10 MYTHS ABOUT GENERATION PARK- NORWICH

A private company (NPH) have submitted plans to build a biomass incineration

plant in Norwich. This document explores some of the myths surrounding this
proposed development.

MYTH 1
Generation Park is being built ‘for the benefit of the people of Norwich’.
Looking at the 'Community Energy Centre’ on Generation Park’s website, you might
think that this is a ‘not for profit’ development. In fact, its primary purpose is to
make money for its investors, mainly ‘anonymous backers’ who will benefit from
£M’s of government subsidies, paid for by the taxpayer. Generation Park would
hope to receive approximately £34M in annual subsidies alone.
http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2013/biomass-faq-2/#C19

MYTH 2
Generation Park is being developed by the University of East Anglia.
The Generation Park proposals are being submitted by a company called Norwich
(NPH) LLP whose board members include professional investors and business
people like Sir Nicholas Hickman Ponsonby Bacon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Nicholas_Bacon,_14th_Baronet Sir Nicholas is
England’s ‘premier baronet’ with interests and directorships in over 40 other
companies. http://www.endole.co.uk/profile/6325783/nicholas-hickman-ponsonby-
bacon-obe-dl Norwich (NPH) LLP are themselves part of a chain of overlapping
companies ultimately controlled by Norwich Powerhouse LLP.

MYTH 3 -
Generation Park will produce cheap heating for local businesses and houses.
In order to supply local homes and businesses the power station would need to
have a district local heating network in place and direct cabling to the businesses
they intend to supply with electricity. No such networks currently exist and there are
no guarantees they will ever be built. Where similar schemes have been looked at
elsewhere in the country, the cost of implementing the infrastructure is often found
to be prohibitive. This is the reason there are hardly any district heating schemes
currently operating in the UK. http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2013/biomass-faq-
2/#C13, http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Biomass-gasification-
and-pyrolysis-formatted-full-report.pdf,
http://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/dirty_truths.pdf

The UEA themselves attempted to introduce such a scheme in 2009 with the aid of
£1M in government subsidies. The plan was that a small incinerator would provide
the heating for the university campus. To date it has never worked as envisaged
and in the winter of 2013 the UEA had to buy in electricity from the national grid to
keep their students warm. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/8016402.stm,
http://www.engineeringsociety.co.uk/biopower_10.html, http://www.renewable-
energy-technology.co.uk/index.php?route=news/board/view&news_id=5,
https://portal.uea.ac.uk/documents/6207125/6642429/UEA+Environmental+Report
+2013+Edward+Acton+signature.pdf/dce5f881-4819-493f-90e9-28cf12ac675d

MYTH 4 -
Generation Park will make Norwich self-sufficient in electricity.
It is a misconception to say Generation Park would make Norwich self-sufficient in
electricity. Only a few large, local businesses will receive power directly from the
plant. The rest of the electricity will be sold to the national grid.

MYTH 5
Generation Park will create a lot of new jobs in Norwich.
Once built, the biomass incinerator will create about 30-40 new jobs, which is
roughly the same as a new restaurant opening in Norwich. The difference is that
for each of the new jobs created at the incinerator the government will pay the
developers over £1M in taxpayer funded subsidies.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmenergy/181/181vw
.pdf, http://www.thejournal.co.uk/business/business-news/jobs-created-tees-
biomass-power-7494079

MYTH 6 -
The power station is just a part of the Generation Park development, which
will also include low carbon homes, student accommodation, research
facilities, new footbridge and cycle paths.
At the moment the 2nd phase is in ‘outline’ planning only, which means they are just
a line drawn around a piece of land on a map. Generation Park have confirmed
that the power station comes first and that the ‘sweeteners’ in the 2 nd phase such as
the proposals to build low carbon homes, five student blocks, footbridge, cycle
paths, research facilities and parkland etc on this site are secondary. These ideas
would only be considered once the incinerator is in place. In other words the
proposals are just a figment of Generation Park’s imagination and may never be
built.
MYTH 7 –
Emissions from Generation Park will be strictly monitored by independent,
external bodies like Norwich City Council and the Environment Agency.
Generation Park will use self-monitoring with Best Available Technique (BAT)
(MCERTS). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mcerts-performance-
standard-for-continuous-ambient-air-quality-monitoring-systems
So, in effect, the polluters will be monitoring themselves.
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport/4379.pdf,
http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Markinch-biomass-briefing3.pdf
The name is misleading because Best Available Technique tends to include second
and third best technologies too. It’s basically a list of technologies for controlling
emissions which are considered acceptable in the UK (based on EU guidance).

MYTH 8
Generation Park’s biomass incinerator will be good for the planet because it
will produce fewer greenhouse gases.

In fact, burning biomass fuels can produce more CO2 than coal because it is less
efficient. http://massenvironmentalenergy.org/docs/biomass%20factsheet%20from
%20MEEA.pdf These are the smokestack emissions which are ignored by the
government. A district heating network would only change this in so far as coal
power stations in the UK aren’t connected to district heating networks. If they were
and if you then compared them to this proposed plant, then the smokestack CO2
emissions from coal would still be lower. The UK Bioenergy Strategy classes
biomass from straw as having particularly high CO2 emissions because straw is so
bulky and transporting it uses a disproportionate amount of fuel – the pellet plant
will be very energy-intensive too, as Pelco will rely on the grid. And the
infrastructure for local heat and power may never be built due to the cost.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4833
7/5142-bioenergy-strategy-.pdf
Greenhouse gases from the UEA’s own biomass incinerator have actually
increased over time!
https://portal.uea.ac.uk/documents/6207125/6642429/UEA+Environmental+Report
+2013+Edward+Acton+signature.pdf/dce5f881-4819-493f-90e9-28cf12ac675d
In comparison to energy sources other than coal, (e.g. renewables like solar, wave,
wind, or even finite resources like natural gas) biomass is far higher in CO2
emissions.http://massenvironmentalenergy.org/docs/biomass%20factsheet
%20from%20MEEA.pdf , http://www.pfpi.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/PFPI-
Biomass-is-the-New-Coal-April-2-2014.pdf,
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/02/26/biomass-emits-double-
the-co2-of-gas/

MYTH 9 - Generation Park will not create any problems for Norwich residents.
In addition to the harmful air emissions which will affect everyone living in Norwich,
local residents will see an increase in traffic and noise pollution. The experiences of
local communities elsewhere in the country where biomass incinerators have been
built suggest that the developers underplay the extent of these impacts. For
example, at Markinch in Fife
the operators have been forced to build fencing around their biomass plant, at a
cost of £100k in an attempt to limit the noise after numerous complaints from local
residents. http://www.fifetoday.co.uk/news/local-headlines/100k-bid-to-reduce-
biomass-noise-levels-1-3830039

MYTH 10 -
Generation Park will never be turned into a waste incinerator.
Generation Park have sought to give many assurances that they do not intend to
use the incinerator to burn household or industrial waste, and that the proposed
licenses, and incineration technology would make this impossible. But licenses can
be changed, technology can be modified and the incinerator sold to new operators.

Government subsidies may be reduced in the future, and the operator forced to
look at diversifying into other areas. Generation Park has already indicated at the
Public Residents Meeting that they could introduce fuel sources other than straw.
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/wood_pellets_green_energy_or_new_source_of_co2_
emissions/2840/,
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/08/27/biomass-co2-
emissions-more-than-burning-coal/ Should the plant prove uneconomic in the
future there is no doubt that burning household waste could be a highly profitable
activity.
http://ukwin.org.uk/resources/table/, http://www.pfpi.net/wp-
content/uploads/2014/04/PFPI-Biomass-is-the-New-Coal-April-2-2014.pdf