Peterhead power station: 5 times more climate pollution than developers admitted

Expert research has revealed that the climate pollution from the proposed Peterhead gas burning power station and carbon capture plant could be five times higher than the developers SSE and Equinor have disclosed to the Scottish Government.

It estimated that the plant could cause 1 million tonnes more carbon dioxide each year than the 250,000 tonnes figure claimed in official planning documents submitted to the Scottish Government.

The research, by independent think tank Carbon Tracker, highlights how the companies’ Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) – a legal requirement in planning applications – deliberately failed to account for the climate pollution from a range of factors, including the greenhouse gases produced by extracting and transporting the gas which will be burned to generate electricity.

‘Holes’ in developer’s calculations

Researchers exposed the holes in the developer’s calculations, and modelled different scenarios including more realistic carbon capture rates and the impact of relying more on imported gas throughout the plant’s lifespan – a scenario the UK Government admits is likely.

Climate campaigners are demanding that the Scottish Government orders the companies to produce an “honest assessment” of the climate emissions from the project. A similar carbon capture gas power station proposed in Teesside was recently ordered by the UK Government to resubmit planning documents and include analysis of the emissions from producing and transporting the gas that would fuel the plant.

Key points from the research

• There are three major holes in the developer’s environmental assessment: emissions from the extraction and transportation of the gas to be burnt onsite, emissions from periods of time the carbon capture plant is turned off for maintenance, and the failure to account for more realistic capture rates.
• Researchers modelled the emissions produced at a more realistic 75% carbon capture rate (70% is the minimum consistent capture level required to qualify for UK Government subsidy), revealing a far higher climate impact from the project.
• SSE and Equinor’s claims that the plant would capture 90-95% of the carbon dioxide it produces have never been achieved and are not supported by evidence. The only pilot projects in the world trialing carbon capture on a gas plant were found to be just 1/20th of the size of the proposed Peterhead plant.
• The plant is slated to continue burning fossil fuels until 2059 – 14 years after Scotland is due to reach net zero.
• As North Sea gas runs out, the UK Government forecasts it will import more Liquified Natural Gas, which has a far higher carbon footprint. SSE and Equinor’s environmental assessment fails to consider the predicted changes in the carbon footprint of its fuel throughout the project lifespan.
• By 2044, emissions from the plant would have a “major adverse impact” on Scotland’s carbon budget, consuming 50-80% of its total. This would force other sectors of the economy to reduce emissions much more rapidly.

‘Honest assessment’ must be ordered by Ministers

Friends of the Earth Scotland’s climate campaigner Alex Lee (they/them) said:

“SSE and Equinor have deliberately hidden the true climate cost of their proposals to build a new gas burning power station at Peterhead. Scottish Government ministers have been misled through selective carbon accounting and wildly unrealistic forecasts.

“In a bid to lock in expensive fossil fuel burning for another 30 years, these greedy energy companies are making claims about carbon capture that do not stand up to the slightest scrutiny. These companies seem willing to say whatever it takes to get this project built, leaving the Scottish public to bear the cost of its inevitable failure.

“The Scottish Government must order these companies to go back and produce an honest assessment of the environmental impact of this fossil fuel development. When the Scottish Government sees the true climate harm of this project, the only rational response will be to reject it and focus instead on rapidly building up Scotland’s renewable energy future.”