Biomass power plants to be built on Great Yarmouth port

Great Yarmouth's outer harbour. Picture: Mike Page Great Yarmouth's outer harbour. Picture: Mike Page

Friday, July 4, 2014
7:00 PM

Great Yarmouth’s port is set to become home to three “cutting edge” clean energy plants, bringing jobs and further investment into the town.

To send a link to this page to a friend, you must be logged in.

Outer harbour bosses have signed an agreement for a lease giving Cambridge-based firm Clean Energy Ventures Ltd (CEV) the right to build and operate three biomass facilities in the port area.

Two will be based on South Denes near Eon’s Scroby Sands facility, just up from Fish Wharf, while the third – which will include a wood pellet factory – will be stationed on the outer harbour site.

It is hoped the sites will start producing electricity from the middle of next year, and once fully operational bosses say it will meet the energy demand of three-quarters of Yarmouth’s households.

CEV chiefs described Yarmouth as an “attractive” hub for energy with a skilled workforce as a result of its offshore connections.

Ian Hall, commercial director, said: “It’s an investment in the port area and the South Denes area. And it’s supplying energy into the grid to [counter] the imbalance of wind energy coming in, which is only available when it’s windy.”

Mr Hall, who has worked in the borough for more than 30 years, said the scheme would create around 25-30 jobs, and thought it was good news for the town.

“I know about the area. I have seen the decline and I’m pleased to be involved with something that’s going to redress the balance slightly,” he added. “Everything in Yarmouth is all coming together and it seemed a very sensible and realistic idea to come and put these plants here.”

Eliza O’Toole, deputy chairman of Great Yarmouth Port Company, said she was “excited” to welcome CEV into the town and thought their move recognised the “excellent capabilities” of the port.

“As part of the wider port community, the port offers a deeply experienced one stop shop for the renewables energy sector and we are proud to have attracted a trio of cutting-edge renewable energy projects to our industry cluster,” she added.

The plants will be fuelled by “virgin” wood – such as forest offcuts – and will allow for operations to be carried out 24 hours a day.

Work to establish the plants, which will have a lease of 25 years, will see a combination of new building work and the modification of existing facilities, and will include the import of “feedstock” through the river and outer harbour.

26 comments

  • I think you've confused the port company with the council. I believe the council own the land earmarked for the energy park. I don't think the port are anything to do with it.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Tea&Biscuits

    Thursday, July 10, 2014

  • T&B. There was a piece in the mercury a while back where the companies in this energy hub had letters from the port company stating that when required they would be removed and either given "help" to move or they would close down. The photographer took photos of several smakll company owners holding the letters. I know several bosses of the companies around the Salmond Road area and it is true. This port company bosses (the big boss especially) do not give a fig for the job losses just as long as it makes them look good and makes a name for themselves. Come on Mercury, interview her and get her response and the truth about all the job losses.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    "V"

    Thursday, July 10, 2014

  • 'V' maybe it wasn't mentioned in the radio article because it isn't true?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Tea&Biscuits

    Thursday, July 10, 2014

  • An article on Radio Norfolk today was praising the flattening of land ready for the "influx" of energy companies. Not a word was said though for all the small companies that will be forcibly removed from their premises and either re-located or closed down by the bully port company run by O'Toole, and the council.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    "V"

    Wednesday, July 9, 2014

  • There was consideration about 15 years ago for an Energy from Waste Plant on the site of the old Power Station,dividing steam for Omnipac and cheap heating for housing in South Yarmouth. That site is long gone and now boasts the new Seajacks base. This venture by the Port isn't anything to do with the waste stream that County was going to process at Saddlebow.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Mick Castle

    Tuesday, July 8, 2014

  • @Tea&Biscuits - nobody is saying these plants will definitely burn household waste, but as I said in my earlier post.... "Biomass" certainly CAN include household waste, and in America, approx 46 percent of Biomass power plant fuel was from wood and wood-derived biomass, 43 percent was from biofuels (mainly ethanol), and about 11 percent was from municipal waste. And @DaisyRoots, just because the County Council decides the residents of Kings Lynn must have an incinerator on their doorstep doesn't mean they have to roll over and have one, any more than the residents of Yarmouth should. Going by your logic, we should all roll over and do whatever the Government tells us to do without ever questioning it, because they were democratically elected.... I don't think so! As for incinerators being safe, well who knows? All I will say is that it's not that long ago that we were told that asbestos was completely safe and that smoking was actually good for you. I can only assume that you have far more trust of those in authority than I do!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Norfolk and Good

    Tuesday, July 8, 2014

  • T&B. i would like to see the guarantee(s) from O'Toole that this company has the means to pay not only for the buildings but the 25 year contract as well, seeing as it is still a dormant, non trading company. Slightly Off Topic. Has anyone else noticed that the old Hartmann Fibre factory building is now being demolished ?. I hope they have got rid of all the asbestos, if not there will be a lot of health problems around the area. I cant say that I have noticed any specialist companies around the building. Still, the peoples health come a poor last in O'Toole's great scheme of things.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    "V"

    Tuesday, July 8, 2014

  • Tea and Biscuits- what you say is true. But is it not also the case that there is a gas fired power station near the site, and that it is possible to supply the power needs required for the running of a power from waste incinerator which could run on domestic waste sometime in the future?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Daisy Roots

    Tuesday, July 8, 2014

  • Citizen - I am an advocate of power from waste, in these times of looming power shortages it makes sense, and given careful controls should be acceptable to most. What I am infuriated by is the political and self interested campaign waged in West Norfolk which has deprived the whole county of its democratic right to have a county council work on their behalf, defeated by a minority and localism. And the high flown justification for opposing the incinerator, drafting in opponents from all over the country-why, we could hear your wheezes and gasps from here. That campaign has cost the county money-surely the West Norfolk campaigners have the honour to lift their voices against other incinerators in the county? I welcome them-but I deplore the underhand way they are being permitted, as much as the incompetence which surrounded the Lynn project. The residents of GY need not hold their breath waiting for their district council to worry about them-GY councilors on the whole, hold their votes and constituents in contempt-not even raising an eyebrow that poor kids might be stuffed in a Free school in the town centre CoOp department store. Lynn gets funding for the college of West Anglia, Norwich gets funding for fancy buildings like Heartease school, GY gets an old department store with NO playground area. And three incinerators without even needing planning permission.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Daisy Roots

    Tuesday, July 8, 2014

  • It's amazing how many experts there are on here. Ones who clearly know nothing about the subjects they're inventing facts about! These will be biomass power plants, not incinerators. Burning virgin wood, as stated. Nowhere does it say household waste. Stop inventing news and read the articles properly. Plants set up for wood burning can't burn waste as it needs a far higher temperature to burn. Also it needs a far more controlled and onerous Environmental Permit from the Environment Agency. And they don't just post them out to anyone who asks for one!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Tea&Biscuits

    Tuesday, July 8, 2014

  • I wondered how long it would take for all the residents of the Yarmouth area who thought an incinerator at Lynn would be a good idea to be up in arms when one (sorry, three!) was proposed in their own area. Unfortunately for you, the port area has special planning powers, and with Yarmouth being a Labour stronghold nobody in government will rush to your aid. And as N&G stated, burning household waste in biomass plants is seen as quite acceptable. Maybe our local politics expert D!ckens can give you some of his excellent advice!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Citizen of EUSSR

    Monday, July 7, 2014

  • Told you. All relying on no objections from the people who live adjacent because they are immigrant or seriously deprived households. These systems should be OK , there is one burning straw at Sutton in the Isle which does not seem to be too bad-but this is as heavily a built up area as at Lynn... so I wait for Mr Knights and Mr Daubney and their campaign group to lead the charge against a biomass incinerator on the principle that if they are as bad as the Lynn campaigners claimed, they wont want to see one anywhere. Pigs might fly-we are paying the price for Lynn Nimbyism . Some alarming lack of publicity about the planning consents for this new project

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Daisy Roots

    Monday, July 7, 2014

  • Well Global Infrastructure partners run by a Nigeria MD is the Venture Capital backing the Outer Harbour Now Clean energy Venture Capital is behind the Incinerators Somehow The port Company headed by Eliza now it seems owns all, on Higher Purchase (telling my age now ) MS, O’TOOLE are we now going to do what Kynns Lynn was stopped doing All of Norfolk’s Rubbish? Just a thought on PORT LAND the Port Company working on the back of the Port Authority does not need planning they make their own laws

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    John L Cooper

    Sunday, July 6, 2014

  • OK guys - what do we do before we wake up to find we have an unapproved incinerator in our line of vision that no one else wants? I'm stating a political preference or otherwise but when you see how the GY Council establishment dealt with democratically elected councillors from outside their ranks one certainly has doubts about anything they touch or choose not to!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    wallywalnut

    Sunday, July 6, 2014

  • I, too, am very sceptical about this especially as in an article in the Mercury dated 9th February 2011 had this quote "Eliza O’Toole, vice-chairman of IPH, said the port’s development was driven by the commercial needs of customers, although she conceded the firm needed to be better at communicating with the public and stakeholders about what it does. “In our first 12 months we have focused very much first of all on growing the trade of the river port,” she said. “In addition we very much focused on the construction of the outer harbour. “Unfortunately we didn’t focus well enough on communications with stakeholders. “You have my word, we will undertake better communications going forward.”" I have seen no signs at all that Eastport UK have undertaken to liaise, inform or enlighten any members of the public in the borough. I DO NOT TRUST THIS TO BE A GOOD THING!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    ThePresence

    Sunday, July 6, 2014

  • I don't believe several parts of this story e.g. "Virgin" wood to power the plants 24 hours a day, yeah, right. Traffic implications alone would dent the green credentials of this even if the fuel is sourced from 100% renewable, sustainable forests. All this powering three quarters of Gt Yarmouth households? I'd like to see the business case and evidence behind this as I'll invest in it if it's true. Eliza "Excited"? She must have money in it herself then. I don't believe this on several counts not least of which is the quality of the reporting that has been evidenced lately in this group of papers, the rubbish that has constantly been spouted from those in charge at (L)Eastport (maybe these incinerators by any other name will burn it?) and lastly I no longer have any faith or trust in this council to do what is best for the residents of the town or to have the integrity to tell the truth. Plant and Jeal are on the board here, lets hear from them hey?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    A M

    Sunday, July 6, 2014

  • It's funny, but I don't remember seeing anything in the EDP about a planning application to build one power plant, let alone three. Perhaps I missed this? I thought that a planning application for building three power plants in Yarmouth would have been big news?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Citizen of EUSSR

    Sunday, July 6, 2014

  • T&B. The date of incorporation (formation) was 02-03-2009. Maybe they haven't posted their first years accounts, but the questions still remain, 1) Why hasn't the basic information been released (net worth, value of liabilities etc), 2) Why has O'Toole signed a contract with them when they are a dormant company 3) A lot of companies check their customers history and credit history, before commencing business with them. I assume the same checks have been carried out here ?. If not, why not ? Judging by the commentators on here, it looks as though the incinerator is coming here without the peoples knowledge.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    "V"

    Sunday, July 6, 2014

  • Does this need the approval of our council? Has an approval process been followed with the opportunity for tax payers to ask questions or raise concerns? Or have I missed it all?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    wallywalnut

    Sunday, July 6, 2014

  • "Biomass" certainly CAN include household waste (a quick search on G00gle will confirm this). In America, where Biomass power plants are fairly common, about 46 percent of Biomass power plant fuel was from wood and wood-derived biomass, 43 percent was from biofuels (mainly ethanol), and about 11 percent was from municipal waste. Calling something a "clean energy plant" sounds so much better than an "incinerator" doesn't it?!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Norfolk and Good

    Sunday, July 6, 2014

  • Would any or all of these plants also be capable of burning household waste by any chance? I see a potential way of disposing of Norfolk's waste problem here!

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Citizen of EUSSR

    Sunday, July 6, 2014

  • Clean Energy Ventures a Venture capitalist that finances clean air projects Good yes 30 jobs more ships. But hang on this is suddenly out of the blue, who is going to build the 3 plants, Do 3 plants equate to the one big one that Kings Lynn kicked out. Oh my twisted brain! We will have to wait and see we cannot object as the Port can do as they seem to wish with the help of our council of course.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    John L Cooper

    Saturday, July 5, 2014

  • Maybe it's a new company set up specifically to build and run them? You wouldn't be able to find any company accounts if they haven't posted their first years yet.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Tea&Biscuits

    Saturday, July 5, 2014

  • Can O'Toole enlighten us how you can sign a 25 year contract with a dormant, non trading company with:- cash in bank, £0, Value of assets, £0, net worth, £0, value of liabilities, £0 ?. Surprising what you can find on the internet ?

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    "V"

    Saturday, July 5, 2014

  • Might as well do that,the so called port is somewhat devoid of ships.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Kev Bacon

    Saturday, July 5, 2014

  • On the face of it YES 30 jobs in a depressed area plus the extra sipping in the port, BUT hey, Clean Energy Ventures Ltd on Google is a Venture Capital finance company . they seem to be just money people like Global Infrastructures Partners who are the money people behind the Port Company. So who is going to build these three plants, outside contractures, Wellington Construction< or even the Port company itself. Three Bio Plants in Great Yarmouth so soon after Kings Lynn kicked their incinerator into touch. One wonders if there is a tie up there. Are they all going to burn wood or just the one in the outer harbour the 2 on South Denes will we import Norfolk’s rubbish to burn. So many if buts could bes as usual we the ratepayers just get told what will happed.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    John L Cooper

    Saturday, July 5, 2014

The views expressed in the above comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this site

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Most read business stories

Unipart Automotive has gone into administration with the loss of 1,244 jobs.

East Anglia: Jobs axed at Unipart Automotive goes into administration

Nearly 1,250 people, including more than 100 in the East of England, have been made redundant following the appointment of administrators at Unipart Automotive, one of the UK’s largest independent suppliers of car parts.

Read full story »

loading...

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT