Consultation on upgrading Greenwich Power station

There are only a few days left to make your views known to the Environment Agency on London Underground Ltd's (LUL) plans to install an additional six gas engines in the power station. LUL are requesting a permit from the EA to allow a move from their current operational limit of up to 500 hours per year to over 8,000 hours per year!

The new engines will run over and above the existing seven gas turbines and, although new technology, will still lead to yet more NOX emissions coupled with adverse noise implications for residents living near the power station.  

The EA consultation process closes on Monday 19 December.

The Greenwich Society has submitted the following -

  1. London Underground has stated that the existing gas turbines are capable of meeting emergency backup needs until 2030. The additional six gas engines are intended to provide electricity as an alternative to purchasing power from other suppliers. The requested increase from 500 operating hours to over 8000 is to enable the applicant to exploit the existing GGS asset for commercial reasons.
  1. Air quality in the surrounding area already exceeds required limit values at many locations and a development which would worsen NOX concentrations would be unacceptable to the local community. The claimed levels of process contribution may well not exceed EA stated thresholds but any worsening of current levels of NOX should not be permitted. Further it is not accepted that background levels underlying the Predicted Environmental Contribution are correctly based: no account is taken of the consented Liner Terminal nearby where moored cruise liners without the benefit of onshore power will be running their diesel engines continuously whilst in port.
  1. Any general benefits from a potential CHP network should be discounted or ignored because the location of the GSS within an established and historic built up area makes the installation of such a network impractical as evidenced by the lack of interest from commercial operators and the absence of any published feasibility studies since the then Mayor first announced the proposals.
  1. The application is flawed in that, whilst an SCR process is said to be planned, there is no specification of its efficiency in removing pollutants.
  1. The relevance of the meteorological study is challenged. The data is drawn from many miles away and fails to take into account the frequency and severity of inversion events in Greenwich which arise largely from the distinctive local topography.
  1. Noise nuisance from the existing small scale operation is already often at unacceptable levels in the immediate neighbourhood and any license granted must contain stringent requirements to mitigate noise nuisance.