Plans will not be put in until next year

Daily Echo: The controversial marine design preferred by the company The controversial marine design preferred by the company

Plans for a giant biomass plant in Southampton have been delayed, while responses to a consultation are reviewed.

The company behind the controversial scheme, Helius Energy, were due to put in a planning application before the end of the year.

But today it has been revealed that proposals will not be submitted until early next year.

Helius Planning Director Paul Brighton said: “We will now be submitting in the first quarter of 2013.

“We’re taking longer to consider the public consultation responses.

“It’s taking time to put all the documents together under the procedures that we need to go through.

“There’s an enormous amount of documentation that needs to be prepared.”

The development comes just a month after the firm confirmed the chosen design for the £300 million plant.

Three options were put to the public during the summer, and the company says that 52 per cent of respondents chose the “marine” look.

But campaigners said the consultation was flawed.

They dismissed the statistic – saying that many people put “none of the above” on the design consultation and these results have not been included.

Campaigners against the plans met the news of the delay with a mixture of anger and relief.

No to Southampton Biomass spokesman Steven Galton said: “I am disappointed because the residents are always the last to hear of these developments.

“There’s nothing on the Helius website and they haven’t responded to anyone.

“I’m not even holding my breath that the application will be submitted in the new year because I think it will drag on and on.

“But the longer it drags on, the more research there is that biomass isn’t actually environmentally friendly or green.

“More and more people are looking at the details in the scientific community and the longer it takes the more research will come through that biomass is not the answer.”

Comments (22)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:42am Wed 14 Nov 12

FoysCornerBoy says...

One of the arguments put forward by Helius for their proposal in the docks was that there were no suitable alternative sites in the Solent region. Southampton Council leader, Richard Williams, has - following conversations with other Council leaders in the area - has identified potential alternatives.

I wonder whether one reason for the delay in submitting an application by Helius is to explore these alternative options. If so, hats off to the much-maligned Richard Williams.
One of the arguments put forward by Helius for their proposal in the docks was that there were no suitable alternative sites in the Solent region. Southampton Council leader, Richard Williams, has - following conversations with other Council leaders in the area - has identified potential alternatives. I wonder whether one reason for the delay in submitting an application by Helius is to explore these alternative options. If so, hats off to the much-maligned Richard Williams. FoysCornerBoy
  • Score: 0

7:55am Wed 14 Nov 12

hulla baloo says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
One of the arguments put forward by Helius for their proposal in the docks was that there were no suitable alternative sites in the Solent region. Southampton Council leader, Richard Williams, has - following conversations with other Council leaders in the area - has identified potential alternatives.

I wonder whether one reason for the delay in submitting an application by Helius is to explore these alternative options. If so, hats off to the much-maligned Richard Williams.
Agreed. Fawley has to be the best option.
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: One of the arguments put forward by Helius for their proposal in the docks was that there were no suitable alternative sites in the Solent region. Southampton Council leader, Richard Williams, has - following conversations with other Council leaders in the area - has identified potential alternatives. I wonder whether one reason for the delay in submitting an application by Helius is to explore these alternative options. If so, hats off to the much-maligned Richard Williams.[/p][/quote]Agreed. Fawley has to be the best option. hulla baloo
  • Score: 0

8:08am Wed 14 Nov 12

Forest Resident says...

hulla baloo wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
One of the arguments put forward by Helius for their proposal in the docks was that there were no suitable alternative sites in the Solent region. Southampton Council leader, Richard Williams, has - following conversations with other Council leaders in the area - has identified potential alternatives.

I wonder whether one reason for the delay in submitting an application by Helius is to explore these alternative options. If so, hats off to the much-maligned Richard Williams.
Agreed. Fawley has to be the best option.
With Fawley being decommissioned it sounds ideal, but the waterside currently lacks the road infrastructure to support hundreds of extra daily HGV movements as the A326 is already a car park during peak hours. Furthermore with Fawley being in an NFDC controlled area this project would then be totally out of SCC hands and would have to effectively start from scratch again.
[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: One of the arguments put forward by Helius for their proposal in the docks was that there were no suitable alternative sites in the Solent region. Southampton Council leader, Richard Williams, has - following conversations with other Council leaders in the area - has identified potential alternatives. I wonder whether one reason for the delay in submitting an application by Helius is to explore these alternative options. If so, hats off to the much-maligned Richard Williams.[/p][/quote]Agreed. Fawley has to be the best option.[/p][/quote]With Fawley being decommissioned it sounds ideal, but the waterside currently lacks the road infrastructure to support hundreds of extra daily HGV movements as the A326 is already a car park during peak hours. Furthermore with Fawley being in an NFDC controlled area this project would then be totally out of SCC hands and would have to effectively start from scratch again. Forest Resident
  • Score: 0

8:43am Wed 14 Nov 12

freemantlegirl2 says...

And of course it has NOTHING to do with the two further recent fires in addition to the others that have already happened, including the very serious one in Tilbury.

Burning wood pellets has had VERY bad press recently, people are starting to understand that this isn't 'green' and the Carbon footprint is actually more than than that of coal because when more trees are planted it takes 25 years to cancel out the burning!

Even if it's in Fawley, this ISN'T GREEN! it's not a long-term solution and there is a high risk of fire, particularly on this scale.....
And of course it has NOTHING to do with the two further recent fires in addition to the others that have already happened, including the very serious one in Tilbury. Burning wood pellets has had VERY bad press recently, people are starting to understand that this isn't 'green' and the Carbon footprint is actually more than than that of coal because when more trees are planted it takes 25 years to cancel out the burning! Even if it's in Fawley, this ISN'T GREEN! it's not a long-term solution and there is a high risk of fire, particularly on this scale..... freemantlegirl2
  • Score: 0

9:05am Wed 14 Nov 12

MGRA says...

bio mass is obsolete. Sweden recycles 98% of its waste. included in that is incineration of household waste to provide electricity. They are having to IMPORT waste to burn as they have a shortage. Meanwhile the UK is still using LANDFILL !?!? A child could tell the solution to this problem. Build more environmently friendly waste incinerators, not bio-mass plants. Also design smaller mobile waste incinerators that can be moved to historic landfill sites and burn that waste. Yes the technology to do this is challenging, but but wrong with that....
bio mass is obsolete. Sweden recycles 98% of its waste. included in that is incineration of household waste to provide electricity. They are having to IMPORT waste to burn as they have a shortage. Meanwhile the UK is still using LANDFILL !?!? A child could tell the solution to this problem. Build more environmently friendly waste incinerators, not bio-mass plants. Also design smaller mobile waste incinerators that can be moved to historic landfill sites and burn that waste. Yes the technology to do this is challenging, but but wrong with that.... MGRA
  • Score: 0

9:14am Wed 14 Nov 12

phil maccavity says...

Good idea in theory.
Two points however:
1. Will the average Joe Public agree to a Waste Incinerator plant being built in their vicinity?
2. If Biomass is obsolete why do Swedish power stations import considerable tonnages of waste wood to supplement their domestic supply in the winter months?
Good idea in theory. Two points however: 1. Will the average Joe Public agree to a Waste Incinerator plant being built in their vicinity? 2. If Biomass is obsolete why do Swedish power stations import considerable tonnages of waste wood to supplement their domestic supply in the winter months? phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

11:33am Wed 14 Nov 12

The Wickham Man says...

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
And of course it has NOTHING to do with the two further recent fires in addition to the others that have already happened, including the very serious one in Tilbury.

Burning wood pellets has had VERY bad press recently, people are starting to understand that this isn't 'green' and the Carbon footprint is actually more than than that of coal because when more trees are planted it takes 25 years to cancel out the burning!

Even if it's in Fawley, this ISN'T GREEN! it's not a long-term solution and there is a high risk of fire, particularly on this scale.....
Anyone watching that that WIldWood programme last week can see clearly what ALH has been saying on here for months, that there is a huge amount of by product going to waste in our forests. Biomass does not have to be grown for the purpose of being biomass for Gods sake - it's a simple enough principle - it is no different to burning domestic waste except that it is a lot cleaner cheaper and more efficient. You either use it or let ot lie there and rot. It is better to use it.
And if you FMG are advocating no burning whatsoever to produce our electricity and relying entirely on wind sun and wave how many thousands of deaths are you and the other idiotic greens happy to accept as worth the price of sending the entire country back into the dark ages?
[quote][p][bold]freemantlegirl2[/bold] wrote: And of course it has NOTHING to do with the two further recent fires in addition to the others that have already happened, including the very serious one in Tilbury. Burning wood pellets has had VERY bad press recently, people are starting to understand that this isn't 'green' and the Carbon footprint is actually more than than that of coal because when more trees are planted it takes 25 years to cancel out the burning! Even if it's in Fawley, this ISN'T GREEN! it's not a long-term solution and there is a high risk of fire, particularly on this scale.....[/p][/quote]Anyone watching that that WIldWood programme last week can see clearly what ALH has been saying on here for months, that there is a huge amount of by product going to waste in our forests. Biomass does not have to be grown for the purpose of being biomass for Gods sake - it's a simple enough principle - it is no different to burning domestic waste except that it is a lot cleaner cheaper and more efficient. You either use it or let ot lie there and rot. It is better to use it. And if you FMG are advocating no burning whatsoever to produce our electricity and relying entirely on wind sun and wave how many thousands of deaths are you and the other idiotic greens happy to accept as worth the price of sending the entire country back into the dark ages? The Wickham Man
  • Score: 0

12:54pm Wed 14 Nov 12

loosehead says...

Forest Resident wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
One of the arguments put forward by Helius for their proposal in the docks was that there were no suitable alternative sites in the Solent region. Southampton Council leader, Richard Williams, has - following conversations with other Council leaders in the area - has identified potential alternatives.

I wonder whether one reason for the delay in submitting an application by Helius is to explore these alternative options. If so, hats off to the much-maligned Richard Williams.
Agreed. Fawley has to be the best option.
With Fawley being decommissioned it sounds ideal, but the waterside currently lacks the road infrastructure to support hundreds of extra daily HGV movements as the A326 is already a car park during peak hours. Furthermore with Fawley being in an NFDC controlled area this project would then be totally out of SCC hands and would have to effectively start from scratch again.
after the kick up by certain quarters over the container port proposal do you not think it would be even more opposed to a Bio Mass Generator that they've already objected to when it's being built in Millbrook?
Fawley berth is way to shallow to get the wood ships in so it would have to be either trained or lorried in do you think the waterside would accept that?
[quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: One of the arguments put forward by Helius for their proposal in the docks was that there were no suitable alternative sites in the Solent region. Southampton Council leader, Richard Williams, has - following conversations with other Council leaders in the area - has identified potential alternatives. I wonder whether one reason for the delay in submitting an application by Helius is to explore these alternative options. If so, hats off to the much-maligned Richard Williams.[/p][/quote]Agreed. Fawley has to be the best option.[/p][/quote]With Fawley being decommissioned it sounds ideal, but the waterside currently lacks the road infrastructure to support hundreds of extra daily HGV movements as the A326 is already a car park during peak hours. Furthermore with Fawley being in an NFDC controlled area this project would then be totally out of SCC hands and would have to effectively start from scratch again.[/p][/quote]after the kick up by certain quarters over the container port proposal do you not think it would be even more opposed to a Bio Mass Generator that they've already objected to when it's being built in Millbrook? Fawley berth is way to shallow to get the wood ships in so it would have to be either trained or lorried in do you think the waterside would accept that? loosehead
  • Score: 0

12:55pm Wed 14 Nov 12

loosehead says...

MGRA wrote:
bio mass is obsolete. Sweden recycles 98% of its waste. included in that is incineration of household waste to provide electricity. They are having to IMPORT waste to burn as they have a shortage. Meanwhile the UK is still using LANDFILL !?!? A child could tell the solution to this problem. Build more environmently friendly waste incinerators, not bio-mass plants. Also design smaller mobile waste incinerators that can be moved to historic landfill sites and burn that waste. Yes the technology to do this is challenging, but but wrong with that....
It imports our waste from a Northern Factory/processing plant.
I saw this on Eddie Stobarts
[quote][p][bold]MGRA[/bold] wrote: bio mass is obsolete. Sweden recycles 98% of its waste. included in that is incineration of household waste to provide electricity. They are having to IMPORT waste to burn as they have a shortage. Meanwhile the UK is still using LANDFILL !?!? A child could tell the solution to this problem. Build more environmently friendly waste incinerators, not bio-mass plants. Also design smaller mobile waste incinerators that can be moved to historic landfill sites and burn that waste. Yes the technology to do this is challenging, but but wrong with that....[/p][/quote]It imports our waste from a Northern Factory/processing plant. I saw this on Eddie Stobarts loosehead
  • Score: 0

1:29pm Wed 14 Nov 12

MisterGrimsdale says...

loosehead wrote:
MGRA wrote:
bio mass is obsolete. Sweden recycles 98% of its waste. included in that is incineration of household waste to provide electricity. They are having to IMPORT waste to burn as they have a shortage. Meanwhile the UK is still using LANDFILL !?!? A child could tell the solution to this problem. Build more environmently friendly waste incinerators, not bio-mass plants. Also design smaller mobile waste incinerators that can be moved to historic landfill sites and burn that waste. Yes the technology to do this is challenging, but but wrong with that....
It imports our waste from a Northern Factory/processing plant.
I saw this on Eddie Stobarts
How can biomass be obsolete? Does it just cease to exist? I don't think you know what biomass is.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MGRA[/bold] wrote: bio mass is obsolete. Sweden recycles 98% of its waste. included in that is incineration of household waste to provide electricity. They are having to IMPORT waste to burn as they have a shortage. Meanwhile the UK is still using LANDFILL !?!? A child could tell the solution to this problem. Build more environmently friendly waste incinerators, not bio-mass plants. Also design smaller mobile waste incinerators that can be moved to historic landfill sites and burn that waste. Yes the technology to do this is challenging, but but wrong with that....[/p][/quote]It imports our waste from a Northern Factory/processing plant. I saw this on Eddie Stobarts[/p][/quote]How can biomass be obsolete? Does it just cease to exist? I don't think you know what biomass is. MisterGrimsdale
  • Score: 0

2:06pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
freemantlegirl2 wrote:
And of course it has NOTHING to do with the two further recent fires in addition to the others that have already happened, including the very serious one in Tilbury.

Burning wood pellets has had VERY bad press recently, people are starting to understand that this isn't 'green' and the Carbon footprint is actually more than than that of coal because when more trees are planted it takes 25 years to cancel out the burning!

Even if it's in Fawley, this ISN'T GREEN! it's not a long-term solution and there is a high risk of fire, particularly on this scale.....
Anyone watching that that WIldWood programme last week can see clearly what ALH has been saying on here for months, that there is a huge amount of by product going to waste in our forests. Biomass does not have to be grown for the purpose of being biomass for Gods sake - it's a simple enough principle - it is no different to burning domestic waste except that it is a lot cleaner cheaper and more efficient. You either use it or let ot lie there and rot. It is better to use it.
And if you FMG are advocating no burning whatsoever to produce our electricity and relying entirely on wind sun and wave how many thousands of deaths are you and the other idiotic greens happy to accept as worth the price of sending the entire country back into the dark ages?
Sorry, you are not correct.

It is an essential part of the woodland ecosystem to have dead wood to protect biodiversity. It provdes essential food and shelter for many of our invertebrates, and birds.

http://www.forestry.
gov.uk/pdf/lifeinthe
deadwood.pdf/$FILE/l
ifeinthedeadwood.pdf


http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Coarse_wood
y_debris
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freemantlegirl2[/bold] wrote: And of course it has NOTHING to do with the two further recent fires in addition to the others that have already happened, including the very serious one in Tilbury. Burning wood pellets has had VERY bad press recently, people are starting to understand that this isn't 'green' and the Carbon footprint is actually more than than that of coal because when more trees are planted it takes 25 years to cancel out the burning! Even if it's in Fawley, this ISN'T GREEN! it's not a long-term solution and there is a high risk of fire, particularly on this scale.....[/p][/quote]Anyone watching that that WIldWood programme last week can see clearly what ALH has been saying on here for months, that there is a huge amount of by product going to waste in our forests. Biomass does not have to be grown for the purpose of being biomass for Gods sake - it's a simple enough principle - it is no different to burning domestic waste except that it is a lot cleaner cheaper and more efficient. You either use it or let ot lie there and rot. It is better to use it. And if you FMG are advocating no burning whatsoever to produce our electricity and relying entirely on wind sun and wave how many thousands of deaths are you and the other idiotic greens happy to accept as worth the price of sending the entire country back into the dark ages?[/p][/quote]Sorry, you are not correct. It is an essential part of the woodland ecosystem to have dead wood to protect biodiversity. It provdes essential food and shelter for many of our invertebrates, and birds. http://www.forestry. gov.uk/pdf/lifeinthe deadwood.pdf/$FILE/l ifeinthedeadwood.pdf http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Coarse_wood y_debris Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

3:43pm Wed 14 Nov 12

southy says...

loosehead wrote:
Forest Resident wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
One of the arguments put forward by Helius for their proposal in the docks was that there were no suitable alternative sites in the Solent region. Southampton Council leader, Richard Williams, has - following conversations with other Council leaders in the area - has identified potential alternatives.

I wonder whether one reason for the delay in submitting an application by Helius is to explore these alternative options. If so, hats off to the much-maligned Richard Williams.
Agreed. Fawley has to be the best option.
With Fawley being decommissioned it sounds ideal, but the waterside currently lacks the road infrastructure to support hundreds of extra daily HGV movements as the A326 is already a car park during peak hours. Furthermore with Fawley being in an NFDC controlled area this project would then be totally out of SCC hands and would have to effectively start from scratch again.
after the kick up by certain quarters over the container port proposal do you not think it would be even more opposed to a Bio Mass Generator that they've already objected to when it's being built in Millbrook?
Fawley berth is way to shallow to get the wood ships in so it would have to be either trained or lorried in do you think the waterside would accept that?
Its was deep enough to take an iron ore bulk carrier ship for a few weks till it was moved to the Thames.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: One of the arguments put forward by Helius for their proposal in the docks was that there were no suitable alternative sites in the Solent region. Southampton Council leader, Richard Williams, has - following conversations with other Council leaders in the area - has identified potential alternatives. I wonder whether one reason for the delay in submitting an application by Helius is to explore these alternative options. If so, hats off to the much-maligned Richard Williams.[/p][/quote]Agreed. Fawley has to be the best option.[/p][/quote]With Fawley being decommissioned it sounds ideal, but the waterside currently lacks the road infrastructure to support hundreds of extra daily HGV movements as the A326 is already a car park during peak hours. Furthermore with Fawley being in an NFDC controlled area this project would then be totally out of SCC hands and would have to effectively start from scratch again.[/p][/quote]after the kick up by certain quarters over the container port proposal do you not think it would be even more opposed to a Bio Mass Generator that they've already objected to when it's being built in Millbrook? Fawley berth is way to shallow to get the wood ships in so it would have to be either trained or lorried in do you think the waterside would accept that?[/p][/quote]Its was deep enough to take an iron ore bulk carrier ship for a few weks till it was moved to the Thames. southy
  • Score: 0

4:14pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Danae says...

Using forest residues to generate electricity is a nice but unrealistic idea.

Existing and proposed UK Woodburner Power Stations will require 60million tons per year of imported wood by 2017.

The UK produces just 10 million tons of timber per year, 80% of which goes to the construction and wood panel industries.

UK forests may offer a bit less than 1 million tons of residues a year. This is well scattered across plantations throughout the UK, half of which are in Scotland.

It is only economic to transport residues a short distance. This is why their use is confined to domestic and small scale local heat, and sometimes power, applications for industry typically in remote off-grid locations.

A Southampton Woodburner Power Station, like other substantial UK stations would be almost entirely dependent on imports from North America and elsewhere for the 800,000 tons a year of wood pellet that Helius has said it would burn.
Using forest residues to generate electricity is a nice but unrealistic idea. Existing and proposed UK Woodburner Power Stations will require 60million tons per year of imported wood by 2017. The UK produces just 10 million tons of timber per year, 80% of which goes to the construction and wood panel industries. UK forests may offer a bit less than 1 million tons of residues a year. This is well scattered across plantations throughout the UK, half of which are in Scotland. It is only economic to transport residues a short distance. This is why their use is confined to domestic and small scale local heat, and sometimes power, applications for industry typically in remote off-grid locations. A Southampton Woodburner Power Station, like other substantial UK stations would be almost entirely dependent on imports from North America and elsewhere for the 800,000 tons a year of wood pellet that Helius has said it would burn. Danae
  • Score: 0

4:59pm Wed 14 Nov 12

phil maccavity says...

southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Forest Resident wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
One of the arguments put forward by Helius for their proposal in the docks was that there were no suitable alternative sites in the Solent region. Southampton Council leader, Richard Williams, has - following conversations with other Council leaders in the area - has identified potential alternatives.

I wonder whether one reason for the delay in submitting an application by Helius is to explore these alternative options. If so, hats off to the much-maligned Richard Williams.
Agreed. Fawley has to be the best option.
With Fawley being decommissioned it sounds ideal, but the waterside currently lacks the road infrastructure to support hundreds of extra daily HGV movements as the A326 is already a car park during peak hours. Furthermore with Fawley being in an NFDC controlled area this project would then be totally out of SCC hands and would have to effectively start from scratch again.
after the kick up by certain quarters over the container port proposal do you not think it would be even more opposed to a Bio Mass Generator that they've already objected to when it's being built in Millbrook?
Fawley berth is way to shallow to get the wood ships in so it would have to be either trained or lorried in do you think the waterside would accept that?
Its was deep enough to take an iron ore bulk carrier ship for a few weks till it was moved to the Thames.
Misguided as usual Southy UNLESS you can provide the name of the vessel and date it called at Fawley.
As Andy of Locks Heath pointed out the ship your fertile imagination conjured up was undoubtedly anchored off the After Barn buoy.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: One of the arguments put forward by Helius for their proposal in the docks was that there were no suitable alternative sites in the Solent region. Southampton Council leader, Richard Williams, has - following conversations with other Council leaders in the area - has identified potential alternatives. I wonder whether one reason for the delay in submitting an application by Helius is to explore these alternative options. If so, hats off to the much-maligned Richard Williams.[/p][/quote]Agreed. Fawley has to be the best option.[/p][/quote]With Fawley being decommissioned it sounds ideal, but the waterside currently lacks the road infrastructure to support hundreds of extra daily HGV movements as the A326 is already a car park during peak hours. Furthermore with Fawley being in an NFDC controlled area this project would then be totally out of SCC hands and would have to effectively start from scratch again.[/p][/quote]after the kick up by certain quarters over the container port proposal do you not think it would be even more opposed to a Bio Mass Generator that they've already objected to when it's being built in Millbrook? Fawley berth is way to shallow to get the wood ships in so it would have to be either trained or lorried in do you think the waterside would accept that?[/p][/quote]Its was deep enough to take an iron ore bulk carrier ship for a few weks till it was moved to the Thames.[/p][/quote]Misguided as usual Southy UNLESS you can provide the name of the vessel and date it called at Fawley. As Andy of Locks Heath pointed out the ship your fertile imagination conjured up was undoubtedly anchored off the After Barn buoy. phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

5:13pm Wed 14 Nov 12

phil maccavity says...

Danae wrote:
Using forest residues to generate electricity is a nice but unrealistic idea.

Existing and proposed UK Woodburner Power Stations will require 60million tons per year of imported wood by 2017.

The UK produces just 10 million tons of timber per year, 80% of which goes to the construction and wood panel industries.

UK forests may offer a bit less than 1 million tons of residues a year. This is well scattered across plantations throughout the UK, half of which are in Scotland.

It is only economic to transport residues a short distance. This is why their use is confined to domestic and small scale local heat, and sometimes power, applications for industry typically in remote off-grid locations.

A Southampton Woodburner Power Station, like other substantial UK stations would be almost entirely dependent on imports from North America and elsewhere for the 800,000 tons a year of wood pellet that Helius has said it would burn.
Danae.
I think other product apart from forest residue will be used.
Apparently all 16 of the UK's major power stations are now co-fired (ie using a combination of coal and biomass)
Biomass includes by products of wood, palm kernels etc etc
Drax, the UK's largest power station is gradually moving over to burn biomass and they have a planning application in more a 300mw biomass only plant which will use 1.4m tonnes of imported biomass.
I also take issue with your statement that it is only economic to transport wood residue short distances.
As another poster pointed out Eddie Stobart take a lot of wood chippings from the north of the UK to places like Shoreham and Chatham for export by ship to power stations in Germany, Holland and Sweden
[quote][p][bold]Danae[/bold] wrote: Using forest residues to generate electricity is a nice but unrealistic idea. Existing and proposed UK Woodburner Power Stations will require 60million tons per year of imported wood by 2017. The UK produces just 10 million tons of timber per year, 80% of which goes to the construction and wood panel industries. UK forests may offer a bit less than 1 million tons of residues a year. This is well scattered across plantations throughout the UK, half of which are in Scotland. It is only economic to transport residues a short distance. This is why their use is confined to domestic and small scale local heat, and sometimes power, applications for industry typically in remote off-grid locations. A Southampton Woodburner Power Station, like other substantial UK stations would be almost entirely dependent on imports from North America and elsewhere for the 800,000 tons a year of wood pellet that Helius has said it would burn.[/p][/quote]Danae. I think other product apart from forest residue will be used. Apparently all 16 of the UK's major power stations are now co-fired (ie using a combination of coal and biomass) Biomass includes by products of wood, palm kernels etc etc Drax, the UK's largest power station is gradually moving over to burn biomass and they have a planning application in more a 300mw biomass only plant which will use 1.4m tonnes of imported biomass. I also take issue with your statement that it is only economic to transport wood residue short distances. As another poster pointed out Eddie Stobart take a lot of wood chippings from the north of the UK to places like Shoreham and Chatham for export by ship to power stations in Germany, Holland and Sweden phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

5:43pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
freemantlegirl2 wrote:
And of course it has NOTHING to do with the two further recent fires in addition to the others that have already happened, including the very serious one in Tilbury.

Burning wood pellets has had VERY bad press recently, people are starting to understand that this isn't 'green' and the Carbon footprint is actually more than than that of coal because when more trees are planted it takes 25 years to cancel out the burning!

Even if it's in Fawley, this ISN'T GREEN! it's not a long-term solution and there is a high risk of fire, particularly on this scale.....
Anyone watching that that WIldWood programme last week can see clearly what ALH has been saying on here for months, that there is a huge amount of by product going to waste in our forests. Biomass does not have to be grown for the purpose of being biomass for Gods sake - it's a simple enough principle - it is no different to burning domestic waste except that it is a lot cleaner cheaper and more efficient. You either use it or let ot lie there and rot. It is better to use it.
And if you FMG are advocating no burning whatsoever to produce our electricity and relying entirely on wind sun and wave how many thousands of deaths are you and the other idiotic greens happy to accept as worth the price of sending the entire country back into the dark ages?
Sorry, you are not correct.

It is an essential part of the woodland ecosystem to have dead wood to protect biodiversity. It provdes essential food and shelter for many of our invertebrates, and birds.

http://www.forestry.

gov.uk/pdf/lifeinthe

deadwood.pdf/$FILE/l

ifeinthedeadwood.pdf



http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/Coarse_wood

y_debris
Unfortunately that is the wrong information used in this context. There is a huge difference between a natural woodland where decaying wood is essential for biodiversity and artificially cultivated timber crops which are grown, clear felled and replanted again at the same time on an industrial scale. That is where a huge quantity of biomass by product is available. Trees grown for timber are not attractive but they are necessary, and the by product from that process is large source of what is effectively free energy.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freemantlegirl2[/bold] wrote: And of course it has NOTHING to do with the two further recent fires in addition to the others that have already happened, including the very serious one in Tilbury. Burning wood pellets has had VERY bad press recently, people are starting to understand that this isn't 'green' and the Carbon footprint is actually more than than that of coal because when more trees are planted it takes 25 years to cancel out the burning! Even if it's in Fawley, this ISN'T GREEN! it's not a long-term solution and there is a high risk of fire, particularly on this scale.....[/p][/quote]Anyone watching that that WIldWood programme last week can see clearly what ALH has been saying on here for months, that there is a huge amount of by product going to waste in our forests. Biomass does not have to be grown for the purpose of being biomass for Gods sake - it's a simple enough principle - it is no different to burning domestic waste except that it is a lot cleaner cheaper and more efficient. You either use it or let ot lie there and rot. It is better to use it. And if you FMG are advocating no burning whatsoever to produce our electricity and relying entirely on wind sun and wave how many thousands of deaths are you and the other idiotic greens happy to accept as worth the price of sending the entire country back into the dark ages?[/p][/quote]Sorry, you are not correct. It is an essential part of the woodland ecosystem to have dead wood to protect biodiversity. It provdes essential food and shelter for many of our invertebrates, and birds. http://www.forestry. gov.uk/pdf/lifeinthe deadwood.pdf/$FILE/l ifeinthedeadwood.pdf http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Coarse_wood y_debris[/p][/quote]Unfortunately that is the wrong information used in this context. There is a huge difference between a natural woodland where decaying wood is essential for biodiversity and artificially cultivated timber crops which are grown, clear felled and replanted again at the same time on an industrial scale. That is where a huge quantity of biomass by product is available. Trees grown for timber are not attractive but they are necessary, and the by product from that process is large source of what is effectively free energy. Andy Locks Heath
  • Score: 0

5:53pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

Danae wrote:
Using forest residues to generate electricity is a nice but unrealistic idea.

Existing and proposed UK Woodburner Power Stations will require 60million tons per year of imported wood by 2017.

The UK produces just 10 million tons of timber per year, 80% of which goes to the construction and wood panel industries.

UK forests may offer a bit less than 1 million tons of residues a year. This is well scattered across plantations throughout the UK, half of which are in Scotland.

It is only economic to transport residues a short distance. This is why their use is confined to domestic and small scale local heat, and sometimes power, applications for industry typically in remote off-grid locations.

A Southampton Woodburner Power Station, like other substantial UK stations would be almost entirely dependent on imports from North America and elsewhere for the 800,000 tons a year of wood pellet that Helius has said it would burn.
I mostly agree Danae. I do not believe the 800ktpa that Helius suggested, which was probably more to attract investors by overstating generating potential. I reckon biomass will find a niche at times of peak demand, for which it is ideally suited. I haven't studied other proposals individually but I suspect the same thing is done. This is no different to windfarms claiming to power n 000 homes using figures based on continuous optimal winds. I think your estimate of 1 million domestic tonnes sounds about right, and I agree about the transportation issue but the fact is that with container trains constantly running empty containers back to the port from around the UK Southampton is better placed than most other cities to actually overcome the transporation costs that spoil the business case of most other proposed bio stations. The important thing is to utlise the resource productively, whether it is in Southampton or elsewhere. What makes no sense is with Southampton losing jobs in all directions why aren't local politicians biting the hands of Helius to bring good jobs and investment to this town rather than seeing it all walk away?
[quote][p][bold]Danae[/bold] wrote: Using forest residues to generate electricity is a nice but unrealistic idea. Existing and proposed UK Woodburner Power Stations will require 60million tons per year of imported wood by 2017. The UK produces just 10 million tons of timber per year, 80% of which goes to the construction and wood panel industries. UK forests may offer a bit less than 1 million tons of residues a year. This is well scattered across plantations throughout the UK, half of which are in Scotland. It is only economic to transport residues a short distance. This is why their use is confined to domestic and small scale local heat, and sometimes power, applications for industry typically in remote off-grid locations. A Southampton Woodburner Power Station, like other substantial UK stations would be almost entirely dependent on imports from North America and elsewhere for the 800,000 tons a year of wood pellet that Helius has said it would burn.[/p][/quote]I mostly agree Danae. I do not believe the 800ktpa that Helius suggested, which was probably more to attract investors by overstating generating potential. I reckon biomass will find a niche at times of peak demand, for which it is ideally suited. I haven't studied other proposals individually but I suspect the same thing is done. This is no different to windfarms claiming to power n 000 homes using figures based on continuous optimal winds. I think your estimate of 1 million domestic tonnes sounds about right, and I agree about the transportation issue but the fact is that with container trains constantly running empty containers back to the port from around the UK Southampton is better placed than most other cities to actually overcome the transporation costs that spoil the business case of most other proposed bio stations. The important thing is to utlise the resource productively, whether it is in Southampton or elsewhere. What makes no sense is with Southampton losing jobs in all directions why aren't local politicians biting the hands of Helius to bring good jobs and investment to this town rather than seeing it all walk away? Andy Locks Heath
  • Score: 0

7:22pm Wed 14 Nov 12

Dan Soton says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
One of the arguments put forward by Helius for their proposal in the docks was that there were no suitable alternative sites in the Solent region. Southampton Council leader, Richard Williams, has - following conversations with other Council leaders in the area - has identified potential alternatives.

I wonder whether one reason for the delay in submitting an application by Helius is to explore these alternative options. If so, hats off to the much-maligned Richard Williams.
FoysCornerBoy says... Helius is to explore these alternative options

-


Not if the alternative relies on wood biomass subsidies.

This government is winding down subsidies for large inefficient Wood Biomass plants like Helius's and favouring Wood/Coal Co-Firing, reason being burning imported trees is far worse for the climate than burning coal.

One overlooked factor, wood is a commodity, commodities are not subsidized unless you want to start a Trade War.
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: One of the arguments put forward by Helius for their proposal in the docks was that there were no suitable alternative sites in the Solent region. Southampton Council leader, Richard Williams, has - following conversations with other Council leaders in the area - has identified potential alternatives. I wonder whether one reason for the delay in submitting an application by Helius is to explore these alternative options. If so, hats off to the much-maligned Richard Williams.[/p][/quote]FoysCornerBoy says... Helius is to explore these alternative options - Not if the alternative relies on wood biomass subsidies. This government is winding down subsidies for large inefficient Wood Biomass plants like Helius's and favouring Wood/Coal Co-Firing, reason being burning imported trees is far worse for the climate than burning coal. One overlooked factor, wood is a commodity, commodities are not subsidized unless you want to start a Trade War. Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

8:05pm Wed 14 Nov 12

phil maccavity says...

Isnt the burning of wood subsidised to some extent by ROC's (Renewable Obligation Certificates) which have a market value and can be traded to offsedt carbon emission allowance costs?
As a relative layman here I am frankly confused and concerned about our overall energy policy.
The four main providers of power in the UK are:
1. Oil (domestic supply will run out in the not too far distant future and we will remain even more dependent on increasingly expensive foreign supply)
2. Coal (relatively cheap to obtain from foreign sources but too much carbon emission)
3. Gas (again reliant on foreign supply. Several gas powered power plants planned for UK but difficulties experienced in getting necessary Govt support)
4. Biomass (which includes virgin and recycled wood, olive cake, palm kernals, sewage sludge and energy crops - note that these will replace acerage currently producing food crops)
5. Nuclear - !!!!!!!
6. Wind - problems experienced both with onshore and offshore sites. Irregular supply
7. Tidal - all current surveys eg Severn, Mersey etc have determined that it is not cost effective.
It seems to me that without a consensus and a definitive Govt strategy we will all be suffering from power supply problems in the not too far distant future
Isnt the burning of wood subsidised to some extent by ROC's (Renewable Obligation Certificates) which have a market value and can be traded to offsedt carbon emission allowance costs? As a relative layman here I am frankly confused and concerned about our overall energy policy. The four main providers of power in the UK are: 1. Oil (domestic supply will run out in the not too far distant future and we will remain even more dependent on increasingly expensive foreign supply) 2. Coal (relatively cheap to obtain from foreign sources but too much carbon emission) 3. Gas (again reliant on foreign supply. Several gas powered power plants planned for UK but difficulties experienced in getting necessary Govt support) 4. Biomass (which includes virgin and recycled wood, olive cake, palm kernals, sewage sludge and energy crops - note that these will replace acerage currently producing food crops) 5. Nuclear - !!!!!!! 6. Wind - problems experienced both with onshore and offshore sites. Irregular supply 7. Tidal - all current surveys eg Severn, Mersey etc have determined that it is not cost effective. It seems to me that without a consensus and a definitive Govt strategy we will all be suffering from power supply problems in the not too far distant future phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

6:34am Thu 15 Nov 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

phil maccavity wrote:
Isnt the burning of wood subsidised to some extent by ROC's (Renewable Obligation Certificates) which have a market value and can be traded to offsedt carbon emission allowance costs?
As a relative layman here I am frankly confused and concerned about our overall energy policy.
The four main providers of power in the UK are:
1. Oil (domestic supply will run out in the not too far distant future and we will remain even more dependent on increasingly expensive foreign supply)
2. Coal (relatively cheap to obtain from foreign sources but too much carbon emission)
3. Gas (again reliant on foreign supply. Several gas powered power plants planned for UK but difficulties experienced in getting necessary Govt support)
4. Biomass (which includes virgin and recycled wood, olive cake, palm kernals, sewage sludge and energy crops - note that these will replace acerage currently producing food crops)
5. Nuclear - !!!!!!!
6. Wind - problems experienced both with onshore and offshore sites. Irregular supply
7. Tidal - all current surveys eg Severn, Mersey etc have determined that it is not cost effective.
It seems to me that without a consensus and a definitive Govt strategy we will all be suffering from power supply problems in the not too far distant future
Nuclear is best safest, cleanest most pratical andreliable option of all, Phil. Why the exclamations?
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: Isnt the burning of wood subsidised to some extent by ROC's (Renewable Obligation Certificates) which have a market value and can be traded to offsedt carbon emission allowance costs? As a relative layman here I am frankly confused and concerned about our overall energy policy. The four main providers of power in the UK are: 1. Oil (domestic supply will run out in the not too far distant future and we will remain even more dependent on increasingly expensive foreign supply) 2. Coal (relatively cheap to obtain from foreign sources but too much carbon emission) 3. Gas (again reliant on foreign supply. Several gas powered power plants planned for UK but difficulties experienced in getting necessary Govt support) 4. Biomass (which includes virgin and recycled wood, olive cake, palm kernals, sewage sludge and energy crops - note that these will replace acerage currently producing food crops) 5. Nuclear - !!!!!!! 6. Wind - problems experienced both with onshore and offshore sites. Irregular supply 7. Tidal - all current surveys eg Severn, Mersey etc have determined that it is not cost effective. It seems to me that without a consensus and a definitive Govt strategy we will all be suffering from power supply problems in the not too far distant future[/p][/quote]Nuclear is best safest, cleanest most pratical andreliable option of all, Phil. Why the exclamations? Andy Locks Heath
  • Score: 0

10:49am Thu 15 Nov 12

phil maccavity says...

Andy

The !!!!! indicates the horror shown on most people's faces when this option is mentioned, especially following the Japanese experience.
Personally I don't enough about it to express too much of an opinion.
I don't disagree with your comments but, as a layman, I have an assumption that there are likely to be more adverse consequences of a malfunction with nuclear than the other options and, of course, the issues disposing of the spent material.
However the major concern to me is the thought of actually being without power.
The Govt certainly needs to have an ongoing coherent fuel strategy.
Andy The !!!!! indicates the horror shown on most people's faces when this option is mentioned, especially following the Japanese experience. Personally I don't enough about it to express too much of an opinion. I don't disagree with your comments but, as a layman, I have an assumption that there are likely to be more adverse consequences of a malfunction with nuclear than the other options and, of course, the issues disposing of the spent material. However the major concern to me is the thought of actually being without power. The Govt certainly needs to have an ongoing coherent fuel strategy. phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

1:25pm Tue 27 Nov 12

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
One of the arguments put forward by Helius for their proposal in the docks was that there were no suitable alternative sites in the Solent region. Southampton Council leader, Richard Williams, has - following conversations with other Council leaders in the area - has identified potential alternatives.

I wonder whether one reason for the delay in submitting an application by Helius is to explore these alternative options. If so, hats off to the much-maligned Richard Williams.
FoysCornerBoy says... Helius is to explore these alternative options

-


Not if the alternative relies on wood biomass subsidies.

This government is winding down subsidies for large inefficient Wood Biomass plants like Helius's and favouring Wood/Coal Co-Firing, reason being burning imported trees is far worse for the climate than burning coal.

One overlooked factor, wood is a commodity, commodities are not subsidized unless you want to start a Trade War.
Saltwater Algae Biofuel.. cheerio to Helius's land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans.


-



Given today's Saltwater Algae Biofuel news we can all say cheerio to Helius's land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans..

hopefully all money/subsidies saved will be winging their way to the University of Southampton's (dream team’ of top scientists ) Saltwater Algae Biofuel research.

-

http://www.southampt
on.ac.uk/mediacentre
/news/2010/mar/10_32
.shtml


-


SALTWATER ALGAE VIABLE FOR BIOFUELS.

Published on November 27, 2012 at 3:53 AM.

The Algae Biomass Organization, the trade association for the U.S. algae industry today hailed the findings of a University of California at San Diego study that concludes, for the first time, that marine (saltwater) algae can be just as capable as freshwater algae in producing biofuels.

The research is documented in a peer-reviewed paper published online in the current issue of the scientific journal Algal Research.

"What this means is that you can use ocean water to grow the algae that will be used to produce biofuels. And once you can use ocean water, you are no longer limited by the constraints associated with fresh water. Ocean water is simply not a limited resource on this planet," said Stephen Mayfield, Ph.D., a professor of biology at UC San Diego, who headed the research project.

The availability of significant saltwater environments for algae production has been documented in recent years. According to a Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's (PNNL) report, algal fuels grown in saline water from existing aquifers and recycling nutrients would be able to provide up to twice the goal for advanced biofuels set under the Energy Independence and Security Act (roughly 40 billion gallons or 20 percent of annual transportation fuel demand).

Yet until today's report, no public research had demonstrated the capability of algae to thrive in a saltwater environment.

-

http://www.azocleant
ech.com/news.aspx?ne
wsID=17635
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: One of the arguments put forward by Helius for their proposal in the docks was that there were no suitable alternative sites in the Solent region. Southampton Council leader, Richard Williams, has - following conversations with other Council leaders in the area - has identified potential alternatives. I wonder whether one reason for the delay in submitting an application by Helius is to explore these alternative options. If so, hats off to the much-maligned Richard Williams.[/p][/quote]FoysCornerBoy says... Helius is to explore these alternative options - Not if the alternative relies on wood biomass subsidies. This government is winding down subsidies for large inefficient Wood Biomass plants like Helius's and favouring Wood/Coal Co-Firing, reason being burning imported trees is far worse for the climate than burning coal. One overlooked factor, wood is a commodity, commodities are not subsidized unless you want to start a Trade War.[/p][/quote]Saltwater Algae Biofuel.. cheerio to Helius's land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans. - Given today's Saltwater Algae Biofuel news we can all say cheerio to Helius's land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans.. hopefully all money/subsidies saved will be winging their way to the University of Southampton's (dream team’ of top scientists ) Saltwater Algae Biofuel research. - http://www.southampt on.ac.uk/mediacentre /news/2010/mar/10_32 .shtml - SALTWATER ALGAE VIABLE FOR BIOFUELS. Published on November 27, 2012 at 3:53 AM. The Algae Biomass Organization, the trade association for the U.S. algae industry today hailed the findings of a University of California at San Diego study that concludes, for the first time, that marine (saltwater) algae can be just as capable as freshwater algae in producing biofuels. The research is documented in a peer-reviewed paper published online in the current issue of the scientific journal Algal Research. "What this means is that you can use ocean water to grow the algae that will be used to produce biofuels. And once you can use ocean water, you are no longer limited by the constraints associated with fresh water. Ocean water is simply not a limited resource on this planet," said Stephen Mayfield, Ph.D., a professor of biology at UC San Diego, who headed the research project. The availability of significant saltwater environments for algae production has been documented in recent years. According to a Pacific Northwest National Laboratory's (PNNL) report, algal fuels grown in saline water from existing aquifers and recycling nutrients would be able to provide up to twice the goal for advanced biofuels set under the Energy Independence and Security Act (roughly 40 billion gallons or 20 percent of annual transportation fuel demand). Yet until today's report, no public research had demonstrated the capability of algae to thrive in a saltwater environment. - http://www.azocleant ech.com/news.aspx?ne wsID=17635 Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree