment with special focus on wildlife of international and national importance. In technical terms an, AA is a legal requirement to determine whether activities (not necessary for nature conservation) could adversely affect the integrity of the conservation site(s), either alone or in combination with other activities, and given the prevailing environmental conditions. It is required before the Agency, as a competent authority, can grant permission for the project. An adverse effect on integrity is one that undermines the coherence of a sites ecological structure and function, across its whole area, that enables the site to sustain the habitat, complex of habitats and/or levels of populations of the species for which the site is important.
    [Show full text]
  • LDA Report Template
    The Planning Act 2008 The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 Section 37(3)(c) Planning Act 2008 The Proposed Rookery South (Resource Recovery Facility) Order Consultation Report 4 August 2010 Document Reference: 7.1 Covanta Rookery South Limited LDA Design 7.1: Consultation Report 2 Covanta Rookery South Limited LDA Design Contents 0.0 Foreword ....................................................................................................... 11 1.0 Summary ....................................................................................................... 15 1.1. Introduction ............................................................................................. 15 1.2. Consultation Outcomes .......................................................................... 16 1.3. Conclusion .............................................................................................. 22 2.0 Introduction ................................................................................................... 25 2.1. Background ............................................................................................ 25 2.2. The Applicant: Covanta .......................................................................... 25 2.3. The Purpose of this Report ..................................................................... 26 2.4. The Proposed Project ............................................................................. 26 2.5. Covanta‟s Application Strategy ..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • SPALDING ENERGY EXPANSION CARBON CAPTURE READINESS FEASIBILITY STUDY March 2009
    SPALDING ENERGY EXPANSION LTD SPALDING ENERGY EXPANSION CARBON CAPTURE READINESS FEASIBILITY STUDY March 2009 Prepared by Prepared for Parsons Brinckerhoff Ltd Spalding Energy Expansion Limited Amber Court 81 George Street William Armstrong Drive 3rd Floor Newcastle upon Tyne Edinburgh NE4 7YQ EH2 3ES UK Parsons Brinckerhoff Contents Page i of ii CONTENTS Page LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 1 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. APPROACH 2 3. LEGAL STATUS 3 3.1 Current arrangement 3 4. POWER PLANT 5 4.1 Sizing of CCS chain 5 5. CAPTURE PLANT TECHNOLOGY 7 6. STORAGE 10 6.1 Potential storage sites 10 6.2 Competing industrial factors 11 6.3 SEE project specific storage solutions 12 6.4 Potential future schemes 12 7. TRANSPORT 13 7.1 Additional CO2 sources 13 7.2 CO2 transportation by pipeline 14 7.2.1 Established technology 15 7.2.2 Risks 15 7.2.3 Legal and regulatory framework 15 7.2.4 Pipeline transport of CO2 from the SEE project 15 7.3 CO2 transportation by road 16 7.4 CO2 transportation by rail 17 7.5 Shipping 18 7.6 Compression 19 7.7 Liquefaction 19 8. INTEGRATION 20 8.1 Steam 20 8.2 Electricity 21 8.3 Space 22 8.4 Cooling 22 8.5 Summary 24 Document No. PBP/INT/SH/000003 SEE CCR FEASIBILITY REPORT.DOC/S3/2/K Parsons Brinckerhoff Contents Page ii Page 9. RETROFITTING CCS 25 9.1 Options for producing steam 25 9.1.1 Option 1 – LP steam turbine extraction 25 9.1.2 Option 2 – HP and/or IP steam turbine exhaust extraction 25 9.1.3 Option 3 – HRSG extraction 26 9.1.4 Option 4 – External steam supply 26 9.2 EA checklist for coal plant 26 9.2.1 Main requirements for CCGT plant 26 10.
    [Show full text]
  • 233 08 SD50 Environment Permitting Decision Document
    Environment Agency Review of an Environmental Permit for an Installation subject to Chapter II of the Industrial Emissions Directive under the Environmental Permitting (England & Wales) Regulations 2016 Decision document recording our decision-making process following review of a permit The Permit number is: EPR/BK0701IW The Operator is: Spalding Energy Company Limited The Installation is: Spalding Power Station This Variation Notice number is: EPR/BK0701IW/V005 What this document is about Article 21(3) of the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) requires the Environment Agency to review conditions in permits that it has issued and to ensure that the permit delivers compliance with relevant standards, within four years of the publication of updated decisions on best available techniques (BAT) conclusions. We have reviewed the permit for this installation against the revised BAT Conclusions for large combustion plant published on 17th August 2017. This is our decision document, which explains the reasoning for the consolidated variation notice that we are issuing. It explains how we have reviewed and considered the techniques used by the Operator in the operation and control of the plant and activities of the installation. This review has been undertaken with reference to the decision made by the European Commission establishing best available techniques (BAT) conclusions (‘BAT Conclusions’) for large combustion plant as detailed in document reference IEDC-7-1. It is our record of our decision-making process and shows how we have taken into account all relevant factors in reaching our position. It also provides a justification for the inclusion of any specific conditions in the permit that are in addition to those included in our generic permit template.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence Chapters
    2020-21 Mid Year Report Evidence Chapters 21 October 2020 Contents Operating the electricity system through the COVID-19 Pandemic 2 A. Role 1 Control Centre operations 7 A.1 Evidence of consumer benefits for Role 1 9 A.2 Stakeholder views 17 A.3 Plan delivery 22 A.4 Outturn performance metrics and justifications 27 B. Role 2 Market development and transactions 44 B.1 Evidence of consumer benefits for Role 2 46 B.2 Stakeholder views 57 B.3 Plan delivery 66 B.4 Outturn performance metrics and justifications 72 C. Role 3 System insight, planning and network development 81 C.1 Evidence of consumer benefits for Role 3 83 C.2 Stakeholder views 93 C.3 Plan delivery 100 C.4 Outturn performance metrics and justifications 107 2 Operating the electricity system through the COVID-19 Pandemic Changing energy usage The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted all aspects of life in the UK, as well as across the world. Home working and lockdown periods have meant a decrease in energy use from commercial and industrial consumers and contributed to a decrease in electricity demand. The lockdown coincided with the traditionally lower demand period, as warmer, longer days require less electricity for lighting and heating than in winter months. The growth in generation connected at distribution level also lowers the demand seen on the transmission system during windy and/or sunny days. At times, electricity demand in Great Britain has been 20% lower than we would otherwise expect, and on 28 June it dropped to its lowest ever level of 13.4GW (prior to 2020 the lowest national demand figure observed was 15.8 GW).
    [Show full text]
  • Winter Outlook Report 2009/10
    1st October 2009 Winter Outlook Report 2009/10 Winter Outlook Report 2009/10 Outlook for winter 2009/10 Introduction 1. This document, the final report, sets out our analysis and views for the coming winter (October 2009 to March 2010), and reflects responses received through the consultation process. Ofgem plans to hold a seminar for industry parties on 14 th October 2009 in London. The preliminary winter report and previous year final reports are published on our website at http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Electricity/SYS/outlook/ . Industry Feedback 2. We would like to thank the organisations that responded to the consultation. In all five responses were received, which we have reviewed and reflected in our final report. Whilst the formal consultation process has now closed, we continually seek feedback on our outlook reports to increase their usefulness to the industry and to reflect all changes in trends when they become apparent. To feedback comments on our outlook report please contact us at [email protected] . Roles and Responsibilities 3. The competitive gas and electricity markets in Great Britain have developed substantially in recent years and have successfully established separate roles and responsibilities for the various market participants. In summary, the provision of gas and electricity to meet consumer demands and contracting for capacity in networks is the responsibility of suppliers and shippers. National Grid has two main responsibilities: first, as the primary transporter, for ensuring there is adequate and reliable network capacity to meet anticipated transportation requirements; second, as system operator of the transmission networks, for the residual balancing activity in both gas and electricity.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual-Report-And-Accounts-2019.Pdf
    Satisfying the changing needs of our customers Enabling the transition to a lower carbon future Annual Report and Accounts 2019 Group Snapshot Centrica plc is a leading international energy services and solutions provider focused on satisfying the changing needs of our customers and enabling the transition to a lower carbon future. The world of energy is changing rapidly and Centrica is now equipped to help customers transition to a lower carbon future, with capabilities and technologies to allow them to reduce their emissions. Therefore, we announced in July 2019 our intention to complete the shift towards the customer, by exiting oil and gas production. The Company’s two customer-facing divisions, Centrica Consumer and Centrica Business, are focused on their strengths of energy supply and its optimisation, and on services and solutions, with a continued strong focus on delivering high levels of customer service. Centrica is well placed to deliver for our customers, our shareholders and for society. We aim to be a good corporate citizen and an employer of choice. Technology is increasingly important in the delivery of energy and services to our customers. We are developing innovative products, offers and solutions, underpinned by investment in technology. We are targeting significant cost efficiency savings by 2022 to position Centrica as the lowest cost provider in its markets, consistent with our chosen brand positioning and propositions. Alongside our distinctive positions and capabilities, this will be a key enabler as we target
    [Show full text]
  • BGS Report, Single Column Layout
    INDUSTRIAL CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS AND CARBON DIOXIDE STORAGE POTENTIAL IN THE UK Report No. COAL R308 DTI/Pub URN 06/2027 October 2006 Contractor British Geological Survey Keyworth Nottingham NG12 5GG United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)115 936 3100 By S. Holloway C.J. Vincent K.L. Kirk The work described in this report was carried out under contract as part of the DTI Carbon Abatement Technologies Programme. The DTI programme is managed by Future Energy Solutions. The views and judgements expressed in this report are those of the contractor and do not necessarily reflect those of the DTI or Future Energy Solutions First published 2006 © DTI 2006 Foreword This report is the product of a study by the British Geological Survey (BGS) undertaken for AEA Technology plc as part of agreement C/07/00384/00/00. It considers the UK emissions of carbon dioxide from large industrial point sources such as power stations and the potential geological storage capacity to safely and securely store these emissions. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the UK DTI for funding the work, and Dr Erik Lindeberg of Sintef Petroleum Research for provision of a programme to calculate the density of CO2. Contents Foreword.........................................................................................................................................i Acknowledgements.........................................................................................................................i Contents...........................................................................................................................................i
    [Show full text]
  • Wrexham Power Limited
    The Wrexham Gas Fired Generating Station Order 16.1. The Applicant’s Responses to the Examining Authority’s requests for further information Planning Act 2008 The Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 PINS Reference Number: EN010055 Document Reference Number: 16.1 Regulation Number: Lead Author: Wrexham Power Limited Revision: Date: Description: 0 January 2017 Post-submission version SEC5-REPORTS AND STATEMENTS_A4 coversheets.indd 6 15/03/2016 10:54 Wrexham Power Limited Planning Inspectorate reference: EN010055 The Wrexham Gas Fired Generating Station Order Examination deadline 7 Applicant’s response to the ExA’s request for further information APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO EXA REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE Compiled for Wrexham Power Limited by: Savills Wessex House Wimborne Dorset BH21 1PB ii WREXHAM ENERGY CENTRE APPLICANT’S RESPONSE TO EXA REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION C o n t e n t s 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 Overview of the Scheme and the DCO Application ................................................................... 1 Purpose of This Statement ......................................................................................................... 3 2. Applicant’s responses ................................................................................................ 4 R17Q no.1 - Question for the Applicant, WCBC, NRW, Cadw, WAG and IPs ..........................
    [Show full text]
  • Industry Background
    Appendix 2.2: Industry background Contents Page Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1 Evolution of major market participants ....................................................................... 1 The Six Large Energy Firms ....................................................................................... 3 Gas producers other than Centrica .......................................................................... 35 Mid-tier independent generator company profiles .................................................... 35 The mid-tier energy suppliers ................................................................................... 40 Introduction 1. This appendix contains information about the following participants in the energy market in Great Britain (GB): (a) The Six Large Energy Firms – Centrica, EDF Energy, E.ON, RWE, Scottish Power (Iberdrola), and SSE. (b) The mid-tier electricity generators – Drax, ENGIE (formerly GDF Suez), Intergen and ESB International. (c) The mid-tier energy suppliers – Co-operative (Co-op) Energy, First Utility, Ovo Energy and Utility Warehouse. Evolution of major market participants 2. Below is a chart showing the development of retail supply businesses of the Six Large Energy Firms: A2.2-1 Figure 1: Development of the UK retail supply businesses of the Six Large Energy Firms Pre-liberalisation Liberalisation 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
    [Show full text]