Plan to build Sulphur Plant on land at Southampton Docks

Sulphur plant plan for city

Sulphur plant plan for city

First published in News
Last updated
Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Senior reporter

ITS giant storage tanks will dominate the skyline at Southampton’s docks and contain a foul smelling liquid stinking of rotten eggs.

The huge sulphur pastillation plant is earmarked for industrial land in West Bay Road, Freemantle, less than half a mile from a controversial biomass power station planned for the Western Docks in Millbrook.

The new plant will rises to 16 metres (50ft) at its highest point – less than a quarter of the height of the biomass station – and developers Oxbow Sulphur and Fertiliser insist a treating system will prevent putrid odours from wafting across scores of homes downwind from it.

But furious neighbours are kicking up a stink, claiming the company and city council chiefs failed to consult them on a development, which they say will pollute their air, devalue their homes and increase congestion in the area.

Leaders of the Freemantle Village Neighbourhood Watch only stumbled across a revised application for it last month and were horrified to learn the original application was conditionally approved by Southampton City Council more than 18 months ago in October 2011.

Member Ben Chambers, 37, who lives in Norman Road, said: “We should have been consulted. Sulphur is very unpleasant so we are very concerned about the potential noise and smell.

“People are already worried about the biomass plant and they are now concerned this will have an impact on them.”

The plant will create up to 12 permanent jobs plus another 50 roles during its yearlong construction, which is likely to begin in October. Liquid sulphur will arrive at the site in tanker lorries from the Fawley Refinery before being cooled and converted into drop-sized pellets to be shipped abroad for reuse as fertilisers and pharmaceuticals.

An Oxbow spokesman stressed measures are in place to prevent gases escaping and to minimise noise. He added: “Odours will be neutralised with a scrubbing system to levels determined acceptable by city planning and the port. Other support equipment would produce minimal sound that would dissipate before it leaves the facility.”

He said it will contribute to the economy and enhance the city’s reputation as a gateway port.

A Southampton City Council spokesperson stressed the authority was not required to carry out public consultation because the nearest houses are 200 metres away from the site and are separated by a railway line, the A33 and other industries at the docks.

She added: “There are no plans to extend the consultation but the three ward councillors recently met local residents and the details of the application were discussed with representatives of the council’s planning and environmental health divisions.”

But many nearby residents were unaware of the proposals when the Echo showed them the plans.

Michael Biggs, 32, who has lived in Saxon Road for 12 years, said: “It’s going to stink the place out! If it comes wafting across my garden I am going to be browned off.”

Trudie Robertson, 42, from Elgin Road said: “People don’t want to live near a big, ugly monstrosity – it’s going to affect house prices and add more lorries to the roads.”

More environmental stories:

Stuart Galpin, 34, from Cliff Road, said: “A bit of transparency would have been better – it’s the not knowing which makes it worse. It’s as if it’s been brushed under the carpet.”

Freemantle ward councillor Jeremy Moul-ton, who is demanding the company sets up a meeting with residents to explain their plans further, said: “People are very nervous in the area following the application for the biomass station.

“People need reassurance this isn’t going to cause noise throughout the night and isn’t going to smell of rotten eggs.”

The Oxbow spokesman said: “Although in-person consultations have not been performed to date Oxbow is available to meet with the community as Oxbow believes in stakeholder engagement and transparency.”

Steve Galton from the No Southampton Biomass campaign group said: “It’s the last thing we need next to people’s homes.

“Why don’t they put the plant next to the refinery where they get the sulphur from? Why should the residents be lumbered with this industrial process.

“That land is for dock related development and I question whether it genuinely is or whether they are just putting it there because it is going to be shipped out.”

THE proposed sulphur pastillation plant will boost the city’s economic and environmental fortune.

That was the verdict of Hampshire Chamber of Commerce chief executive Jimmy Chestnutt yesterday.

Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs.

“If we can create jobs in difficult economic times we will do a lot to drive our economy upwards  and the extra jobs in the construction phase will provide multipliers in the city.”

He said that recycling sulphur will help boost the Southampton’s drive towards a low carbon city and believes the company has sufficient measures in place to prevent odours.

He added: “This is good news for jobs and the local economy and good news for the environment.”

“I am as confident as I can be that the planning and building regulations will ensure that the local residents are perfectly safe.”

Daily Echo: Planned Southampton biomass plant

THE multimillion pound biomass power station is planned for land at Southampton’s Western Docks.

Developers Helius Energy are poised to make a full planning application for the £300m site this summer.

The 100 mega watt station would burn 800,000 tonnes of wood a year to convert into electricity.

It is expected to create 450 jobs in its construction phase and 40 permanent jobs afterwards.

But residents, led by the No Southampton Biomass group, have criticised the project, pointing out its 328ft chimney is twice the size of the Civic Centre and will tower over their homes.

Comments (128)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:13am Wed 3 Apr 13

Eric_Cartman says...

The wrong place to put it. If there are any smells/leaks, the prevailing wind will blow it right across the centre of the city.
The wrong place to put it. If there are any smells/leaks, the prevailing wind will blow it right across the centre of the city. Eric_Cartman
  • Score: 0

10:22am Wed 3 Apr 13

freefinker says...

southy says, 2:34pm Sun 9 Oct 11. ‘Sulphur is the world biggest cause off cancers’ – guess he will not be too pleased with this news (even if it does mean jobs).
southy says, 2:34pm Sun 9 Oct 11. ‘Sulphur is the world biggest cause off cancers’ – guess he will not be too pleased with this news (even if it does mean jobs). freefinker
  • Score: 0

10:28am Wed 3 Apr 13

massimoosti says...

Opposite the cruise terminal - good planning.
Opposite the cruise terminal - good planning. massimoosti
  • Score: 0

10:34am Wed 3 Apr 13

southamptongeordie says...

"A Southampton City Council spokesperson stressed the authority was not required to carry out public consultation because the nearest houses are 200 metres away from the site and are separated by a railway line, the A33 and other industries at the docks.

She added: “There are no plans to extend the consultation"

I thought the Labour Council was going to listen to people, not hide behind council employees and hide information from the public.

This is shameful.
"A Southampton City Council spokesperson stressed the authority was not required to carry out public consultation because the nearest houses are 200 metres away from the site and are separated by a railway line, the A33 and other industries at the docks. She added: “There are no plans to extend the consultation" I thought the Labour Council was going to listen to people, not hide behind council employees and hide information from the public. This is shameful. southamptongeordie
  • Score: 0

10:34am Wed 3 Apr 13

For pity sake says...

freefinker wrote:
southy says, 2:34pm Sun 9 Oct 11. ‘Sulphur is the world biggest cause off cancers’ – guess he will not be too pleased with this news (even if it does mean jobs).
Since you follow the words of the prophet so closely, have you ever thought of producing a little red book?
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: southy says, 2:34pm Sun 9 Oct 11. ‘Sulphur is the world biggest cause off cancers’ – guess he will not be too pleased with this news (even if it does mean jobs).[/p][/quote]Since you follow the words of the prophet so closely, have you ever thought of producing a little red book? For pity sake
  • Score: 0

11:11am Wed 3 Apr 13

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
southy says, 2:34pm Sun 9 Oct 11. ‘Sulphur is the world biggest cause off cancers’ – guess he will not be too pleased with this news (even if it does mean jobs).
Dead right I not to happy, this type of plant belongs in a refinery not inside a city limits.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: southy says, 2:34pm Sun 9 Oct 11. ‘Sulphur is the world biggest cause off cancers’ – guess he will not be too pleased with this news (even if it does mean jobs).[/p][/quote]Dead right I not to happy, this type of plant belongs in a refinery not inside a city limits. southy
  • Score: 0

11:12am Wed 3 Apr 13

southy says...

How if they built this plant and the bio-mass plant on ABP'j doorstep, in Jersey I wonder if it would be allowed.
How if they built this plant and the bio-mass plant on ABP'j doorstep, in Jersey I wonder if it would be allowed. southy
  • Score: 0

11:16am Wed 3 Apr 13

southy says...

"Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs."

If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.
"Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs." If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work. southy
  • Score: 0

11:17am Wed 3 Apr 13

CharlieOxbridge says...

Are people forgetting that Southampton is an industrial city with its main asset being the docks. People are going to have to make a decision whether they want to live in the city or on the suburbs.
.
I admit that industry like this should really be found in developing countries and we should be looking to the financial sector to boost our economy but people also complain about the bankers so I find it slightly hypercritcal when people so protesting about developments such as this one. If this doesnt go ahead there soon will be another proposal lined up to takes its place.
.
Personally I would rather Southampton concentrate on cleaner more profitable industries such as the Container Port, Cruise Terminal and Financial Sectors. Would also like to see facilities to build and refit ships to the size of the current P&O and Cunard fleet. Should also look to capitlise new funding for Aerospace.
Are people forgetting that Southampton is an industrial city with its main asset being the docks. People are going to have to make a decision whether they want to live in the city or on the suburbs. . I admit that industry like this should really be found in developing countries and we should be looking to the financial sector to boost our economy but people also complain about the bankers so I find it slightly hypercritcal when people so protesting about developments such as this one. If this doesnt go ahead there soon will be another proposal lined up to takes its place. . Personally I would rather Southampton concentrate on cleaner more profitable industries such as the Container Port, Cruise Terminal and Financial Sectors. Would also like to see facilities to build and refit ships to the size of the current P&O and Cunard fleet. Should also look to capitlise new funding for Aerospace. CharlieOxbridge
  • Score: 0

11:24am Wed 3 Apr 13

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
How if they built this plant and the bio-mass plant on ABP'j doorstep, in Jersey I wonder if it would be allowed.
Unfortunately the cost of shipping the liquid sulphur and the wood for the biomass all the way to Jersey so that the sulphur could be converted to pellets for export and the wood used to generate electricity for use on the mainland wouldn't be economically realistic. Does it come as a huge surprise that the owners of brownfield industrial sites want to use them for industrial purposes?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: How if they built this plant and the bio-mass plant on ABP'j doorstep, in Jersey I wonder if it would be allowed.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately the cost of shipping the liquid sulphur and the wood for the biomass all the way to Jersey so that the sulphur could be converted to pellets for export and the wood used to generate electricity for use on the mainland wouldn't be economically realistic. Does it come as a huge surprise that the owners of brownfield industrial sites want to use them for industrial purposes? Torchie1
  • Score: 0

11:32am Wed 3 Apr 13

House Sparrow says...

southy wrote:
"Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs."

If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.
Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: "Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs." If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.[/p][/quote]Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication. House Sparrow
  • Score: 0

11:36am Wed 3 Apr 13

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
"Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs."

If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.
Since 2007 the UK road fuel has had less the 10 parts per million of sulphur in it so that emissions can be improved and nothing else. The amended EU Directive (98/70/EC) doesn't seem to agree with your understanding of sulphur in fuel which comes as no surprise as they probably don't use your local library as a 'source of information'.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: "Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs." If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.[/p][/quote]Since 2007 the UK road fuel has had less the 10 parts per million of sulphur in it so that emissions can be improved and nothing else. The amended EU Directive (98/70/EC) doesn't seem to agree with your understanding of sulphur in fuel which comes as no surprise as they probably don't use your local library as a 'source of information'. Torchie1
  • Score: 0

11:42am Wed 3 Apr 13

OSPREYSAINT says...

Southampton is becoming like a real Sea Port, i.e. Ostende, anyone that has been there will know what I mean, providing their olfactory senses work!
Southampton is becoming like a real Sea Port, i.e. Ostende, anyone that has been there will know what I mean, providing their olfactory senses work! OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

12:00pm Wed 3 Apr 13

loosehead says...

So Labours done a Lidl to Freemantle?
Up here they swore to most residents they'd stop Lidl's knew warehouse but once elected voted for it.
I was for it.
At least we knew about it they never used a relatively harmless Bio Mass Generator as a smoke screen to get through this Sulphur Plant.
Exactly where you could put this in this country with out the strictest safety & smell restriction procedures I don't know.
But after Cathy McEwing phoned me for the first time time in nearly 6years of living here asking me who I'm going to vote for I guess they'll be desperately phoning Freemantle, (real) Millbrook & Shirley & Town residents won't they?
So Labours done a Lidl to Freemantle? Up here they swore to most residents they'd stop Lidl's knew warehouse but once elected voted for it. I was for it. At least we knew about it they never used a relatively harmless Bio Mass Generator as a smoke screen to get through this Sulphur Plant. Exactly where you could put this in this country with out the strictest safety & smell restriction procedures I don't know. But after Cathy McEwing phoned me for the first time time in nearly 6years of living here asking me who I'm going to vote for I guess they'll be desperately phoning Freemantle, (real) Millbrook & Shirley & Town residents won't they? loosehead
  • Score: 0

12:05pm Wed 3 Apr 13

southy says...

House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
"Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs."

If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.
Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.
You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.
[quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: "Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs." If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.[/p][/quote]Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.[/p][/quote]You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it. southy
  • Score: 0

12:08pm Wed 3 Apr 13

southy says...

Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
How if they built this plant and the bio-mass plant on ABP'j doorstep, in Jersey I wonder if it would be allowed.
Unfortunately the cost of shipping the liquid sulphur and the wood for the biomass all the way to Jersey so that the sulphur could be converted to pellets for export and the wood used to generate electricity for use on the mainland wouldn't be economically realistic. Does it come as a huge surprise that the owners of brownfield industrial sites want to use them for industrial purposes?
Who said about generate electricity to the main land, and as we import power from france any way it would stay economically the same.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: How if they built this plant and the bio-mass plant on ABP'j doorstep, in Jersey I wonder if it would be allowed.[/p][/quote]Unfortunately the cost of shipping the liquid sulphur and the wood for the biomass all the way to Jersey so that the sulphur could be converted to pellets for export and the wood used to generate electricity for use on the mainland wouldn't be economically realistic. Does it come as a huge surprise that the owners of brownfield industrial sites want to use them for industrial purposes?[/p][/quote]Who said about generate electricity to the main land, and as we import power from france any way it would stay economically the same. southy
  • Score: 0

12:14pm Wed 3 Apr 13

Lone Ranger. says...

What a pity that Cllr Moulton didnt want the company to have a meeting with the residents when the planning was initially approved during his parties control
.
.
Quote .... "the original application was conditionally approved by Southampton City Council more than 18 months ago in October 2011".
.
Seems like once again the full facts are somewhat disguised ...... Typical
What a pity that Cllr Moulton didnt want the company to have a meeting with the residents when the planning was initially approved during his parties control . . Quote .... "the original application was conditionally approved by Southampton City Council more than 18 months ago in October 2011". . Seems like once again the full facts are somewhat disguised ...... Typical Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

12:22pm Wed 3 Apr 13

sotonboy84 says...

A Southampton City Council spokesperson stressed the authority was not required to carry out public consultation because the nearest houses are 200 metres away from the site and are separated by a railway line, the A33 and other industries at the docks.

Even if this is the case, it's not morally right to decive residents and try to pass it all through quietly.

SSC proves time and time again that they're scum.
A Southampton City Council spokesperson stressed the authority was not required to carry out public consultation because the nearest houses are 200 metres away from the site and are separated by a railway line, the A33 and other industries at the docks. Even if this is the case, it's not morally right to decive residents and try to pass it all through quietly. SSC proves time and time again that they're scum. sotonboy84
  • Score: 0

12:39pm Wed 3 Apr 13

Stillness says...

CharlieOxbridge wrote:
Are people forgetting that Southampton is an industrial city with its main asset being the docks. People are going to have to make a decision whether they want to live in the city or on the suburbs.
.
I admit that industry like this should really be found in developing countries and we should be looking to the financial sector to boost our economy but people also complain about the bankers so I find it slightly hypercritcal when people so protesting about developments such as this one. If this doesnt go ahead there soon will be another proposal lined up to takes its place.
.
Personally I would rather Southampton concentrate on cleaner more profitable industries such as the Container Port, Cruise Terminal and Financial Sectors. Would also like to see facilities to build and refit ships to the size of the current P&O and Cunard fleet. Should also look to capitlise new funding for Aerospace.
"I admit that industry like this should really be found in developing countries and we should be looking to the financial sector to boost our economy".
Are you for real? Why do you think that it should be sited in a developing country, one that will probably have the capabilities to deal with it correctly. Just so you don't have to live with it? Are you (despite it's appalling record) still believing the financial sector can be trusted to boost the economy?
[quote][p][bold]CharlieOxbridge[/bold] wrote: Are people forgetting that Southampton is an industrial city with its main asset being the docks. People are going to have to make a decision whether they want to live in the city or on the suburbs. . I admit that industry like this should really be found in developing countries and we should be looking to the financial sector to boost our economy but people also complain about the bankers so I find it slightly hypercritcal when people so protesting about developments such as this one. If this doesnt go ahead there soon will be another proposal lined up to takes its place. . Personally I would rather Southampton concentrate on cleaner more profitable industries such as the Container Port, Cruise Terminal and Financial Sectors. Would also like to see facilities to build and refit ships to the size of the current P&O and Cunard fleet. Should also look to capitlise new funding for Aerospace.[/p][/quote]"I admit that industry like this should really be found in developing countries and we should be looking to the financial sector to boost our economy". Are you for real? Why do you think that it should be sited in a developing country, one that will probably have the capabilities to deal with it correctly. Just so you don't have to live with it? Are you (despite it's appalling record) still believing the financial sector can be trusted to boost the economy? Stillness
  • Score: 0

12:42pm Wed 3 Apr 13

House Sparrow says...

southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
"Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs."

If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.
Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.
You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.
Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: "Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs." If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.[/p][/quote]Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.[/p][/quote]You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.[/p][/quote]Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible. House Sparrow
  • Score: 0

12:44pm Wed 3 Apr 13

dango says...

I'm actually FOR the Biomass generating station but IMO this proposal for a sulphur plant is a step too far and should not be given the go-ahead.
I'm actually FOR the Biomass generating station but IMO this proposal for a sulphur plant is a step too far and should not be given the go-ahead. dango
  • Score: 0

12:58pm Wed 3 Apr 13

southy says...

House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
"Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs."

If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.
Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.
You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.
Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible.
That is why atomisers (fuel injectors) are use, where diesel is thicker than petrol, and its lower sulphur content than petrol when refined.
You can not reduce sulphur to zero in fuels, it would not work
[quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: "Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs." If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.[/p][/quote]Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.[/p][/quote]You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.[/p][/quote]Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible.[/p][/quote]That is why atomisers (fuel injectors) are use, where diesel is thicker than petrol, and its lower sulphur content than petrol when refined. You can not reduce sulphur to zero in fuels, it would not work southy
  • Score: 0

1:00pm Wed 3 Apr 13

southy says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
What a pity that Cllr Moulton didnt want the company to have a meeting with the residents when the planning was initially approved during his parties control
.
.
Quote .... "the original application was conditionally approved by Southampton City Council more than 18 months ago in October 2011".
.
Seems like once again the full facts are somewhat disguised ...... Typical
It all ways is Lone
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: What a pity that Cllr Moulton didnt want the company to have a meeting with the residents when the planning was initially approved during his parties control . . Quote .... "the original application was conditionally approved by Southampton City Council more than 18 months ago in October 2011". . Seems like once again the full facts are somewhat disguised ...... Typical[/p][/quote]It all ways is Lone southy
  • Score: 0

1:04pm Wed 3 Apr 13

House Sparrow says...

southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
"Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs."

If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.
Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.
You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.
Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible.
That is why atomisers (fuel injectors) are use, where diesel is thicker than petrol, and its lower sulphur content than petrol when refined.
You can not reduce sulphur to zero in fuels, it would not work
I do love your bogus science, but I will let you continue in your ignorance and incorrect beliefs.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: "Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs." If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.[/p][/quote]Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.[/p][/quote]You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.[/p][/quote]Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible.[/p][/quote]That is why atomisers (fuel injectors) are use, where diesel is thicker than petrol, and its lower sulphur content than petrol when refined. You can not reduce sulphur to zero in fuels, it would not work[/p][/quote]I do love your bogus science, but I will let you continue in your ignorance and incorrect beliefs. House Sparrow
  • Score: 0

1:05pm Wed 3 Apr 13

CharlieOxbridge says...

Stillness wrote:
CharlieOxbridge wrote: Are people forgetting that Southampton is an industrial city with its main asset being the docks. People are going to have to make a decision whether they want to live in the city or on the suburbs. . I admit that industry like this should really be found in developing countries and we should be looking to the financial sector to boost our economy but people also complain about the bankers so I find it slightly hypercritcal when people so protesting about developments such as this one. If this doesnt go ahead there soon will be another proposal lined up to takes its place. . Personally I would rather Southampton concentrate on cleaner more profitable industries such as the Container Port, Cruise Terminal and Financial Sectors. Would also like to see facilities to build and refit ships to the size of the current P&O and Cunard fleet. Should also look to capitlise new funding for Aerospace.
"I admit that industry like this should really be found in developing countries and we should be looking to the financial sector to boost our economy". Are you for real? Why do you think that it should be sited in a developing country, one that will probably have the capabilities to deal with it correctly. Just so you don't have to live with it? Are you (despite it's appalling record) still believing the financial sector can be trusted to boost the economy?
By switching the countries reliance on the manufacturing industry to the services and information technology industry made us one of the strongest economy's in the world in recent times & despite the recent events of the world’s financial markets we still are & we are also at the fore front in technology & design. Biomass power stations & Sulphur plants are a step back into the 60's and for developing countries that do not have the knowhow of our financial markets & technology.
[quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]CharlieOxbridge[/bold] wrote: Are people forgetting that Southampton is an industrial city with its main asset being the docks. People are going to have to make a decision whether they want to live in the city or on the suburbs. . I admit that industry like this should really be found in developing countries and we should be looking to the financial sector to boost our economy but people also complain about the bankers so I find it slightly hypercritcal when people so protesting about developments such as this one. If this doesnt go ahead there soon will be another proposal lined up to takes its place. . Personally I would rather Southampton concentrate on cleaner more profitable industries such as the Container Port, Cruise Terminal and Financial Sectors. Would also like to see facilities to build and refit ships to the size of the current P&O and Cunard fleet. Should also look to capitlise new funding for Aerospace.[/p][/quote]"I admit that industry like this should really be found in developing countries and we should be looking to the financial sector to boost our economy". Are you for real? Why do you think that it should be sited in a developing country, one that will probably have the capabilities to deal with it correctly. Just so you don't have to live with it? Are you (despite it's appalling record) still believing the financial sector can be trusted to boost the economy?[/p][/quote]By switching the countries reliance on the manufacturing industry to the services and information technology industry made us one of the strongest economy's in the world in recent times & despite the recent events of the world’s financial markets we still are & we are also at the fore front in technology & design. Biomass power stations & Sulphur plants are a step back into the 60's and for developing countries that do not have the knowhow of our financial markets & technology. CharlieOxbridge
  • Score: 0

1:07pm Wed 3 Apr 13

sass says...

Sniff, sniff, sniff, what's that smell? Oh yeah, money!
Sniff, sniff, sniff, what's that smell? Oh yeah, money! sass
  • Score: 0

1:13pm Wed 3 Apr 13

House Sparrow says...

What happened to freefinker's thoughtsof chairman southy?
What happened to freefinker's thoughtsof chairman southy? House Sparrow
  • Score: 0

1:23pm Wed 3 Apr 13

03alpe01 says...

Public access to the Waterfront eh? Look forward to going to chill by that lovely sea smelling water
Public access to the Waterfront eh? Look forward to going to chill by that lovely sea smelling water 03alpe01
  • Score: 0

1:32pm Wed 3 Apr 13

southy says...

House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
"Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs."

If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.
Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.
You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.
Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible.
That is why atomisers (fuel injectors) are use, where diesel is thicker than petrol, and its lower sulphur content than petrol when refined.
You can not reduce sulphur to zero in fuels, it would not work
I do love your bogus science, but I will let you continue in your ignorance and incorrect beliefs.
Not bogus I work with diesel engines to much not to know how they work, like the old listers and petter engines never had heater plugs, but you could get them running easy enough, that thats because of the atomisers, diesel engine dont work with a carberator, the old parafin engines that had caberators had to be started up on petrol first and closed down with petrol, but once the engine gets warm the heat turn the sulphur in to gas. all fuels work sulphur with out it, it would remain as liquid droplets
[quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: "Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs." If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.[/p][/quote]Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.[/p][/quote]You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.[/p][/quote]Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible.[/p][/quote]That is why atomisers (fuel injectors) are use, where diesel is thicker than petrol, and its lower sulphur content than petrol when refined. You can not reduce sulphur to zero in fuels, it would not work[/p][/quote]I do love your bogus science, but I will let you continue in your ignorance and incorrect beliefs.[/p][/quote]Not bogus I work with diesel engines to much not to know how they work, like the old listers and petter engines never had heater plugs, but you could get them running easy enough, that thats because of the atomisers, diesel engine dont work with a carberator, the old parafin engines that had caberators had to be started up on petrol first and closed down with petrol, but once the engine gets warm the heat turn the sulphur in to gas. all fuels work sulphur with out it, it would remain as liquid droplets southy
  • Score: 0

1:34pm Wed 3 Apr 13

Here, There says...

SCC are doing all they can to sustain the Docks, it is far from capacity and few commercial operators can afford the rent so obviously will only see industries such as these(hugely subsidised) emerging. Moans ring out about the 'containerisation' of the Docks yet every other application is met with objection, its a huge industrial plot so we have to expect varied industry to operate from the site, pending changes to the roads infrastructure with Docks traffic the main beneficiaries I expect more operators to look at Southampton as being viable, Good thing yes ??
SCC are doing all they can to sustain the Docks, it is far from capacity and few commercial operators can afford the rent so obviously will only see industries such as these(hugely subsidised) emerging. Moans ring out about the 'containerisation' of the Docks yet every other application is met with objection, its a huge industrial plot so we have to expect varied industry to operate from the site, pending changes to the roads infrastructure with Docks traffic the main beneficiaries I expect more operators to look at Southampton as being viable, Good thing yes ?? Here, There
  • Score: 0

1:45pm Wed 3 Apr 13

House Sparrow says...

southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
"Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs."

If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.
Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.
You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.
Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible.
That is why atomisers (fuel injectors) are use, where diesel is thicker than petrol, and its lower sulphur content than petrol when refined.
You can not reduce sulphur to zero in fuels, it would not work
I do love your bogus science, but I will let you continue in your ignorance and incorrect beliefs.
Not bogus I work with diesel engines to much not to know how they work, like the old listers and petter engines never had heater plugs, but you could get them running easy enough, that thats because of the atomisers, diesel engine dont work with a carberator, the old parafin engines that had caberators had to be started up on petrol first and closed down with petrol, but once the engine gets warm the heat turn the sulphur in to gas. all fuels work sulphur with out it, it would remain as liquid droplets
How does bio-diesel, that has nos suphur, work then?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: "Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs." If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.[/p][/quote]Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.[/p][/quote]You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.[/p][/quote]Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible.[/p][/quote]That is why atomisers (fuel injectors) are use, where diesel is thicker than petrol, and its lower sulphur content than petrol when refined. You can not reduce sulphur to zero in fuels, it would not work[/p][/quote]I do love your bogus science, but I will let you continue in your ignorance and incorrect beliefs.[/p][/quote]Not bogus I work with diesel engines to much not to know how they work, like the old listers and petter engines never had heater plugs, but you could get them running easy enough, that thats because of the atomisers, diesel engine dont work with a carberator, the old parafin engines that had caberators had to be started up on petrol first and closed down with petrol, but once the engine gets warm the heat turn the sulphur in to gas. all fuels work sulphur with out it, it would remain as liquid droplets[/p][/quote]How does bio-diesel, that has nos suphur, work then? House Sparrow
  • Score: 0

1:49pm Wed 3 Apr 13

Beer Monster says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Southampton is becoming like a real Sea Port, i.e. Ostende, anyone that has been there will know what I mean, providing their olfactory senses work!
There's some good pubs in Ostende IIRC, if that's what becoming a real sea port will do to our city, then bring it on I say :-)
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: Southampton is becoming like a real Sea Port, i.e. Ostende, anyone that has been there will know what I mean, providing their olfactory senses work![/p][/quote]There's some good pubs in Ostende IIRC, if that's what becoming a real sea port will do to our city, then bring it on I say :-) Beer Monster
  • Score: 0

1:59pm Wed 3 Apr 13

OSPREYSAINT says...

sass wrote:
Sniff, sniff, sniff, what's that smell? Oh yeah, money!
Beats the smell of fish!
[quote][p][bold]sass[/bold] wrote: Sniff, sniff, sniff, what's that smell? Oh yeah, money![/p][/quote]Beats the smell of fish! OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

2:11pm Wed 3 Apr 13

dango says...

I'm with Southy on this one. There's no such thing as zero sulphur diesel. There's ULSD (ultra low sulphur diesel) Erlier diesel engines had normal injectors which atomised the fuel in the combustion chamber. Todays diesel engines, ie Pumpe Duse use a much higher pressure to inject the fuel atomising it even finer. In Pumpe Duse the pressure builds up in the injector. Common Rail is similar however the pressure is built up in the fuel pipe rail (common rail) before being injected at very high pressure (~15,000psi +) to finely atomise the fuel to give better comustion and higher usage of fuel (less unburnt fuel out the back as smoke). All diesels use compression to create combustion.
I'm with Southy on this one. There's no such thing as zero sulphur diesel. There's ULSD (ultra low sulphur diesel) Erlier diesel engines had normal injectors which atomised the fuel in the combustion chamber. Todays diesel engines, ie Pumpe Duse use a much higher pressure to inject the fuel atomising it even finer. In Pumpe Duse the pressure builds up in the injector. Common Rail is similar however the pressure is built up in the fuel pipe rail (common rail) before being injected at very high pressure (~15,000psi +) to finely atomise the fuel to give better comustion and higher usage of fuel (less unburnt fuel out the back as smoke). All diesels use compression to create combustion. dango
  • Score: 0

2:14pm Wed 3 Apr 13

dango says...

Oh, and Biodiesel DOES contain sulphur but around 80% less than low sulphur diesel. I could go into more detail on the above but I'd probably lose you :)
Oh, and Biodiesel DOES contain sulphur but around 80% less than low sulphur diesel. I could go into more detail on the above but I'd probably lose you :) dango
  • Score: 0

2:19pm Wed 3 Apr 13

Stillness says...

southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
"Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs."

If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.
Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.
You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.
Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible.
That is why atomisers (fuel injectors) are use, where diesel is thicker than petrol, and its lower sulphur content than petrol when refined.
You can not reduce sulphur to zero in fuels, it would not work
I do love your bogus science, but I will let you continue in your ignorance and incorrect beliefs.
Not bogus I work with diesel engines to much not to know how they work, like the old listers and petter engines never had heater plugs, but you could get them running easy enough, that thats because of the atomisers, diesel engine dont work with a carberator, the old parafin engines that had caberators had to be started up on petrol first and closed down with petrol, but once the engine gets warm the heat turn the sulphur in to gas. all fuels work sulphur with out it, it would remain as liquid droplets
You work!!!
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: "Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs." If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.[/p][/quote]Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.[/p][/quote]You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.[/p][/quote]Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible.[/p][/quote]That is why atomisers (fuel injectors) are use, where diesel is thicker than petrol, and its lower sulphur content than petrol when refined. You can not reduce sulphur to zero in fuels, it would not work[/p][/quote]I do love your bogus science, but I will let you continue in your ignorance and incorrect beliefs.[/p][/quote]Not bogus I work with diesel engines to much not to know how they work, like the old listers and petter engines never had heater plugs, but you could get them running easy enough, that thats because of the atomisers, diesel engine dont work with a carberator, the old parafin engines that had caberators had to be started up on petrol first and closed down with petrol, but once the engine gets warm the heat turn the sulphur in to gas. all fuels work sulphur with out it, it would remain as liquid droplets[/p][/quote]You work!!! Stillness
  • Score: 0

2:28pm Wed 3 Apr 13

Stephen J says...

southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
"Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs."

If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.
Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.
You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.
Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible.
That is why atomisers (fuel injectors) are use, where diesel is thicker than petrol, and its lower sulphur content than petrol when refined.
You can not reduce sulphur to zero in fuels, it would not work
I do love your bogus science, but I will let you continue in your ignorance and incorrect beliefs.
Not bogus I work with diesel engines to much not to know how they work, like the old listers and petter engines never had heater plugs, but you could get them running easy enough, that thats because of the atomisers, diesel engine dont work with a carberator, the old parafin engines that had caberators had to be started up on petrol first and closed down with petrol, but once the engine gets warm the heat turn the sulphur in to gas. all fuels work sulphur with out it, it would remain as liquid droplets
You're right in that in some applications, especially with older engines, ultra low sulfur diesel does not work as well as high sulfur fuel. This is for two reasons. The lack of sulfur causes lubrication problems, but this can be overcome with suitable additives. Secondly, the ULSD has a lower energy content than high sulfur fuel, but this is not due to the lack of sulfur, it's due to the refining process used to get rid of the sulfur. So yes, there is still sulfur in diesel, not because it plays any beneficial role in combustion, but only because it can't yet be totally got rid of.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: "Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs." If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.[/p][/quote]Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.[/p][/quote]You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.[/p][/quote]Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible.[/p][/quote]That is why atomisers (fuel injectors) are use, where diesel is thicker than petrol, and its lower sulphur content than petrol when refined. You can not reduce sulphur to zero in fuels, it would not work[/p][/quote]I do love your bogus science, but I will let you continue in your ignorance and incorrect beliefs.[/p][/quote]Not bogus I work with diesel engines to much not to know how they work, like the old listers and petter engines never had heater plugs, but you could get them running easy enough, that thats because of the atomisers, diesel engine dont work with a carberator, the old parafin engines that had caberators had to be started up on petrol first and closed down with petrol, but once the engine gets warm the heat turn the sulphur in to gas. all fuels work sulphur with out it, it would remain as liquid droplets[/p][/quote]You're right in that in some applications, especially with older engines, ultra low sulfur diesel does not work as well as high sulfur fuel. This is for two reasons. The lack of sulfur causes lubrication problems, but this can be overcome with suitable additives. Secondly, the ULSD has a lower energy content than high sulfur fuel, but this is not due to the lack of sulfur, it's due to the refining process used to get rid of the sulfur. So yes, there is still sulfur in diesel, not because it plays any beneficial role in combustion, but only because it can't yet be totally got rid of. Stephen J
  • Score: 0

2:33pm Wed 3 Apr 13

Inform Al says...

I know that the fluoride that our excutioners want to poison our water with comes from the scrubbing process in the chimneys of fertiliser manufacturing plants. Apparently its too poisonous to allow it to drift over local farmland but OK to put in our drinking water. As this plant will be making fertiliser, does this mean their scrubbers will be taking fluoride from the exhaust gasses? If so I think I know why they want to poison us, there is always the smell of money.
I know that the fluoride that our excutioners want to poison our water with comes from the scrubbing process in the chimneys of fertiliser manufacturing plants. Apparently its too poisonous to allow it to drift over local farmland but OK to put in our drinking water. As this plant will be making fertiliser, does this mean their scrubbers will be taking fluoride from the exhaust gasses? If so I think I know why they want to poison us, there is always the smell of money. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

2:35pm Wed 3 Apr 13

House Sparrow says...

dango wrote:
Oh, and Biodiesel DOES contain sulphur but around 80% less than low sulphur diesel. I could go into more detail on the above but I'd probably lose you :)
You would find it difficult 'to lose' me. I have a very good understanding of science and technology.
[quote][p][bold]dango[/bold] wrote: Oh, and Biodiesel DOES contain sulphur but around 80% less than low sulphur diesel. I could go into more detail on the above but I'd probably lose you :)[/p][/quote]You would find it difficult 'to lose' me. I have a very good understanding of science and technology. House Sparrow
  • Score: 0

2:36pm Wed 3 Apr 13

lovetheladies says...

Couldn't be built in a better place than backwardhampton. hahahahahaha
Couldn't be built in a better place than backwardhampton. hahahahahaha lovetheladies
  • Score: 0

2:39pm Wed 3 Apr 13

House Sparrow says...

Inform Al wrote:
I know that the fluoride that our excutioners want to poison our water with comes from the scrubbing process in the chimneys of fertiliser manufacturing plants. Apparently its too poisonous to allow it to drift over local farmland but OK to put in our drinking water. As this plant will be making fertiliser, does this mean their scrubbers will be taking fluoride from the exhaust gasses? If so I think I know why they want to poison us, there is always the smell of money.
The plant will only be processing the sulfur into pellet form to then go elsewhere to be made into fertiliser etc.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: I know that the fluoride that our excutioners want to poison our water with comes from the scrubbing process in the chimneys of fertiliser manufacturing plants. Apparently its too poisonous to allow it to drift over local farmland but OK to put in our drinking water. As this plant will be making fertiliser, does this mean their scrubbers will be taking fluoride from the exhaust gasses? If so I think I know why they want to poison us, there is always the smell of money.[/p][/quote]The plant will only be processing the sulfur into pellet form to then go elsewhere to be made into fertiliser etc. House Sparrow
  • Score: 0

2:42pm Wed 3 Apr 13

freefinker says...

House Sparrow wrote:
What happened to freefinker's thoughtsof chairman southy?
.. someone (I wonder who?) hit the 'Report This Post' button.
[quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: What happened to freefinker's thoughtsof chairman southy?[/p][/quote].. someone (I wonder who?) hit the 'Report This Post' button. freefinker
  • Score: 0

2:44pm Wed 3 Apr 13

House Sparrow says...

freefinker wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
What happened to freefinker's thoughtsof chairman southy?
.. someone (I wonder who?) hit the 'Report This Post' button.
What a shame - it was very interesting
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: What happened to freefinker's thoughtsof chairman southy?[/p][/quote].. someone (I wonder who?) hit the 'Report This Post' button.[/p][/quote]What a shame - it was very interesting House Sparrow
  • Score: 0

2:48pm Wed 3 Apr 13

freefinker says...

House Sparrow wrote:
freefinker wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
What happened to freefinker's thoughtsof chairman southy?
.. someone (I wonder who?) hit the 'Report This Post' button.
What a shame - it was very interesting
.. yes, it was intended to be both interesting and amusing. After all, I was only quoting what the great man was actually saying during March. It was all based on his words, not mine.
[quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: What happened to freefinker's thoughtsof chairman southy?[/p][/quote].. someone (I wonder who?) hit the 'Report This Post' button.[/p][/quote]What a shame - it was very interesting[/p][/quote].. yes, it was intended to be both interesting and amusing. After all, I was only quoting what the great man was actually saying during March. It was all based on his words, not mine. freefinker
  • Score: 0

2:50pm Wed 3 Apr 13

southy says...

House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
"Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs."

If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.
Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.
You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.
Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible.
That is why atomisers (fuel injectors) are use, where diesel is thicker than petrol, and its lower sulphur content than petrol when refined.
You can not reduce sulphur to zero in fuels, it would not work
I do love your bogus science, but I will let you continue in your ignorance and incorrect beliefs.
Not bogus I work with diesel engines to much not to know how they work, like the old listers and petter engines never had heater plugs, but you could get them running easy enough, that thats because of the atomisers, diesel engine dont work with a carberator, the old parafin engines that had caberators had to be started up on petrol first and closed down with petrol, but once the engine gets warm the heat turn the sulphur in to gas. all fuels work sulphur with out it, it would remain as liquid droplets
How does bio-diesel, that has nos suphur, work then?
bio-diesel do have sulphur, plants pick up sulphur out of the soil when growing, plus boi-diesel gets that little bit more added to it.
If you make your own bio-diesel then you need to add about 1 tablespoon full of white sprit to every 5 galls, or another type of sprit that as surlphur mix in
[quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: "Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs." If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.[/p][/quote]Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.[/p][/quote]You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.[/p][/quote]Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible.[/p][/quote]That is why atomisers (fuel injectors) are use, where diesel is thicker than petrol, and its lower sulphur content than petrol when refined. You can not reduce sulphur to zero in fuels, it would not work[/p][/quote]I do love your bogus science, but I will let you continue in your ignorance and incorrect beliefs.[/p][/quote]Not bogus I work with diesel engines to much not to know how they work, like the old listers and petter engines never had heater plugs, but you could get them running easy enough, that thats because of the atomisers, diesel engine dont work with a carberator, the old parafin engines that had caberators had to be started up on petrol first and closed down with petrol, but once the engine gets warm the heat turn the sulphur in to gas. all fuels work sulphur with out it, it would remain as liquid droplets[/p][/quote]How does bio-diesel, that has nos suphur, work then?[/p][/quote]bio-diesel do have sulphur, plants pick up sulphur out of the soil when growing, plus boi-diesel gets that little bit more added to it. If you make your own bio-diesel then you need to add about 1 tablespoon full of white sprit to every 5 galls, or another type of sprit that as surlphur mix in southy
  • Score: 0

2:51pm Wed 3 Apr 13

sarfhamton says...

Say no to local jobs and investment!
Say no to local jobs and investment! sarfhamton
  • Score: 0

2:54pm Wed 3 Apr 13

House Sparrow says...

southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
"Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs."

If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.
Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.
You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.
Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible.
That is why atomisers (fuel injectors) are use, where diesel is thicker than petrol, and its lower sulphur content than petrol when refined.
You can not reduce sulphur to zero in fuels, it would not work
I do love your bogus science, but I will let you continue in your ignorance and incorrect beliefs.
Not bogus I work with diesel engines to much not to know how they work, like the old listers and petter engines never had heater plugs, but you could get them running easy enough, that thats because of the atomisers, diesel engine dont work with a carberator, the old parafin engines that had caberators had to be started up on petrol first and closed down with petrol, but once the engine gets warm the heat turn the sulphur in to gas. all fuels work sulphur with out it, it would remain as liquid droplets
How does bio-diesel, that has nos suphur, work then?
bio-diesel do have sulphur, plants pick up sulphur out of the soil when growing, plus boi-diesel gets that little bit more added to it.
If you make your own bio-diesel then you need to add about 1 tablespoon full of white sprit to every 5 galls, or another type of sprit that as surlphur mix in
Just read what Stephen J posted and stop digging your big hole. It is quite deep enough!
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: "Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs." If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.[/p][/quote]Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.[/p][/quote]You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.[/p][/quote]Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible.[/p][/quote]That is why atomisers (fuel injectors) are use, where diesel is thicker than petrol, and its lower sulphur content than petrol when refined. You can not reduce sulphur to zero in fuels, it would not work[/p][/quote]I do love your bogus science, but I will let you continue in your ignorance and incorrect beliefs.[/p][/quote]Not bogus I work with diesel engines to much not to know how they work, like the old listers and petter engines never had heater plugs, but you could get them running easy enough, that thats because of the atomisers, diesel engine dont work with a carberator, the old parafin engines that had caberators had to be started up on petrol first and closed down with petrol, but once the engine gets warm the heat turn the sulphur in to gas. all fuels work sulphur with out it, it would remain as liquid droplets[/p][/quote]How does bio-diesel, that has nos suphur, work then?[/p][/quote]bio-diesel do have sulphur, plants pick up sulphur out of the soil when growing, plus boi-diesel gets that little bit more added to it. If you make your own bio-diesel then you need to add about 1 tablespoon full of white sprit to every 5 galls, or another type of sprit that as surlphur mix in[/p][/quote]Just read what Stephen J posted and stop digging your big hole. It is quite deep enough! House Sparrow
  • Score: 0

2:54pm Wed 3 Apr 13

Inform Al says...

sarfhamton wrote:
Say no to local jobs and investment!
Dunno, could need more undertakers as well if this scheme goes ahead, but I suppose jobs must come first as long as there is someone still alive to do them.
[quote][p][bold]sarfhamton[/bold] wrote: Say no to local jobs and investment![/p][/quote]Dunno, could need more undertakers as well if this scheme goes ahead, but I suppose jobs must come first as long as there is someone still alive to do them. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

2:55pm Wed 3 Apr 13

lovetheladies says...

sarfhamton wrote:
Say no to local jobs and investment!
Exactly!! You just can't help these local backward idiots ranting on...
[quote][p][bold]sarfhamton[/bold] wrote: Say no to local jobs and investment![/p][/quote]Exactly!! You just can't help these local backward idiots ranting on... lovetheladies
  • Score: 0

2:56pm Wed 3 Apr 13

Inform Al says...

House Sparrow wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
I know that the fluoride that our excutioners want to poison our water with comes from the scrubbing process in the chimneys of fertiliser manufacturing plants. Apparently its too poisonous to allow it to drift over local farmland but OK to put in our drinking water. As this plant will be making fertiliser, does this mean their scrubbers will be taking fluoride from the exhaust gasses? If so I think I know why they want to poison us, there is always the smell of money.
The plant will only be processing the sulfur into pellet form to then go elsewhere to be made into fertiliser etc.
I do so hope you are right.
[quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: I know that the fluoride that our excutioners want to poison our water with comes from the scrubbing process in the chimneys of fertiliser manufacturing plants. Apparently its too poisonous to allow it to drift over local farmland but OK to put in our drinking water. As this plant will be making fertiliser, does this mean their scrubbers will be taking fluoride from the exhaust gasses? If so I think I know why they want to poison us, there is always the smell of money.[/p][/quote]The plant will only be processing the sulfur into pellet form to then go elsewhere to be made into fertiliser etc.[/p][/quote]I do so hope you are right. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

3:01pm Wed 3 Apr 13

For pity sake says...

House Sparrow wrote:
freefinker wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
What happened to freefinker's thoughtsof chairman southy?
.. someone (I wonder who?) hit the 'Report This Post' button.
What a shame - it was very interesting
Oh - I missed that.
If it was a reply to my original suggestion, can you re-post it?
[quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: What happened to freefinker's thoughtsof chairman southy?[/p][/quote].. someone (I wonder who?) hit the 'Report This Post' button.[/p][/quote]What a shame - it was very interesting[/p][/quote]Oh - I missed that. If it was a reply to my original suggestion, can you re-post it? For pity sake
  • Score: 0

3:07pm Wed 3 Apr 13

freefinker says...

For pity sake wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
freefinker wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
What happened to freefinker's thoughtsof chairman southy?
.. someone (I wonder who?) hit the 'Report This Post' button.
What a shame - it was very interesting
Oh - I missed that.
If it was a reply to my original suggestion, can you re-post it?
.. yes, it was in reply to your post.
If I do re-post I'm likely to get banned.
[quote][p][bold]For pity sake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: What happened to freefinker's thoughtsof chairman southy?[/p][/quote].. someone (I wonder who?) hit the 'Report This Post' button.[/p][/quote]What a shame - it was very interesting[/p][/quote]Oh - I missed that. If it was a reply to my original suggestion, can you re-post it?[/p][/quote].. yes, it was in reply to your post. If I do re-post I'm likely to get banned. freefinker
  • Score: 0

3:14pm Wed 3 Apr 13

House Sparrow says...

freefinker wrote:
For pity sake wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
freefinker wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
What happened to freefinker's thoughtsof chairman southy?
.. someone (I wonder who?) hit the 'Report This Post' button.
What a shame - it was very interesting
Oh - I missed that.
If it was a reply to my original suggestion, can you re-post it?
.. yes, it was in reply to your post.
If I do re-post I'm likely to get banned.
We will just have to continue to highlight each error individually. We will have to rely on our memories. Mind you, it will be easier to remember the times he is correct!
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]For pity sake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: What happened to freefinker's thoughtsof chairman southy?[/p][/quote].. someone (I wonder who?) hit the 'Report This Post' button.[/p][/quote]What a shame - it was very interesting[/p][/quote]Oh - I missed that. If it was a reply to my original suggestion, can you re-post it?[/p][/quote].. yes, it was in reply to your post. If I do re-post I'm likely to get banned.[/p][/quote]We will just have to continue to highlight each error individually. We will have to rely on our memories. Mind you, it will be easier to remember the times he is correct! House Sparrow
  • Score: 0

3:21pm Wed 3 Apr 13

southy says...

House Sparrow wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
I know that the fluoride that our excutioners want to poison our water with comes from the scrubbing process in the chimneys of fertiliser manufacturing plants. Apparently its too poisonous to allow it to drift over local farmland but OK to put in our drinking water. As this plant will be making fertiliser, does this mean their scrubbers will be taking fluoride from the exhaust gasses? If so I think I know why they want to poison us, there is always the smell of money.
The plant will only be processing the sulfur into pellet form to then go elsewhere to be made into fertiliser etc.
they can make it into pellet form at the refinery then bring it to the docks for export, the same as they do with rubber.
[quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: I know that the fluoride that our excutioners want to poison our water with comes from the scrubbing process in the chimneys of fertiliser manufacturing plants. Apparently its too poisonous to allow it to drift over local farmland but OK to put in our drinking water. As this plant will be making fertiliser, does this mean their scrubbers will be taking fluoride from the exhaust gasses? If so I think I know why they want to poison us, there is always the smell of money.[/p][/quote]The plant will only be processing the sulfur into pellet form to then go elsewhere to be made into fertiliser etc.[/p][/quote]they can make it into pellet form at the refinery then bring it to the docks for export, the same as they do with rubber. southy
  • Score: 0

3:30pm Wed 3 Apr 13

Stephen J says...

southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
"Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs."

If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.
Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.
You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.
Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible.
That is why atomisers (fuel injectors) are use, where diesel is thicker than petrol, and its lower sulphur content than petrol when refined.
You can not reduce sulphur to zero in fuels, it would not work
I do love your bogus science, but I will let you continue in your ignorance and incorrect beliefs.
Not bogus I work with diesel engines to much not to know how they work, like the old listers and petter engines never had heater plugs, but you could get them running easy enough, that thats because of the atomisers, diesel engine dont work with a carberator, the old parafin engines that had caberators had to be started up on petrol first and closed down with petrol, but once the engine gets warm the heat turn the sulphur in to gas. all fuels work sulphur with out it, it would remain as liquid droplets
How does bio-diesel, that has nos suphur, work then?
bio-diesel do have sulphur, plants pick up sulphur out of the soil when growing, plus boi-diesel gets that little bit more added to it.
If you make your own bio-diesel then you need to add about 1 tablespoon full of white sprit to every 5 galls, or another type of sprit that as surlphur mix in
Sulfur is ADDED to biodiesel? Millions are being spent on technologies to take the sulfur OUT of biodiesel! And white spirit is added to biodiesel as a solvent to reduce the oil's viscosity. If you thought you were adding sulfur, you'd be wasting your time since the bottle of white spirit you keep in your garage is likely to have been hydrodesulfurised.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: "Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs." If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.[/p][/quote]Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.[/p][/quote]You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.[/p][/quote]Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible.[/p][/quote]That is why atomisers (fuel injectors) are use, where diesel is thicker than petrol, and its lower sulphur content than petrol when refined. You can not reduce sulphur to zero in fuels, it would not work[/p][/quote]I do love your bogus science, but I will let you continue in your ignorance and incorrect beliefs.[/p][/quote]Not bogus I work with diesel engines to much not to know how they work, like the old listers and petter engines never had heater plugs, but you could get them running easy enough, that thats because of the atomisers, diesel engine dont work with a carberator, the old parafin engines that had caberators had to be started up on petrol first and closed down with petrol, but once the engine gets warm the heat turn the sulphur in to gas. all fuels work sulphur with out it, it would remain as liquid droplets[/p][/quote]How does bio-diesel, that has nos suphur, work then?[/p][/quote]bio-diesel do have sulphur, plants pick up sulphur out of the soil when growing, plus boi-diesel gets that little bit more added to it. If you make your own bio-diesel then you need to add about 1 tablespoon full of white sprit to every 5 galls, or another type of sprit that as surlphur mix in[/p][/quote]Sulfur is ADDED to biodiesel? Millions are being spent on technologies to take the sulfur OUT of biodiesel! And white spirit is added to biodiesel as a solvent to reduce the oil's viscosity. If you thought you were adding sulfur, you'd be wasting your time since the bottle of white spirit you keep in your garage is likely to have been hydrodesulfurised. Stephen J
  • Score: 0

3:34pm Wed 3 Apr 13

southy says...

Stephen J wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
"Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs."

If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.
Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.
You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.
Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible.
That is why atomisers (fuel injectors) are use, where diesel is thicker than petrol, and its lower sulphur content than petrol when refined.
You can not reduce sulphur to zero in fuels, it would not work
I do love your bogus science, but I will let you continue in your ignorance and incorrect beliefs.
Not bogus I work with diesel engines to much not to know how they work, like the old listers and petter engines never had heater plugs, but you could get them running easy enough, that thats because of the atomisers, diesel engine dont work with a carberator, the old parafin engines that had caberators had to be started up on petrol first and closed down with petrol, but once the engine gets warm the heat turn the sulphur in to gas. all fuels work sulphur with out it, it would remain as liquid droplets
You're right in that in some applications, especially with older engines, ultra low sulfur diesel does not work as well as high sulfur fuel. This is for two reasons. The lack of sulfur causes lubrication problems, but this can be overcome with suitable additives. Secondly, the ULSD has a lower energy content than high sulfur fuel, but this is not due to the lack of sulfur, it's due to the refining process used to get rid of the sulfur. So yes, there is still sulfur in diesel, not because it plays any beneficial role in combustion, but only because it can't yet be totally got rid of.
It still need sulphur to burn, as sulphur will turn into a gas ever easy pick up other chemicals from the liquid form, sulphur is one of those chemicals that can be found in all most every thing.
Pick on any of the LPG it as a sulphur mix in natural methane gas as sulphur mix in.
As removing sulphur from fuel, its all ready been done and they can do it, and do it for certain types of oils, LMH liquid as no sulphur and them it can not burn even if you put a lot of heat under it.
[quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: "Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs." If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.[/p][/quote]Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.[/p][/quote]You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.[/p][/quote]Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible.[/p][/quote]That is why atomisers (fuel injectors) are use, where diesel is thicker than petrol, and its lower sulphur content than petrol when refined. You can not reduce sulphur to zero in fuels, it would not work[/p][/quote]I do love your bogus science, but I will let you continue in your ignorance and incorrect beliefs.[/p][/quote]Not bogus I work with diesel engines to much not to know how they work, like the old listers and petter engines never had heater plugs, but you could get them running easy enough, that thats because of the atomisers, diesel engine dont work with a carberator, the old parafin engines that had caberators had to be started up on petrol first and closed down with petrol, but once the engine gets warm the heat turn the sulphur in to gas. all fuels work sulphur with out it, it would remain as liquid droplets[/p][/quote]You're right in that in some applications, especially with older engines, ultra low sulfur diesel does not work as well as high sulfur fuel. This is for two reasons. The lack of sulfur causes lubrication problems, but this can be overcome with suitable additives. Secondly, the ULSD has a lower energy content than high sulfur fuel, but this is not due to the lack of sulfur, it's due to the refining process used to get rid of the sulfur. So yes, there is still sulfur in diesel, not because it plays any beneficial role in combustion, but only because it can't yet be totally got rid of.[/p][/quote]It still need sulphur to burn, as sulphur will turn into a gas ever easy pick up other chemicals from the liquid form, sulphur is one of those chemicals that can be found in all most every thing. Pick on any of the LPG it as a sulphur mix in natural methane gas as sulphur mix in. As removing sulphur from fuel, its all ready been done and they can do it, and do it for certain types of oils, LMH liquid as no sulphur and them it can not burn even if you put a lot of heat under it. southy
  • Score: 0

3:38pm Wed 3 Apr 13

southy says...

Stephen J wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
"Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs."

If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.
Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.
You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.
Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible.
That is why atomisers (fuel injectors) are use, where diesel is thicker than petrol, and its lower sulphur content than petrol when refined.
You can not reduce sulphur to zero in fuels, it would not work
I do love your bogus science, but I will let you continue in your ignorance and incorrect beliefs.
Not bogus I work with diesel engines to much not to know how they work, like the old listers and petter engines never had heater plugs, but you could get them running easy enough, that thats because of the atomisers, diesel engine dont work with a carberator, the old parafin engines that had caberators had to be started up on petrol first and closed down with petrol, but once the engine gets warm the heat turn the sulphur in to gas. all fuels work sulphur with out it, it would remain as liquid droplets
How does bio-diesel, that has nos suphur, work then?
bio-diesel do have sulphur, plants pick up sulphur out of the soil when growing, plus boi-diesel gets that little bit more added to it.
If you make your own bio-diesel then you need to add about 1 tablespoon full of white sprit to every 5 galls, or another type of sprit that as surlphur mix in
Sulfur is ADDED to biodiesel? Millions are being spent on technologies to take the sulfur OUT of biodiesel! And white spirit is added to biodiesel as a solvent to reduce the oil's viscosity. If you thought you were adding sulfur, you'd be wasting your time since the bottle of white spirit you keep in your garage is likely to have been hydrodesulfurised.
Adding white sprit you are adding sulphur, white sprit in not sulphur free
[quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: "Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs." If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.[/p][/quote]Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.[/p][/quote]You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.[/p][/quote]Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible.[/p][/quote]That is why atomisers (fuel injectors) are use, where diesel is thicker than petrol, and its lower sulphur content than petrol when refined. You can not reduce sulphur to zero in fuels, it would not work[/p][/quote]I do love your bogus science, but I will let you continue in your ignorance and incorrect beliefs.[/p][/quote]Not bogus I work with diesel engines to much not to know how they work, like the old listers and petter engines never had heater plugs, but you could get them running easy enough, that thats because of the atomisers, diesel engine dont work with a carberator, the old parafin engines that had caberators had to be started up on petrol first and closed down with petrol, but once the engine gets warm the heat turn the sulphur in to gas. all fuels work sulphur with out it, it would remain as liquid droplets[/p][/quote]How does bio-diesel, that has nos suphur, work then?[/p][/quote]bio-diesel do have sulphur, plants pick up sulphur out of the soil when growing, plus boi-diesel gets that little bit more added to it. If you make your own bio-diesel then you need to add about 1 tablespoon full of white sprit to every 5 galls, or another type of sprit that as surlphur mix in[/p][/quote]Sulfur is ADDED to biodiesel? Millions are being spent on technologies to take the sulfur OUT of biodiesel! And white spirit is added to biodiesel as a solvent to reduce the oil's viscosity. If you thought you were adding sulfur, you'd be wasting your time since the bottle of white spirit you keep in your garage is likely to have been hydrodesulfurised.[/p][/quote]Adding white sprit you are adding sulphur, white sprit in not sulphur free southy
  • Score: 0

3:42pm Wed 3 Apr 13

southy says...

freefinker insted of wondering ask the web master why.
or was it false imformation you put up and the site web master pick up on it right way.
freefinker insted of wondering ask the web master why. or was it false imformation you put up and the site web master pick up on it right way. southy
  • Score: 0

3:49pm Wed 3 Apr 13

freefinker says...

House Sparrow wrote:
freefinker wrote:
For pity sake wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
freefinker wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
What happened to freefinker's thoughtsof chairman southy?
.. someone (I wonder who?) hit the 'Report This Post' button.
What a shame - it was very interesting
Oh - I missed that.
If it was a reply to my original suggestion, can you re-post it?
.. yes, it was in reply to your post.
If I do re-post I'm likely to get banned.
We will just have to continue to highlight each error individually. We will have to rely on our memories. Mind you, it will be easier to remember the times he is correct!
.. southy, you are the one who consistently puts up ‘false imformation' on this website - like on this article.

All I did was to collate all your March errors into one post. No false information; just your actual quotes and my commentary.
[quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]For pity sake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: What happened to freefinker's thoughtsof chairman southy?[/p][/quote].. someone (I wonder who?) hit the 'Report This Post' button.[/p][/quote]What a shame - it was very interesting[/p][/quote]Oh - I missed that. If it was a reply to my original suggestion, can you re-post it?[/p][/quote].. yes, it was in reply to your post. If I do re-post I'm likely to get banned.[/p][/quote]We will just have to continue to highlight each error individually. We will have to rely on our memories. Mind you, it will be easier to remember the times he is correct![/p][/quote].. southy, you are the one who consistently puts up ‘false imformation' on this website - like on this article. All I did was to collate all your March errors into one post. No false information; just your actual quotes and my commentary. freefinker
  • Score: 0

3:50pm Wed 3 Apr 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
freefinker insted of wondering ask the web master why.
or was it false imformation you put up and the site web master pick up on it right way.
OOPS, quoted wrong post ..

.. southy, you are the one who consistently puts up ‘false imformation' on this website - like on this article.

All I did was to collate all your March errors into one post. No false information; just your actual quotes and my commentary.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: freefinker insted of wondering ask the web master why. or was it false imformation you put up and the site web master pick up on it right way.[/p][/quote]OOPS, quoted wrong post .. .. southy, you are the one who consistently puts up ‘false imformation' on this website - like on this article. All I did was to collate all your March errors into one post. No false information; just your actual quotes and my commentary. freefinker
  • Score: 0

4:08pm Wed 3 Apr 13

Stephen J says...

southy wrote:
Stephen J wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
"Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs."

If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.
Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.
You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.
Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible.
That is why atomisers (fuel injectors) are use, where diesel is thicker than petrol, and its lower sulphur content than petrol when refined.
You can not reduce sulphur to zero in fuels, it would not work
I do love your bogus science, but I will let you continue in your ignorance and incorrect beliefs.
Not bogus I work with diesel engines to much not to know how they work, like the old listers and petter engines never had heater plugs, but you could get them running easy enough, that thats because of the atomisers, diesel engine dont work with a carberator, the old parafin engines that had caberators had to be started up on petrol first and closed down with petrol, but once the engine gets warm the heat turn the sulphur in to gas. all fuels work sulphur with out it, it would remain as liquid droplets
You're right in that in some applications, especially with older engines, ultra low sulfur diesel does not work as well as high sulfur fuel. This is for two reasons. The lack of sulfur causes lubrication problems, but this can be overcome with suitable additives. Secondly, the ULSD has a lower energy content than high sulfur fuel, but this is not due to the lack of sulfur, it's due to the refining process used to get rid of the sulfur. So yes, there is still sulfur in diesel, not because it plays any beneficial role in combustion, but only because it can't yet be totally got rid of.
It still need sulphur to burn, as sulphur will turn into a gas ever easy pick up other chemicals from the liquid form, sulphur is one of those chemicals that can be found in all most every thing.
Pick on any of the LPG it as a sulphur mix in natural methane gas as sulphur mix in.
As removing sulphur from fuel, its all ready been done and they can do it, and do it for certain types of oils, LMH liquid as no sulphur and them it can not burn even if you put a lot of heat under it.
What concentration of sulfur is required in fuel to allow proper combustion? For example, diesel with a sulfur content of less than 0.001 per cent, or ten parts per million, works perfectly well. Such fuel is known as "sulfur-free" for a reason.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: "Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs." If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.[/p][/quote]Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.[/p][/quote]You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.[/p][/quote]Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible.[/p][/quote]That is why atomisers (fuel injectors) are use, where diesel is thicker than petrol, and its lower sulphur content than petrol when refined. You can not reduce sulphur to zero in fuels, it would not work[/p][/quote]I do love your bogus science, but I will let you continue in your ignorance and incorrect beliefs.[/p][/quote]Not bogus I work with diesel engines to much not to know how they work, like the old listers and petter engines never had heater plugs, but you could get them running easy enough, that thats because of the atomisers, diesel engine dont work with a carberator, the old parafin engines that had caberators had to be started up on petrol first and closed down with petrol, but once the engine gets warm the heat turn the sulphur in to gas. all fuels work sulphur with out it, it would remain as liquid droplets[/p][/quote]You're right in that in some applications, especially with older engines, ultra low sulfur diesel does not work as well as high sulfur fuel. This is for two reasons. The lack of sulfur causes lubrication problems, but this can be overcome with suitable additives. Secondly, the ULSD has a lower energy content than high sulfur fuel, but this is not due to the lack of sulfur, it's due to the refining process used to get rid of the sulfur. So yes, there is still sulfur in diesel, not because it plays any beneficial role in combustion, but only because it can't yet be totally got rid of.[/p][/quote]It still need sulphur to burn, as sulphur will turn into a gas ever easy pick up other chemicals from the liquid form, sulphur is one of those chemicals that can be found in all most every thing. Pick on any of the LPG it as a sulphur mix in natural methane gas as sulphur mix in. As removing sulphur from fuel, its all ready been done and they can do it, and do it for certain types of oils, LMH liquid as no sulphur and them it can not burn even if you put a lot of heat under it.[/p][/quote]What concentration of sulfur is required in fuel to allow proper combustion? For example, diesel with a sulfur content of less than 0.001 per cent, or ten parts per million, works perfectly well. Such fuel is known as "sulfur-free" for a reason. Stephen J
  • Score: 0

4:10pm Wed 3 Apr 13

Fatty x Ford Worker says...

Wrong place should of been down Weston Shore it would keep the pong down from Fawley which does pong a bit.
Wrong place should of been down Weston Shore it would keep the pong down from Fawley which does pong a bit. Fatty x Ford Worker
  • Score: 0

4:11pm Wed 3 Apr 13

Stephen J says...

southy wrote:
Stephen J wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
"Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs."

If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.
Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.
You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.
Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible.
That is why atomisers (fuel injectors) are use, where diesel is thicker than petrol, and its lower sulphur content than petrol when refined.
You can not reduce sulphur to zero in fuels, it would not work
I do love your bogus science, but I will let you continue in your ignorance and incorrect beliefs.
Not bogus I work with diesel engines to much not to know how they work, like the old listers and petter engines never had heater plugs, but you could get them running easy enough, that thats because of the atomisers, diesel engine dont work with a carberator, the old parafin engines that had caberators had to be started up on petrol first and closed down with petrol, but once the engine gets warm the heat turn the sulphur in to gas. all fuels work sulphur with out it, it would remain as liquid droplets
How does bio-diesel, that has nos suphur, work then?
bio-diesel do have sulphur, plants pick up sulphur out of the soil when growing, plus boi-diesel gets that little bit more added to it.
If you make your own bio-diesel then you need to add about 1 tablespoon full of white sprit to every 5 galls, or another type of sprit that as surlphur mix in
Sulfur is ADDED to biodiesel? Millions are being spent on technologies to take the sulfur OUT of biodiesel! And white spirit is added to biodiesel as a solvent to reduce the oil's viscosity. If you thought you were adding sulfur, you'd be wasting your time since the bottle of white spirit you keep in your garage is likely to have been hydrodesulfurised.
Adding white sprit you are adding sulphur, white sprit in not sulphur free
You're right. It's not sulfur-free. It has a sulfur content of less than 5 parts per million.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: "Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs." If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.[/p][/quote]Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.[/p][/quote]You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.[/p][/quote]Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible.[/p][/quote]That is why atomisers (fuel injectors) are use, where diesel is thicker than petrol, and its lower sulphur content than petrol when refined. You can not reduce sulphur to zero in fuels, it would not work[/p][/quote]I do love your bogus science, but I will let you continue in your ignorance and incorrect beliefs.[/p][/quote]Not bogus I work with diesel engines to much not to know how they work, like the old listers and petter engines never had heater plugs, but you could get them running easy enough, that thats because of the atomisers, diesel engine dont work with a carberator, the old parafin engines that had caberators had to be started up on petrol first and closed down with petrol, but once the engine gets warm the heat turn the sulphur in to gas. all fuels work sulphur with out it, it would remain as liquid droplets[/p][/quote]How does bio-diesel, that has nos suphur, work then?[/p][/quote]bio-diesel do have sulphur, plants pick up sulphur out of the soil when growing, plus boi-diesel gets that little bit more added to it. If you make your own bio-diesel then you need to add about 1 tablespoon full of white sprit to every 5 galls, or another type of sprit that as surlphur mix in[/p][/quote]Sulfur is ADDED to biodiesel? Millions are being spent on technologies to take the sulfur OUT of biodiesel! And white spirit is added to biodiesel as a solvent to reduce the oil's viscosity. If you thought you were adding sulfur, you'd be wasting your time since the bottle of white spirit you keep in your garage is likely to have been hydrodesulfurised.[/p][/quote]Adding white sprit you are adding sulphur, white sprit in not sulphur free[/p][/quote]You're right. It's not sulfur-free. It has a sulfur content of less than 5 parts per million. Stephen J
  • Score: 0

4:32pm Wed 3 Apr 13

Fatty x Ford Worker says...

Stephen J wrote:
southy wrote:
Stephen J wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
"Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs."

If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.
Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.
You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.
Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible.
That is why atomisers (fuel injectors) are use, where diesel is thicker than petrol, and its lower sulphur content than petrol when refined.
You can not reduce sulphur to zero in fuels, it would not work
I do love your bogus science, but I will let you continue in your ignorance and incorrect beliefs.
Not bogus I work with diesel engines to much not to know how they work, like the old listers and petter engines never had heater plugs, but you could get them running easy enough, that thats because of the atomisers, diesel engine dont work with a carberator, the old parafin engines that had caberators had to be started up on petrol first and closed down with petrol, but once the engine gets warm the heat turn the sulphur in to gas. all fuels work sulphur with out it, it would remain as liquid droplets
How does bio-diesel, that has nos suphur, work then?
bio-diesel do have sulphur, plants pick up sulphur out of the soil when growing, plus boi-diesel gets that little bit more added to it.
If you make your own bio-diesel then you need to add about 1 tablespoon full of white sprit to every 5 galls, or another type of sprit that as surlphur mix in
Sulfur is ADDED to biodiesel? Millions are being spent on technologies to take the sulfur OUT of biodiesel! And white spirit is added to biodiesel as a solvent to reduce the oil's viscosity. If you thought you were adding sulfur, you'd be wasting your time since the bottle of white spirit you keep in your garage is likely to have been hydrodesulfurised.
Adding white sprit you are adding sulphur, white sprit in not sulphur free
You're right. It's not sulfur-free. It has a sulfur content of less than 5 parts per million.
Go Bio mate!
[quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: "Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs." If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.[/p][/quote]Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.[/p][/quote]You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.[/p][/quote]Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible.[/p][/quote]That is why atomisers (fuel injectors) are use, where diesel is thicker than petrol, and its lower sulphur content than petrol when refined. You can not reduce sulphur to zero in fuels, it would not work[/p][/quote]I do love your bogus science, but I will let you continue in your ignorance and incorrect beliefs.[/p][/quote]Not bogus I work with diesel engines to much not to know how they work, like the old listers and petter engines never had heater plugs, but you could get them running easy enough, that thats because of the atomisers, diesel engine dont work with a carberator, the old parafin engines that had caberators had to be started up on petrol first and closed down with petrol, but once the engine gets warm the heat turn the sulphur in to gas. all fuels work sulphur with out it, it would remain as liquid droplets[/p][/quote]How does bio-diesel, that has nos suphur, work then?[/p][/quote]bio-diesel do have sulphur, plants pick up sulphur out of the soil when growing, plus boi-diesel gets that little bit more added to it. If you make your own bio-diesel then you need to add about 1 tablespoon full of white sprit to every 5 galls, or another type of sprit that as surlphur mix in[/p][/quote]Sulfur is ADDED to biodiesel? Millions are being spent on technologies to take the sulfur OUT of biodiesel! And white spirit is added to biodiesel as a solvent to reduce the oil's viscosity. If you thought you were adding sulfur, you'd be wasting your time since the bottle of white spirit you keep in your garage is likely to have been hydrodesulfurised.[/p][/quote]Adding white sprit you are adding sulphur, white sprit in not sulphur free[/p][/quote]You're right. It's not sulfur-free. It has a sulfur content of less than 5 parts per million.[/p][/quote]Go Bio mate! Fatty x Ford Worker
  • Score: 0

4:33pm Wed 3 Apr 13

loosehead says...

Southy I thought you wanted this type of industry back?
As for the comment about the initial planning application?
Didn't Labour say they would stop Lidl's if the locals voted for them?
They went back on their word there at Lordshill/Millbrook.

As the controlling authority they could have stopped the planned builds if they wanted to.
As for it being to far away to concern residents how far would the Bio Mass be?
I can see another U-Turn by this council so beware Freemantle/Millbrook residents
Southy I thought you wanted this type of industry back? As for the comment about the initial planning application? Didn't Labour say they would stop Lidl's if the locals voted for them? They went back on their word there at Lordshill/Millbrook. As the controlling authority they could have stopped the planned builds if they wanted to. As for it being to far away to concern residents how far would the Bio Mass be? I can see another U-Turn by this council so beware Freemantle/Millbrook residents loosehead
  • Score: 0

4:36pm Wed 3 Apr 13

Fatty x Ford Worker says...

southy wrote:
Stephen J wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
"Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs."

If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.
Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.
You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.
Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible.
That is why atomisers (fuel injectors) are use, where diesel is thicker than petrol, and its lower sulphur content than petrol when refined.
You can not reduce sulphur to zero in fuels, it would not work
I do love your bogus science, but I will let you continue in your ignorance and incorrect beliefs.
Not bogus I work with diesel engines to much not to know how they work, like the old listers and petter engines never had heater plugs, but you could get them running easy enough, that thats because of the atomisers, diesel engine dont work with a carberator, the old parafin engines that had caberators had to be started up on petrol first and closed down with petrol, but once the engine gets warm the heat turn the sulphur in to gas. all fuels work sulphur with out it, it would remain as liquid droplets
How does bio-diesel, that has nos suphur, work then?
bio-diesel do have sulphur, plants pick up sulphur out of the soil when growing, plus boi-diesel gets that little bit more added to it.
If you make your own bio-diesel then you need to add about 1 tablespoon full of white sprit to every 5 galls, or another type of sprit that as surlphur mix in
Sulfur is ADDED to biodiesel? Millions are being spent on technologies to take the sulfur OUT of biodiesel! And white spirit is added to biodiesel as a solvent to reduce the oil's viscosity. If you thought you were adding sulfur, you'd be wasting your time since the bottle of white spirit you keep in your garage is likely to have been hydrodesulfurised.
Adding white sprit you are adding sulphur, white sprit in not sulphur free
TRY METHS PROFF!
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: "Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs." If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.[/p][/quote]Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.[/p][/quote]You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.[/p][/quote]Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible.[/p][/quote]That is why atomisers (fuel injectors) are use, where diesel is thicker than petrol, and its lower sulphur content than petrol when refined. You can not reduce sulphur to zero in fuels, it would not work[/p][/quote]I do love your bogus science, but I will let you continue in your ignorance and incorrect beliefs.[/p][/quote]Not bogus I work with diesel engines to much not to know how they work, like the old listers and petter engines never had heater plugs, but you could get them running easy enough, that thats because of the atomisers, diesel engine dont work with a carberator, the old parafin engines that had caberators had to be started up on petrol first and closed down with petrol, but once the engine gets warm the heat turn the sulphur in to gas. all fuels work sulphur with out it, it would remain as liquid droplets[/p][/quote]How does bio-diesel, that has nos suphur, work then?[/p][/quote]bio-diesel do have sulphur, plants pick up sulphur out of the soil when growing, plus boi-diesel gets that little bit more added to it. If you make your own bio-diesel then you need to add about 1 tablespoon full of white sprit to every 5 galls, or another type of sprit that as surlphur mix in[/p][/quote]Sulfur is ADDED to biodiesel? Millions are being spent on technologies to take the sulfur OUT of biodiesel! And white spirit is added to biodiesel as a solvent to reduce the oil's viscosity. If you thought you were adding sulfur, you'd be wasting your time since the bottle of white spirit you keep in your garage is likely to have been hydrodesulfurised.[/p][/quote]Adding white sprit you are adding sulphur, white sprit in not sulphur free[/p][/quote]TRY METHS PROFF! Fatty x Ford Worker
  • Score: 0

4:46pm Wed 3 Apr 13

cantthinkofone says...

freefinker wrote:
For pity sake wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
freefinker wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
What happened to freefinker's thoughtsof chairman southy?
.. someone (I wonder who?) hit the 'Report This Post' button.
What a shame - it was very interesting
Oh - I missed that.
If it was a reply to my original suggestion, can you re-post it?
.. yes, it was in reply to your post.
If I do re-post I'm likely to get banned.
Stick it up on here:

http://solentnow.pro
boards.com/index.cgi


And if you've any ideas on how to make it a thriving community discussion space I'm all ears!
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]For pity sake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: What happened to freefinker's thoughtsof chairman southy?[/p][/quote].. someone (I wonder who?) hit the 'Report This Post' button.[/p][/quote]What a shame - it was very interesting[/p][/quote]Oh - I missed that. If it was a reply to my original suggestion, can you re-post it?[/p][/quote].. yes, it was in reply to your post. If I do re-post I'm likely to get banned.[/p][/quote]Stick it up on here: http://solentnow.pro boards.com/index.cgi And if you've any ideas on how to make it a thriving community discussion space I'm all ears! cantthinkofone
  • Score: 0

4:48pm Wed 3 Apr 13

Linesman says...

LOOK ON THE BRIGHT SIDE!

IT TAKES PEOPLE'S MINDS OFF THE SUBJECT OF FLUORIDE, BIO-MASS AND A CASINO ON THE WATERFRONT.
LOOK ON THE BRIGHT SIDE! IT TAKES PEOPLE'S MINDS OFF THE SUBJECT OF FLUORIDE, BIO-MASS AND A CASINO ON THE WATERFRONT. Linesman
  • Score: 0

4:53pm Wed 3 Apr 13

Stephen J says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker insted of wondering ask the web master why.
or was it false imformation you put up and the site web master pick up on it right way.
OOPS, quoted wrong post ..

.. southy, you are the one who consistently puts up ‘false imformation' on this website - like on this article.

All I did was to collate all your March errors into one post. No false information; just your actual quotes and my commentary.
No doubt come the revolution everyone who peddles "false information" will be similarly silenced until they have been suitably "re-educated"
and "rehabilitated".
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: freefinker insted of wondering ask the web master why. or was it false imformation you put up and the site web master pick up on it right way.[/p][/quote]OOPS, quoted wrong post .. .. southy, you are the one who consistently puts up ‘false imformation' on this website - like on this article. All I did was to collate all your March errors into one post. No false information; just your actual quotes and my commentary.[/p][/quote]No doubt come the revolution everyone who peddles "false information" will be similarly silenced until they have been suitably "re-educated" and "rehabilitated". Stephen J
  • Score: 0

4:55pm Wed 3 Apr 13

cantthinkofone says...

Stephen J wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker insted of wondering ask the web master why.
or was it false imformation you put up and the site web master pick up on it right way.
OOPS, quoted wrong post ..

.. southy, you are the one who consistently puts up ‘false imformation' on this website - like on this article.

All I did was to collate all your March errors into one post. No false information; just your actual quotes and my commentary.
No doubt come the revolution everyone who peddles "false information" will be similarly silenced until they have been suitably "re-educated"
and "rehabilitated".
I hope not. Lining them up against the wall and shooting them is far simpler. :-)
[quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: freefinker insted of wondering ask the web master why. or was it false imformation you put up and the site web master pick up on it right way.[/p][/quote]OOPS, quoted wrong post .. .. southy, you are the one who consistently puts up ‘false imformation' on this website - like on this article. All I did was to collate all your March errors into one post. No false information; just your actual quotes and my commentary.[/p][/quote]No doubt come the revolution everyone who peddles "false information" will be similarly silenced until they have been suitably "re-educated" and "rehabilitated".[/p][/quote]I hope not. Lining them up against the wall and shooting them is far simpler. :-) cantthinkofone
  • Score: 0

5:08pm Wed 3 Apr 13

Inform Al says...

Linesman wrote:
LOOK ON THE BRIGHT SIDE!

IT TAKES PEOPLE'S MINDS OFF THE SUBJECT OF FLUORIDE, BIO-MASS AND A CASINO ON THE WATERFRONT.
Actually it reminded me of fluoride as that also comes from the scrubbing of frertiliser plant chimneys. As I said earlier it's collected in the chimneys as it's considered too poisonous to be spread over farmland, then it's put into our drinking water. I sometimes wonder if the government thinks even less of me than my ex's.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: LOOK ON THE BRIGHT SIDE! IT TAKES PEOPLE'S MINDS OFF THE SUBJECT OF FLUORIDE, BIO-MASS AND A CASINO ON THE WATERFRONT.[/p][/quote]Actually it reminded me of fluoride as that also comes from the scrubbing of frertiliser plant chimneys. As I said earlier it's collected in the chimneys as it's considered too poisonous to be spread over farmland, then it's put into our drinking water. I sometimes wonder if the government thinks even less of me than my ex's. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

5:09pm Wed 3 Apr 13

Inform Al says...

Fatty x Ford Worker wrote:
southy wrote:
Stephen J wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
"Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs."

If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.
Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.
You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.
Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible.
That is why atomisers (fuel injectors) are use, where diesel is thicker than petrol, and its lower sulphur content than petrol when refined.
You can not reduce sulphur to zero in fuels, it would not work
I do love your bogus science, but I will let you continue in your ignorance and incorrect beliefs.
Not bogus I work with diesel engines to much not to know how they work, like the old listers and petter engines never had heater plugs, but you could get them running easy enough, that thats because of the atomisers, diesel engine dont work with a carberator, the old parafin engines that had caberators had to be started up on petrol first and closed down with petrol, but once the engine gets warm the heat turn the sulphur in to gas. all fuels work sulphur with out it, it would remain as liquid droplets
How does bio-diesel, that has nos suphur, work then?
bio-diesel do have sulphur, plants pick up sulphur out of the soil when growing, plus boi-diesel gets that little bit more added to it.
If you make your own bio-diesel then you need to add about 1 tablespoon full of white sprit to every 5 galls, or another type of sprit that as surlphur mix in
Sulfur is ADDED to biodiesel? Millions are being spent on technologies to take the sulfur OUT of biodiesel! And white spirit is added to biodiesel as a solvent to reduce the oil's viscosity. If you thought you were adding sulfur, you'd be wasting your time since the bottle of white spirit you keep in your garage is likely to have been hydrodesulfurised.
Adding white sprit you are adding sulphur, white sprit in not sulphur free
TRY METHS PROFF!
I would, but they put something in it to make it taste 'orrible.
[quote][p][bold]Fatty x Ford Worker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: "Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs." If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.[/p][/quote]Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.[/p][/quote]You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.[/p][/quote]Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible.[/p][/quote]That is why atomisers (fuel injectors) are use, where diesel is thicker than petrol, and its lower sulphur content than petrol when refined. You can not reduce sulphur to zero in fuels, it would not work[/p][/quote]I do love your bogus science, but I will let you continue in your ignorance and incorrect beliefs.[/p][/quote]Not bogus I work with diesel engines to much not to know how they work, like the old listers and petter engines never had heater plugs, but you could get them running easy enough, that thats because of the atomisers, diesel engine dont work with a carberator, the old parafin engines that had caberators had to be started up on petrol first and closed down with petrol, but once the engine gets warm the heat turn the sulphur in to gas. all fuels work sulphur with out it, it would remain as liquid droplets[/p][/quote]How does bio-diesel, that has nos suphur, work then?[/p][/quote]bio-diesel do have sulphur, plants pick up sulphur out of the soil when growing, plus boi-diesel gets that little bit more added to it. If you make your own bio-diesel then you need to add about 1 tablespoon full of white sprit to every 5 galls, or another type of sprit that as surlphur mix in[/p][/quote]Sulfur is ADDED to biodiesel? Millions are being spent on technologies to take the sulfur OUT of biodiesel! And white spirit is added to biodiesel as a solvent to reduce the oil's viscosity. If you thought you were adding sulfur, you'd be wasting your time since the bottle of white spirit you keep in your garage is likely to have been hydrodesulfurised.[/p][/quote]Adding white sprit you are adding sulphur, white sprit in not sulphur free[/p][/quote]TRY METHS PROFF![/p][/quote]I would, but they put something in it to make it taste 'orrible. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

5:19pm Wed 3 Apr 13

freefinker says...

cantthinkofone wrote:
Stephen J wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker insted of wondering ask the web master why.
or was it false imformation you put up and the site web master pick up on it right way.
OOPS, quoted wrong post ..

.. southy, you are the one who consistently puts up ‘false imformation' on this website - like on this article.

All I did was to collate all your March errors into one post. No false information; just your actual quotes and my commentary.
No doubt come the revolution everyone who peddles "false information" will be similarly silenced until they have been suitably "re-educated"
and "rehabilitated".
I hope not. Lining them up against the wall and shooting them is far simpler. :-)
Thanks for the link cantthinkofone and the comments from both of you.

You can now see southy's March postings at: -
http://solentnow.pro
boards.com/index.cgi
?board=news&action=d
isplay&thread=6
[quote][p][bold]cantthinkofone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: freefinker insted of wondering ask the web master why. or was it false imformation you put up and the site web master pick up on it right way.[/p][/quote]OOPS, quoted wrong post .. .. southy, you are the one who consistently puts up ‘false imformation' on this website - like on this article. All I did was to collate all your March errors into one post. No false information; just your actual quotes and my commentary.[/p][/quote]No doubt come the revolution everyone who peddles "false information" will be similarly silenced until they have been suitably "re-educated" and "rehabilitated".[/p][/quote]I hope not. Lining them up against the wall and shooting them is far simpler. :-)[/p][/quote]Thanks for the link cantthinkofone and the comments from both of you. You can now see southy's March postings at: - http://solentnow.pro boards.com/index.cgi ?board=news&action=d isplay&thread=6 freefinker
  • Score: 0

5:21pm Wed 3 Apr 13

freefinker says...

.. and I already have a good start for April.
.. and I already have a good start for April. freefinker
  • Score: 0

5:26pm Wed 3 Apr 13

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
.. and I already have a good start for April.
You have no start how about posting also where after some time you been proven wrong. or dont that count in your eyes.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: .. and I already have a good start for April.[/p][/quote]You have no start how about posting also where after some time you been proven wrong. or dont that count in your eyes. southy
  • Score: 0

5:29pm Wed 3 Apr 13

southy says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
.. and I already have a good start for April.
You have no start how about posting also where after some time you been proven wrong. or dont that count in your eyes.
So free have you bothered to ask the echo web master why your post was removed, i would be interested in knowing why.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: .. and I already have a good start for April.[/p][/quote]You have no start how about posting also where after some time you been proven wrong. or dont that count in your eyes.[/p][/quote]So free have you bothered to ask the echo web master why your post was removed, i would be interested in knowing why. southy
  • Score: 0

5:38pm Wed 3 Apr 13

southy says...

loosehead wrote:
Southy I thought you wanted this type of industry back?
As for the comment about the initial planning application?
Didn't Labour say they would stop Lidl's if the locals voted for them?
They went back on their word there at Lordshill/Millbrook.


As the controlling authority they could have stopped the planned builds if they wanted to.
As for it being to far away to concern residents how far would the Bio Mass be?
I can see another U-Turn by this council so beware Freemantle/Millbrook residents
Loose I do what to see this type of industray, but a plant like this do not belong with in city limits, it belongs at the refinery, like theres a rubber plant at the refinery, which some of its cube products passes though the docks for export.
This plant loose permission was given by your tory council, just like the bio-mass was, but now they are pushing the blame on to labour. Mind you your good frien Smithy sits on the same board as J.Chestnutt "docks" sit for 1 day in the mth and earning a good 20,000 for the year, sitting on these types of board is paid by the tax payers. and who was it that set these boards up your tory party government did.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Southy I thought you wanted this type of industry back? As for the comment about the initial planning application? Didn't Labour say they would stop Lidl's if the locals voted for them? They went back on their word there at Lordshill/Millbrook. As the controlling authority they could have stopped the planned builds if they wanted to. As for it being to far away to concern residents how far would the Bio Mass be? I can see another U-Turn by this council so beware Freemantle/Millbrook residents[/p][/quote]Loose I do what to see this type of industray, but a plant like this do not belong with in city limits, it belongs at the refinery, like theres a rubber plant at the refinery, which some of its cube products passes though the docks for export. This plant loose permission was given by your tory council, just like the bio-mass was, but now they are pushing the blame on to labour. Mind you your good frien Smithy sits on the same board as J.Chestnutt "docks" sit for 1 day in the mth and earning a good 20,000 for the year, sitting on these types of board is paid by the tax payers. and who was it that set these boards up your tory party government did. southy
  • Score: 0

5:43pm Wed 3 Apr 13

Stephen J says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
.. and I already have a good start for April.
You have no start how about posting also where after some time you been proven wrong. or dont that count in your eyes.
So southy, about the concentration of sulfur required to produce proper combustion in a compression ignition engine. You're the diesel engine expert. Don't let this go on the list for April...
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: .. and I already have a good start for April.[/p][/quote]You have no start how about posting also where after some time you been proven wrong. or dont that count in your eyes.[/p][/quote]So southy, about the concentration of sulfur required to produce proper combustion in a compression ignition engine. You're the diesel engine expert. Don't let this go on the list for April... Stephen J
  • Score: 0

5:44pm Wed 3 Apr 13

highanxiety says...

Surely Portsmouth would be a better site!
Surely Portsmouth would be a better site! highanxiety
  • Score: 0

6:02pm Wed 3 Apr 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
.. and I already have a good start for April.
You have no start how about posting also where after some time you been proven wrong. or dont that count in your eyes.
.. southy, I did challenge you a few weeks ago to point out where I have 'been proven wrong'. You have yet to respond. So, tell me more.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: .. and I already have a good start for April.[/p][/quote]You have no start how about posting also where after some time you been proven wrong. or dont that count in your eyes.[/p][/quote].. southy, I did challenge you a few weeks ago to point out where I have 'been proven wrong'. You have yet to respond. So, tell me more. freefinker
  • Score: 0

6:16pm Wed 3 Apr 13

skin2000 says...

Thank you Jimmy Chestnutt, you state that you are as confident as you can be, that residents are perfectly safe, one assumes that you do not live in the Freemantle area. If you are so sure about this, can you ask Oxbow if they can build this plant 200 yards from your house.
Thank you Jimmy Chestnutt, you state that you are as confident as you can be, that residents are perfectly safe, one assumes that you do not live in the Freemantle area. If you are so sure about this, can you ask Oxbow if they can build this plant 200 yards from your house. skin2000
  • Score: 0

6:19pm Wed 3 Apr 13

freefinker says...

Stephen J wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
.. and I already have a good start for April.
You have no start how about posting also where after some time you been proven wrong. or dont that count in your eyes.
So southy, about the concentration of sulfur required to produce proper combustion in a compression ignition engine. You're the diesel engine expert. Don't let this go on the list for April...
.. it's already on. And not my first contribution for April either.
[quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: .. and I already have a good start for April.[/p][/quote]You have no start how about posting also where after some time you been proven wrong. or dont that count in your eyes.[/p][/quote]So southy, about the concentration of sulfur required to produce proper combustion in a compression ignition engine. You're the diesel engine expert. Don't let this go on the list for April...[/p][/quote].. it's already on. And not my first contribution for April either. freefinker
  • Score: 0

6:24pm Wed 3 Apr 13

bigfella777 says...

Industry in an industrial area, this is just shocking news. What next? Shoppers shopping at West Quay?
Industry in an industrial area, this is just shocking news. What next? Shoppers shopping at West Quay? bigfella777
  • Score: 0

6:27pm Wed 3 Apr 13

johnm says...

southy wrote:
"Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs."

If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.
All road fuels are to all intents sulphur free as the sulphur content is not allowed to exceed 10ppm.
Fuels do not need sulphur to work.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: "Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs." If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.[/p][/quote]All road fuels are to all intents sulphur free as the sulphur content is not allowed to exceed 10ppm. Fuels do not need sulphur to work. johnm
  • Score: 0

6:47pm Wed 3 Apr 13

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
Stephen J wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
"Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs."

If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.
Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.
You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.
Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible.
That is why atomisers (fuel injectors) are use, where diesel is thicker than petrol, and its lower sulphur content than petrol when refined.
You can not reduce sulphur to zero in fuels, it would not work
I do love your bogus science, but I will let you continue in your ignorance and incorrect beliefs.
Not bogus I work with diesel engines to much not to know how they work, like the old listers and petter engines never had heater plugs, but you could get them running easy enough, that thats because of the atomisers, diesel engine dont work with a carberator, the old parafin engines that had caberators had to be started up on petrol first and closed down with petrol, but once the engine gets warm the heat turn the sulphur in to gas. all fuels work sulphur with out it, it would remain as liquid droplets
You're right in that in some applications, especially with older engines, ultra low sulfur diesel does not work as well as high sulfur fuel. This is for two reasons. The lack of sulfur causes lubrication problems, but this can be overcome with suitable additives. Secondly, the ULSD has a lower energy content than high sulfur fuel, but this is not due to the lack of sulfur, it's due to the refining process used to get rid of the sulfur. So yes, there is still sulfur in diesel, not because it plays any beneficial role in combustion, but only because it can't yet be totally got rid of.
It still need sulphur to burn, as sulphur will turn into a gas ever easy pick up other chemicals from the liquid form, sulphur is one of those chemicals that can be found in all most every thing.
Pick on any of the LPG it as a sulphur mix in natural methane gas as sulphur mix in.
As removing sulphur from fuel, its all ready been done and they can do it, and do it for certain types of oils, LMH liquid as no sulphur and them it can not burn even if you put a lot of heat under it.
LPG is sold as Propane, Butane or mixed Propane and Butane. No other type of LPG is commercially available in the UK and the containers are even colour coded for simplicity.. At the point of the refining process where LPG is produced there is no Sulphur as it has been converted to Hydrogen Sulphide by then and prior to splitting it to Propane or Butane it will be cleaned of any remaining H2S by passing it through a vessel containing liquid caustic. Before being sold the products will be sampled by the onsite laboratory to ensure there will be no Methane or Sulphur in the LPG but I don't suppose this will cause the Redbridge scientist to question why so many people are telling him he's wrong. The phone number of Fawley Refinery is in the book and they are very helpful when dealing with members of the public who are confused about refining issues. The possibility of being wrong does prevent some of the terminally retarded from phoning for help though.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: "Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs." If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.[/p][/quote]Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.[/p][/quote]You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.[/p][/quote]Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible.[/p][/quote]That is why atomisers (fuel injectors) are use, where diesel is thicker than petrol, and its lower sulphur content than petrol when refined. You can not reduce sulphur to zero in fuels, it would not work[/p][/quote]I do love your bogus science, but I will let you continue in your ignorance and incorrect beliefs.[/p][/quote]Not bogus I work with diesel engines to much not to know how they work, like the old listers and petter engines never had heater plugs, but you could get them running easy enough, that thats because of the atomisers, diesel engine dont work with a carberator, the old parafin engines that had caberators had to be started up on petrol first and closed down with petrol, but once the engine gets warm the heat turn the sulphur in to gas. all fuels work sulphur with out it, it would remain as liquid droplets[/p][/quote]You're right in that in some applications, especially with older engines, ultra low sulfur diesel does not work as well as high sulfur fuel. This is for two reasons. The lack of sulfur causes lubrication problems, but this can be overcome with suitable additives. Secondly, the ULSD has a lower energy content than high sulfur fuel, but this is not due to the lack of sulfur, it's due to the refining process used to get rid of the sulfur. So yes, there is still sulfur in diesel, not because it plays any beneficial role in combustion, but only because it can't yet be totally got rid of.[/p][/quote]It still need sulphur to burn, as sulphur will turn into a gas ever easy pick up other chemicals from the liquid form, sulphur is one of those chemicals that can be found in all most every thing. Pick on any of the LPG it as a sulphur mix in natural methane gas as sulphur mix in. As removing sulphur from fuel, its all ready been done and they can do it, and do it for certain types of oils, LMH liquid as no sulphur and them it can not burn even if you put a lot of heat under it.[/p][/quote]LPG is sold as Propane, Butane or mixed Propane and Butane. No other type of LPG is commercially available in the UK and the containers are even colour coded for simplicity.. At the point of the refining process where LPG is produced there is no Sulphur as it has been converted to Hydrogen Sulphide by then and prior to splitting it to Propane or Butane it will be cleaned of any remaining H2S by passing it through a vessel containing liquid caustic. Before being sold the products will be sampled by the onsite laboratory to ensure there will be no Methane or Sulphur in the LPG but I don't suppose this will cause the Redbridge scientist to question why so many people are telling him he's wrong. The phone number of Fawley Refinery is in the book and they are very helpful when dealing with members of the public who are confused about refining issues. The possibility of being wrong does prevent some of the terminally retarded from phoning for help though. Torchie1
  • Score: 0

6:51pm Wed 3 Apr 13

Stillness says...

Good old southy. As the saying goes "fanatics and fools are the only ones that are so certain about themselves".
Good old southy. As the saying goes "fanatics and fools are the only ones that are so certain about themselves". Stillness
  • Score: 0

6:58pm Wed 3 Apr 13

Lone Ranger. says...

southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Southy I thought you wanted this type of industry back?
As for the comment about the initial planning application?
Didn't Labour say they would stop Lidl's if the locals voted for them?
They went back on their word there at Lordshill/Millbrook.



As the controlling authority they could have stopped the planned builds if they wanted to.
As for it being to far away to concern residents how far would the Bio Mass be?
I can see another U-Turn by this council so beware Freemantle/Millbrook residents
Loose I do what to see this type of industray, but a plant like this do not belong with in city limits, it belongs at the refinery, like theres a rubber plant at the refinery, which some of its cube products passes though the docks for export.
This plant loose permission was given by your tory council, just like the bio-mass was, but now they are pushing the blame on to labour. Mind you your good frien Smithy sits on the same board as J.Chestnutt "docks" sit for 1 day in the mth and earning a good 20,000 for the year, sitting on these types of board is paid by the tax payers. and who was it that set these boards up your tory party government did.
Yes you are correct Southy ....... This was given the go-ahead by the Tories.
.
The surprising thing is that Cllr Moulton knowing the aggrevation caused by the Biomass ....... chose to keep his constituents in the dark over this plant.
.
Now he and his chums, as usual, now chuck dirt at the present Council acting as if its was such a great surprise ...
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Southy I thought you wanted this type of industry back? As for the comment about the initial planning application? Didn't Labour say they would stop Lidl's if the locals voted for them? They went back on their word there at Lordshill/Millbrook. As the controlling authority they could have stopped the planned builds if they wanted to. As for it being to far away to concern residents how far would the Bio Mass be? I can see another U-Turn by this council so beware Freemantle/Millbrook residents[/p][/quote]Loose I do what to see this type of industray, but a plant like this do not belong with in city limits, it belongs at the refinery, like theres a rubber plant at the refinery, which some of its cube products passes though the docks for export. This plant loose permission was given by your tory council, just like the bio-mass was, but now they are pushing the blame on to labour. Mind you your good frien Smithy sits on the same board as J.Chestnutt "docks" sit for 1 day in the mth and earning a good 20,000 for the year, sitting on these types of board is paid by the tax payers. and who was it that set these boards up your tory party government did.[/p][/quote]Yes you are correct Southy ....... This was given the go-ahead by the Tories. . The surprising thing is that Cllr Moulton knowing the aggrevation caused by the Biomass ....... chose to keep his constituents in the dark over this plant. . Now he and his chums, as usual, now chuck dirt at the present Council acting as if its was such a great surprise ... Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

7:00pm Wed 3 Apr 13

johnm says...

C2H6O thats the what Ethanol consists of where is the sulpur (sorry Sulfur) in that? It seems to work ok in Indy racing cars in the USA.
C2H6O thats the what Ethanol consists of where is the sulpur (sorry Sulfur) in that? It seems to work ok in Indy racing cars in the USA. johnm
  • Score: 0

7:24pm Wed 3 Apr 13

FoysCornerBoy says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Southy I thought you wanted this type of industry back?
As for the comment about the initial planning application?
Didn't Labour say they would stop Lidl's if the locals voted for them?
They went back on their word there at Lordshill/Millbrook.




As the controlling authority they could have stopped the planned builds if they wanted to.
As for it being to far away to concern residents how far would the Bio Mass be?
I can see another U-Turn by this council so beware Freemantle/Millbrook residents
Loose I do what to see this type of industray, but a plant like this do not belong with in city limits, it belongs at the refinery, like theres a rubber plant at the refinery, which some of its cube products passes though the docks for export.
This plant loose permission was given by your tory council, just like the bio-mass was, but now they are pushing the blame on to labour. Mind you your good frien Smithy sits on the same board as J.Chestnutt "docks" sit for 1 day in the mth and earning a good 20,000 for the year, sitting on these types of board is paid by the tax payers. and who was it that set these boards up your tory party government did.
Yes you are correct Southy ....... This was given the go-ahead by the Tories.
.
The surprising thing is that Cllr Moulton knowing the aggrevation caused by the Biomass ....... chose to keep his constituents in the dark over this plant.
.
Now he and his chums, as usual, now chuck dirt at the present Council acting as if its was such a great surprise ...
I checked the records earlier and discovered that the original application for the proposed Sulphur Pastillation Plant was submitted on 17th October 2011. No objections were received from the Conservative ward councillors Jeremy Moulton, Michael Ball or Brian Parnell and subsequently the Council approved the application in 2012.

There are striking parallels with the biomass proposals with the conservatives - initially - welcoming the idea.

What I find galling is the chutzpah of conservatives like Steve Galton (the self-appointed leader of the no to biomass group) who muscle in this sort of local issue for narrow party political advantage.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Southy I thought you wanted this type of industry back? As for the comment about the initial planning application? Didn't Labour say they would stop Lidl's if the locals voted for them? They went back on their word there at Lordshill/Millbrook. As the controlling authority they could have stopped the planned builds if they wanted to. As for it being to far away to concern residents how far would the Bio Mass be? I can see another U-Turn by this council so beware Freemantle/Millbrook residents[/p][/quote]Loose I do what to see this type of industray, but a plant like this do not belong with in city limits, it belongs at the refinery, like theres a rubber plant at the refinery, which some of its cube products passes though the docks for export. This plant loose permission was given by your tory council, just like the bio-mass was, but now they are pushing the blame on to labour. Mind you your good frien Smithy sits on the same board as J.Chestnutt "docks" sit for 1 day in the mth and earning a good 20,000 for the year, sitting on these types of board is paid by the tax payers. and who was it that set these boards up your tory party government did.[/p][/quote]Yes you are correct Southy ....... This was given the go-ahead by the Tories. . The surprising thing is that Cllr Moulton knowing the aggrevation caused by the Biomass ....... chose to keep his constituents in the dark over this plant. . Now he and his chums, as usual, now chuck dirt at the present Council acting as if its was such a great surprise ...[/p][/quote]I checked the records earlier and discovered that the original application for the proposed Sulphur Pastillation Plant was submitted on 17th October 2011. No objections were received from the Conservative ward councillors Jeremy Moulton, Michael Ball or Brian Parnell and subsequently the Council approved the application in 2012. There are striking parallels with the biomass proposals with the conservatives - initially - welcoming the idea. What I find galling is the chutzpah of conservatives like Steve Galton (the self-appointed leader of the no to biomass group) who muscle in this sort of local issue for narrow party political advantage. FoysCornerBoy
  • Score: 0

7:35pm Wed 3 Apr 13

thinklikealocal says...

loosehead wrote:
So Labours done a Lidl to Freemantle?
Up here they swore to most residents they'd stop Lidl's knew warehouse but once elected voted for it.
I was for it.
At least we knew about it they never used a relatively harmless Bio Mass Generator as a smoke screen to get through this Sulphur Plant.
Exactly where you could put this in this country with out the strictest safety & smell restriction procedures I don't know.
But after Cathy McEwing phoned me for the first time time in nearly 6years of living here asking me who I'm going to vote for I guess they'll be desperately phoning Freemantle, (real) Millbrook & Shirley & Town residents won't they?
Planning application originally approved in October 2011. Erhm, remind me what party controlled the Council then?......
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: So Labours done a Lidl to Freemantle? Up here they swore to most residents they'd stop Lidl's knew warehouse but once elected voted for it. I was for it. At least we knew about it they never used a relatively harmless Bio Mass Generator as a smoke screen to get through this Sulphur Plant. Exactly where you could put this in this country with out the strictest safety & smell restriction procedures I don't know. But after Cathy McEwing phoned me for the first time time in nearly 6years of living here asking me who I'm going to vote for I guess they'll be desperately phoning Freemantle, (real) Millbrook & Shirley & Town residents won't they?[/p][/quote]Planning application originally approved in October 2011. Erhm, remind me what party controlled the Council then?...... thinklikealocal
  • Score: 0

7:41pm Wed 3 Apr 13

thinklikealocal says...

loosehead wrote:
Southy I thought you wanted this type of industry back?
As for the comment about the initial planning application?
Didn't Labour say they would stop Lidl's if the locals voted for them?
They went back on their word there at Lordshill/Millbrook.


As the controlling authority they could have stopped the planned builds if they wanted to.
As for it being to far away to concern residents how far would the Bio Mass be?
I can see another U-Turn by this council so beware Freemantle/Millbrook residents
Having stated that 'labour as the controlling party could have stopped this', please enlighten us as to how under planning law, a proposal that meets all legislative and local policy requirements can be 'stopped'?
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Southy I thought you wanted this type of industry back? As for the comment about the initial planning application? Didn't Labour say they would stop Lidl's if the locals voted for them? They went back on their word there at Lordshill/Millbrook. As the controlling authority they could have stopped the planned builds if they wanted to. As for it being to far away to concern residents how far would the Bio Mass be? I can see another U-Turn by this council so beware Freemantle/Millbrook residents[/p][/quote]Having stated that 'labour as the controlling party could have stopped this', please enlighten us as to how under planning law, a proposal that meets all legislative and local policy requirements can be 'stopped'? thinklikealocal
  • Score: 0

7:43pm Wed 3 Apr 13

thinklikealocal says...

bigfella777 wrote:
Industry in an industrial area, this is just shocking news. What next? Shoppers shopping at West Quay?
Here here.
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: Industry in an industrial area, this is just shocking news. What next? Shoppers shopping at West Quay?[/p][/quote]Here here. thinklikealocal
  • Score: 0

7:46pm Wed 3 Apr 13

cantthinkofone says...

freefinker wrote:
cantthinkofone wrote:
Stephen J wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker insted of wondering ask the web master why.
or was it false imformation you put up and the site web master pick up on it right way.
OOPS, quoted wrong post ..

.. southy, you are the one who consistently puts up ‘false imformation' on this website - like on this article.

All I did was to collate all your March errors into one post. No false information; just your actual quotes and my commentary.
No doubt come the revolution everyone who peddles "false information" will be similarly silenced until they have been suitably "re-educated"
and "rehabilitated".
I hope not. Lining them up against the wall and shooting them is far simpler. :-)
Thanks for the link cantthinkofone and the comments from both of you.

You can now see southy's March postings at: -
http://solentnow.pro

boards.com/index.cgi

?board=news&acti
on=d
isplay&thread=6
Fabulous.
.
If you, Southy, or anyone else can drive people towards SolentNow then that'd be great. All discussions welcome, and I won't be censoring anyone unless there's a legal issue.
.
It's a free board and there's no finances or ads involved on my part, I just think that some of the discussions on here would be better on a forum. I think it's save Dan Kerins a fair few headaches as well!
.
http://solentnow.pro
boards.com/index.cgi
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cantthinkofone[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: freefinker insted of wondering ask the web master why. or was it false imformation you put up and the site web master pick up on it right way.[/p][/quote]OOPS, quoted wrong post .. .. southy, you are the one who consistently puts up ‘false imformation' on this website - like on this article. All I did was to collate all your March errors into one post. No false information; just your actual quotes and my commentary.[/p][/quote]No doubt come the revolution everyone who peddles "false information" will be similarly silenced until they have been suitably "re-educated" and "rehabilitated".[/p][/quote]I hope not. Lining them up against the wall and shooting them is far simpler. :-)[/p][/quote]Thanks for the link cantthinkofone and the comments from both of you. You can now see southy's March postings at: - http://solentnow.pro boards.com/index.cgi ?board=news&acti on=d isplay&thread=6[/p][/quote]Fabulous. . If you, Southy, or anyone else can drive people towards SolentNow then that'd be great. All discussions welcome, and I won't be censoring anyone unless there's a legal issue. . It's a free board and there's no finances or ads involved on my part, I just think that some of the discussions on here would be better on a forum. I think it's save Dan Kerins a fair few headaches as well! . http://solentnow.pro boards.com/index.cgi cantthinkofone
  • Score: 0

8:09pm Wed 3 Apr 13

Eric_Cartman says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy says, 2:34pm Sun 9 Oct 11. ‘Sulphur is the world biggest cause off cancers’ – guess he will not be too pleased with this news (even if it does mean jobs).
Dead right I not to happy, this type of plant belongs in a refinery not inside a city limits.
I thoroughly agree with you this time. Sulphur is nasty stuff
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: southy says, 2:34pm Sun 9 Oct 11. ‘Sulphur is the world biggest cause off cancers’ – guess he will not be too pleased with this news (even if it does mean jobs).[/p][/quote]Dead right I not to happy, this type of plant belongs in a refinery not inside a city limits.[/p][/quote]I thoroughly agree with you this time. Sulphur is nasty stuff Eric_Cartman
  • Score: 0

8:30pm Wed 3 Apr 13

Eric_Cartman says...

southy wrote:
Stephen J wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
"Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs."

If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.
Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.
You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.
Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible.
That is why atomisers (fuel injectors) are use, where diesel is thicker than petrol, and its lower sulphur content than petrol when refined.
You can not reduce sulphur to zero in fuels, it would not work
I do love your bogus science, but I will let you continue in your ignorance and incorrect beliefs.
Not bogus I work with diesel engines to much not to know how they work, like the old listers and petter engines never had heater plugs, but you could get them running easy enough, that thats because of the atomisers, diesel engine dont work with a carberator, the old parafin engines that had caberators had to be started up on petrol first and closed down with petrol, but once the engine gets warm the heat turn the sulphur in to gas. all fuels work sulphur with out it, it would remain as liquid droplets
You're right in that in some applications, especially with older engines, ultra low sulfur diesel does not work as well as high sulfur fuel. This is for two reasons. The lack of sulfur causes lubrication problems, but this can be overcome with suitable additives. Secondly, the ULSD has a lower energy content than high sulfur fuel, but this is not due to the lack of sulfur, it's due to the refining process used to get rid of the sulfur. So yes, there is still sulfur in diesel, not because it plays any beneficial role in combustion, but only because it can't yet be totally got rid of.
It still need sulphur to burn, as sulphur will turn into a gas ever easy pick up other chemicals from the liquid form, sulphur is one of those chemicals that can be found in all most every thing.
Pick on any of the LPG it as a sulphur mix in natural methane gas as sulphur mix in.
As removing sulphur from fuel, its all ready been done and they can do it, and do it for certain types of oils, LMH liquid as no sulphur and them it can not burn even if you put a lot of heat under it.
LPG does not have methane in it. Methane does not have sulphur (the correct British spelling) in it.
Methane burns very well in the boilers of the LNG carrying steamships I work in. LPG burns very nicely in other places too. All without sulphur.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: "Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs." If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.[/p][/quote]Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.[/p][/quote]You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.[/p][/quote]Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible.[/p][/quote]That is why atomisers (fuel injectors) are use, where diesel is thicker than petrol, and its lower sulphur content than petrol when refined. You can not reduce sulphur to zero in fuels, it would not work[/p][/quote]I do love your bogus science, but I will let you continue in your ignorance and incorrect beliefs.[/p][/quote]Not bogus I work with diesel engines to much not to know how they work, like the old listers and petter engines never had heater plugs, but you could get them running easy enough, that thats because of the atomisers, diesel engine dont work with a carberator, the old parafin engines that had caberators had to be started up on petrol first and closed down with petrol, but once the engine gets warm the heat turn the sulphur in to gas. all fuels work sulphur with out it, it would remain as liquid droplets[/p][/quote]You're right in that in some applications, especially with older engines, ultra low sulfur diesel does not work as well as high sulfur fuel. This is for two reasons. The lack of sulfur causes lubrication problems, but this can be overcome with suitable additives. Secondly, the ULSD has a lower energy content than high sulfur fuel, but this is not due to the lack of sulfur, it's due to the refining process used to get rid of the sulfur. So yes, there is still sulfur in diesel, not because it plays any beneficial role in combustion, but only because it can't yet be totally got rid of.[/p][/quote]It still need sulphur to burn, as sulphur will turn into a gas ever easy pick up other chemicals from the liquid form, sulphur is one of those chemicals that can be found in all most every thing. Pick on any of the LPG it as a sulphur mix in natural methane gas as sulphur mix in. As removing sulphur from fuel, its all ready been done and they can do it, and do it for certain types of oils, LMH liquid as no sulphur and them it can not burn even if you put a lot of heat under it.[/p][/quote]LPG does not have methane in it. Methane does not have sulphur (the correct British spelling) in it. Methane burns very well in the boilers of the LNG carrying steamships I work in. LPG burns very nicely in other places too. All without sulphur. Eric_Cartman
  • Score: 0

8:44pm Wed 3 Apr 13

kingkong 1 says...

Looks to me like Southampton council are trying to throw any future expansion of cruise or container traffic out the window,what a bunch of A** Holes.
Looks to me like Southampton council are trying to throw any future expansion of cruise or container traffic out the window,what a bunch of A** Holes. kingkong 1
  • Score: 0

8:45pm Wed 3 Apr 13

Stephen J says...

Eric_Cartman wrote:
southy wrote:
Stephen J wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
"Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs."

If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.
Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.
You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.
Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible.
That is why atomisers (fuel injectors) are use, where diesel is thicker than petrol, and its lower sulphur content than petrol when refined.
You can not reduce sulphur to zero in fuels, it would not work
I do love your bogus science, but I will let you continue in your ignorance and incorrect beliefs.
Not bogus I work with diesel engines to much not to know how they work, like the old listers and petter engines never had heater plugs, but you could get them running easy enough, that thats because of the atomisers, diesel engine dont work with a carberator, the old parafin engines that had caberators had to be started up on petrol first and closed down with petrol, but once the engine gets warm the heat turn the sulphur in to gas. all fuels work sulphur with out it, it would remain as liquid droplets
You're right in that in some applications, especially with older engines, ultra low sulfur diesel does not work as well as high sulfur fuel. This is for two reasons. The lack of sulfur causes lubrication problems, but this can be overcome with suitable additives. Secondly, the ULSD has a lower energy content than high sulfur fuel, but this is not due to the lack of sulfur, it's due to the refining process used to get rid of the sulfur. So yes, there is still sulfur in diesel, not because it plays any beneficial role in combustion, but only because it can't yet be totally got rid of.
It still need sulphur to burn, as sulphur will turn into a gas ever easy pick up other chemicals from the liquid form, sulphur is one of those chemicals that can be found in all most every thing.
Pick on any of the LPG it as a sulphur mix in natural methane gas as sulphur mix in.
As removing sulphur from fuel, its all ready been done and they can do it, and do it for certain types of oils, LMH liquid as no sulphur and them it can not burn even if you put a lot of heat under it.
LPG does not have methane in it. Methane does not have sulphur (the correct British spelling) in it.
Methane burns very well in the boilers of the LNG carrying steamships I work in. LPG burns very nicely in other places too. All without sulphur.
Quite so, but the Royal Society of Chemistry adoped 'sulfur' as the official spelling as long ago as 1992.
[quote][p][bold]Eric_Cartman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: "Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs." If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.[/p][/quote]Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.[/p][/quote]You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.[/p][/quote]Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible.[/p][/quote]That is why atomisers (fuel injectors) are use, where diesel is thicker than petrol, and its lower sulphur content than petrol when refined. You can not reduce sulphur to zero in fuels, it would not work[/p][/quote]I do love your bogus science, but I will let you continue in your ignorance and incorrect beliefs.[/p][/quote]Not bogus I work with diesel engines to much not to know how they work, like the old listers and petter engines never had heater plugs, but you could get them running easy enough, that thats because of the atomisers, diesel engine dont work with a carberator, the old parafin engines that had caberators had to be started up on petrol first and closed down with petrol, but once the engine gets warm the heat turn the sulphur in to gas. all fuels work sulphur with out it, it would remain as liquid droplets[/p][/quote]You're right in that in some applications, especially with older engines, ultra low sulfur diesel does not work as well as high sulfur fuel. This is for two reasons. The lack of sulfur causes lubrication problems, but this can be overcome with suitable additives. Secondly, the ULSD has a lower energy content than high sulfur fuel, but this is not due to the lack of sulfur, it's due to the refining process used to get rid of the sulfur. So yes, there is still sulfur in diesel, not because it plays any beneficial role in combustion, but only because it can't yet be totally got rid of.[/p][/quote]It still need sulphur to burn, as sulphur will turn into a gas ever easy pick up other chemicals from the liquid form, sulphur is one of those chemicals that can be found in all most every thing. Pick on any of the LPG it as a sulphur mix in natural methane gas as sulphur mix in. As removing sulphur from fuel, its all ready been done and they can do it, and do it for certain types of oils, LMH liquid as no sulphur and them it can not burn even if you put a lot of heat under it.[/p][/quote]LPG does not have methane in it. Methane does not have sulphur (the correct British spelling) in it. Methane burns very well in the boilers of the LNG carrying steamships I work in. LPG burns very nicely in other places too. All without sulphur.[/p][/quote]Quite so, but the Royal Society of Chemistry adoped 'sulfur' as the official spelling as long ago as 1992. Stephen J
  • Score: 0

9:15pm Wed 3 Apr 13

loosehead says...

I'm not totally up on planning laws but don't you apply for outlaying planning permission first & then go back for full permission?
I know that with Lidl's in Redbridge Lane that's what happened & I also know that Labour promised the locals they would object to it but then after the Labour Millbrook Councillor came onto the posts having a go at me for being for it he & his party voted for it?
I disagree with the Tory Party over the Bio Mass as I feel it should go ahead.
maybe before this article was published the Echo could have found out what precautions were being put into place to stop foul smelling Sulphur from escaping?
Also if it was only outlying permission why couldn't the council hold the plans like they did with Townhill Park?
Let's get it right I was bought up around that way with the smell of the sewage Farm the smell of the Sausage factory & Coca Cola plants this is an industrial area & we were all happy to accept this if it meant jobs so I'm not sure if I'm for or against this plant I need more answers to the smell possibility
I'm not totally up on planning laws but don't you apply for outlaying planning permission first & then go back for full permission? I know that with Lidl's in Redbridge Lane that's what happened & I also know that Labour promised the locals they would object to it but then after the Labour Millbrook Councillor came onto the posts having a go at me for being for it he & his party voted for it? I disagree with the Tory Party over the Bio Mass as I feel it should go ahead. maybe before this article was published the Echo could have found out what precautions were being put into place to stop foul smelling Sulphur from escaping? Also if it was only outlying permission why couldn't the council hold the plans like they did with Townhill Park? Let's get it right I was bought up around that way with the smell of the sewage Farm the smell of the Sausage factory & Coca Cola plants this is an industrial area & we were all happy to accept this if it meant jobs so I'm not sure if I'm for or against this plant I need more answers to the smell possibility loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:19pm Wed 3 Apr 13

Lockssmart says...

J.p.m is a troll
J.p.m is a troll Lockssmart
  • Score: 0

9:41pm Wed 3 Apr 13

Sir Ad E Noid says...

southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
"Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs."

If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.
Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.
You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.
What rubbish. Please direct me to the publication that says the exact words that you repeat here.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: "Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs." If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.[/p][/quote]Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.[/p][/quote]You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.[/p][/quote]What rubbish. Please direct me to the publication that says the exact words that you repeat here. Sir Ad E Noid
  • Score: 0

10:04pm Wed 3 Apr 13

phil maccavity says...

As an interested observer I had the opportunity to discuss this matter with a contact at Fawley Refinery.
I was told that, as part of the oil refining process, sulphur is produced in reasonable quantities.
Currently this is transported up to the INEOS site in Runcorn by road to be processed.
However INEOS has upgraded its facility in Runcorn and can no longer guarantee to take the raw Fawley sulphur in on a regular basis.
If Fawley could not get rid of the sulphur by- product it could potentially stop the refinery.
Exxon discussed opportunities with partners and apparently Oxbow offered to build a facility to ensure certainty of disposal. They will also turn the raw sulphur into pellet form so it can be used as a crop fertiliser. I guess the advantage of a location in advantage in Soton Docks is proximity to ships to export the pellitised fertiliser.
I am ambivalent about the proposed facility but thought this information worthy of note.
As regards possible smell, I cant believe that the port would jeopardise their cruise and other trades if there was the possibility of smell but I am no expert on the properties of sulphur
As for the City Council, presumably their paid officials would have dealt with the original planning application in the same way as others. It would have been up to local councillors (whoever they were at the time) to raise any objections and inform their constituents.
This doesn't seem to have been done so you might consider that all seemed fine until the ECHO ran an arguably scaremongering story.
As an aside sulphur is supposed to have some healing properties, Good for acne, for example, so local pimply youths may see the developmengt as a good thing!!
As an interested observer I had the opportunity to discuss this matter with a contact at Fawley Refinery. I was told that, as part of the oil refining process, sulphur is produced in reasonable quantities. Currently this is transported up to the INEOS site in Runcorn by road to be processed. However INEOS has upgraded its facility in Runcorn and can no longer guarantee to take the raw Fawley sulphur in on a regular basis. If Fawley could not get rid of the sulphur by- product it could potentially stop the refinery. Exxon discussed opportunities with partners and apparently Oxbow offered to build a facility to ensure certainty of disposal. They will also turn the raw sulphur into pellet form so it can be used as a crop fertiliser. I guess the advantage of a location in advantage in Soton Docks is proximity to ships to export the pellitised fertiliser. I am ambivalent about the proposed facility but thought this information worthy of note. As regards possible smell, I cant believe that the port would jeopardise their cruise and other trades if there was the possibility of smell but I am no expert on the properties of sulphur As for the City Council, presumably their paid officials would have dealt with the original planning application in the same way as others. It would have been up to local councillors (whoever they were at the time) to raise any objections and inform their constituents. This doesn't seem to have been done so you might consider that all seemed fine until the ECHO ran an arguably scaremongering story. As an aside sulphur is supposed to have some healing properties, Good for acne, for example, so local pimply youths may see the developmengt as a good thing!! phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

10:43pm Wed 3 Apr 13

Inform Al says...

bigfella777 wrote:
Industry in an industrial area, this is just shocking news. What next? Shoppers shopping at West Quay?
Not me, parking costs too much
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: Industry in an industrial area, this is just shocking news. What next? Shoppers shopping at West Quay?[/p][/quote]Not me, parking costs too much Inform Al
  • Score: 0

10:45pm Wed 3 Apr 13

kingnotail says...

southy wrote:
"Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs."

If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.
Wrong again, only for the billionth time..
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: "Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs." If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.[/p][/quote]Wrong again, only for the billionth time.. kingnotail
  • Score: 0

10:52pm Wed 3 Apr 13

kingnotail says...

southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
"Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs."

If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.
Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.
You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.
Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible.
That is why atomisers (fuel injectors) are use, where diesel is thicker than petrol, and its lower sulphur content than petrol when refined.
You can not reduce sulphur to zero in fuels, it would not work
I do love your bogus science, but I will let you continue in your ignorance and incorrect beliefs.
Not bogus I work with diesel engines to much not to know how they work, like the old listers and petter engines never had heater plugs, but you could get them running easy enough, that thats because of the atomisers, diesel engine dont work with a carberator, the old parafin engines that had caberators had to be started up on petrol first and closed down with petrol, but once the engine gets warm the heat turn the sulphur in to gas. all fuels work sulphur with out it, it would remain as liquid droplets
Delusional, charlatan, liar.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: "Mr Chestnutt told the Daily Echo: “Sulphur is a product that we need to remove from our fuels and find a good use for and this is a good way of achieving this and creating jobs." If you remove all the sulphur from our fuels, then the fuels would not work.[/p][/quote]Sulfur (as we have to spell it now) is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. It is a natural part of the fuel, which is now removed, as much as possible, to reduce particulate pollution from diesel engines. The sulfur worked as a lubricant for fuel pumps etc and other additives are now added to do the lubrication.[/p][/quote]You can reduce sulphur but you can not remove it, sulphur is what gives the fuel vapour gas to be able to burn. additives only work with the sulphur not to replace it.[/p][/quote]Sulphur is not ' what gives the fuel vapour gas'. Diesel does not vapourise, but uses the heat caused by compression to start the ignition. There is no vapour to ignite, therefore no spark plug in a diesel engine. Sulphur is not a necessary part of diesel fuel. In Germany, the sulphur has been reduced to 3 to 5 ppm and would be reduced to zero, if this were possible.[/p][/quote]That is why atomisers (fuel injectors) are use, where diesel is thicker than petrol, and its lower sulphur content than petrol when refined. You can not reduce sulphur to zero in fuels, it would not work[/p][/quote]I do love your bogus science, but I will let you continue in your ignorance and incorrect beliefs.[/p][/quote]Not bogus I work with diesel engines to much not to know how they work, like the old listers and petter engines never had heater plugs, but you could get them running easy enough, that thats because of the atomisers, diesel engine dont work with a carberator, the old parafin engines that had caberators had to be started up on petrol first and closed down with petrol, but once the engine gets warm the heat turn the sulphur in to gas. all fuels work sulphur with out it, it would remain as liquid droplets[/p][/quote]Delusional, charlatan, liar. kingnotail
  • Score: 0

11:05pm Wed 3 Apr 13

kingnotail says...

Eric_Cartman wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy says, 2:34pm Sun 9 Oct 11. ‘Sulphur is the world biggest cause off cancers’ – guess he will not be too pleased with this news (even if it does mean jobs).
Dead right I not to happy, this type of plant belongs in a refinery not inside a city limits.
I thoroughly agree with you this time. Sulphur is nasty stuff
Not really. Pure elemental sulfur (correct modern spelling) is pretty harmless; you could eat a small amount and it wouldn't do you much harm. Sulfur is essential to life, being found in proteins, enzymes etc.

Some sulfur compounds (e.g. hydrogen sulphide) on the other hand can be seriously toxic.
[quote][p][bold]Eric_Cartman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: southy says, 2:34pm Sun 9 Oct 11. ‘Sulphur is the world biggest cause off cancers’ – guess he will not be too pleased with this news (even if it does mean jobs).[/p][/quote]Dead right I not to happy, this type of plant belongs in a refinery not inside a city limits.[/p][/quote]I thoroughly agree with you this time. Sulphur is nasty stuff[/p][/quote]Not really. Pure elemental sulfur (correct modern spelling) is pretty harmless; you could eat a small amount and it wouldn't do you much harm. Sulfur is essential to life, being found in proteins, enzymes etc. Some sulfur compounds (e.g. hydrogen sulphide) on the other hand can be seriously toxic. kingnotail
  • Score: 0

11:05pm Wed 3 Apr 13

kingnotail says...

kingnotail wrote:
Eric_Cartman wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy says, 2:34pm Sun 9 Oct 11. ‘Sulphur is the world biggest cause off cancers’ – guess he will not be too pleased with this news (even if it does mean jobs).
Dead right I not to happy, this type of plant belongs in a refinery not inside a city limits.
I thoroughly agree with you this time. Sulphur is nasty stuff
Not really. Pure elemental sulfur (correct modern spelling) is pretty harmless; you could eat a small amount and it wouldn't do you much harm. Sulfur is essential to life, being found in proteins, enzymes etc.

Some sulfur compounds (e.g. hydrogen sulphide) on the other hand can be seriously toxic.
*sulfide
[quote][p][bold]kingnotail[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eric_Cartman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: southy says, 2:34pm Sun 9 Oct 11. ‘Sulphur is the world biggest cause off cancers’ – guess he will not be too pleased with this news (even if it does mean jobs).[/p][/quote]Dead right I not to happy, this type of plant belongs in a refinery not inside a city limits.[/p][/quote]I thoroughly agree with you this time. Sulphur is nasty stuff[/p][/quote]Not really. Pure elemental sulfur (correct modern spelling) is pretty harmless; you could eat a small amount and it wouldn't do you much harm. Sulfur is essential to life, being found in proteins, enzymes etc. Some sulfur compounds (e.g. hydrogen sulphide) on the other hand can be seriously toxic.[/p][/quote]*sulfide kingnotail
  • Score: 0

12:51am Thu 4 Apr 13

Inform Al says...

Sulphuric acid is of course a mixture of water, oxygen and sulphur, vitriol H2S2 O7, a bit stronger than H2SO4 is also a mixture of water, sulphur and oxygen. Although not easy to make in the lab, I can foresee the circumstances arising when this could occur accidently, hopefully not on my doorstep.
Sulphuric acid is of course a mixture of water, oxygen and sulphur, vitriol H2S2 O7, a bit stronger than H2SO4 is also a mixture of water, sulphur and oxygen. Although not easy to make in the lab, I can foresee the circumstances arising when this could occur accidently, hopefully not on my doorstep. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

5:52am Thu 4 Apr 13

stay local says...

southy wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
.. and I already have a good start for April.
You have no start how about posting also where after some time you been proven wrong. or dont that count in your eyes.
So free have you bothered to ask the echo web master why your post was removed, i would be interested in knowing why.
I would interested in knowing why you claimed the Echo was running a press blackout when you and the no hopers of theTUSC were beaten by the Elvis loves pets party, at the recent by election. Moreover where I have similarly commented on your known history of lies false statements mistruths etc, I feel the Echo would do well to have an exposé of your nonsense so the poor voters of red bridge can be informed.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: .. and I already have a good start for April.[/p][/quote]You have no start how about posting also where after some time you been proven wrong. or dont that count in your eyes.[/p][/quote]So free have you bothered to ask the echo web master why your post was removed, i would be interested in knowing why.[/p][/quote]I would interested in knowing why you claimed the Echo was running a press blackout when you and the no hopers of theTUSC were beaten by the Elvis loves pets party, at the recent by election. Moreover where I have similarly commented on your known history of lies false statements mistruths etc, I feel the Echo would do well to have an exposé of your nonsense so the poor voters of red bridge can be informed. stay local
  • Score: 0

9:34am Thu 4 Apr 13

Beer Monster says...

highanxiety wrote:
Surely Portsmouth would be a better site!
Gets my vote :-)
[quote][p][bold]highanxiety[/bold] wrote: Surely Portsmouth would be a better site![/p][/quote]Gets my vote :-) Beer Monster
  • Score: 0

10:02am Thu 4 Apr 13

freefinker says...

stay local wrote:
southy wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
.. and I already have a good start for April.
You have no start how about posting also where after some time you been proven wrong. or dont that count in your eyes.
So free have you bothered to ask the echo web master why your post was removed, i would be interested in knowing why.
I would interested in knowing why you claimed the Echo was running a press blackout when you and the no hopers of theTUSC were beaten by the Elvis loves pets party, at the recent by election. Moreover where I have similarly commented on your known history of lies false statements mistruths etc, I feel the Echo would do well to have an exposé of your nonsense so the poor voters of red bridge can be informed.
.. that is/was partly my intention with my monthly summary of southy's errors.

Why I should be censored for actually using southy's own words but he is still permitted to fill these stories with the original errors/lies is beyond me.

Seems there is one rule for the Echo's beloved southy and another for all the rest.
[quote][p][bold]stay local[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: .. and I already have a good start for April.[/p][/quote]You have no start how about posting also where after some time you been proven wrong. or dont that count in your eyes.[/p][/quote]So free have you bothered to ask the echo web master why your post was removed, i would be interested in knowing why.[/p][/quote]I would interested in knowing why you claimed the Echo was running a press blackout when you and the no hopers of theTUSC were beaten by the Elvis loves pets party, at the recent by election. Moreover where I have similarly commented on your known history of lies false statements mistruths etc, I feel the Echo would do well to have an exposé of your nonsense so the poor voters of red bridge can be informed.[/p][/quote].. that is/was partly my intention with my monthly summary of southy's errors. Why I should be censored for actually using southy's own words but he is still permitted to fill these stories with the original errors/lies is beyond me. Seems there is one rule for the Echo's beloved southy and another for all the rest. freefinker
  • Score: 0

10:08am Thu 4 Apr 13

freemantlegirl2 says...

FFS! I agree this site should be used for dock purposes BUT that which doesn't harm nearby residents. Whether the accusers on here like it or not WE live here, and there have been houses here for just as long as industry! I don't have an objection to process plants what I do object to is smells, huge great big structures that obscure the skyline. Although it is over the railway line, it is VERY near schools, nurseries and residential area. The council used that argument against Biomass which is why Helius made their pathetic attempt to move it back. I'm of the opinion that Helius won't make a full planning application as I think they know the battle is lost.. However, I would plead with the council not to be arrogant about development on these sites. If people are told and get information and are informed they are less likely to be angry!!

Biomass is NOT harmless to the environment btw.

As for suggesting we all just move out of the area, nice if you can AFFORD to do it! Selling the house to do that just might cause a slight problem ..... I like Freemantle, we had a smell from the BAT Factory for years which was a very welcome absence when it closed but I realised that this came at a cost for jobs. We welcome the CostCo place no-one objected to that - because we realise the sensible reasons behind it and making use of a currently redundant site.

There is no coherence to development in Southampton, both former and current council's seem to stab around in the dark producing plan after plan but fail dismally to actually consult its citizens about it!
FFS! I agree this site should be used for dock purposes BUT that which doesn't harm nearby residents. Whether the accusers on here like it or not WE live here, and there have been houses here for just as long as industry! I don't have an objection to process plants what I do object to is smells, huge great big structures that obscure the skyline. Although it is over the railway line, it is VERY near schools, nurseries and residential area. The council used that argument against Biomass which is why Helius made their pathetic attempt to move it back. I'm of the opinion that Helius won't make a full planning application as I think they know the battle is lost.. However, I would plead with the council not to be arrogant about development on these sites. If people are told and get information and are informed they are less likely to be angry!! Biomass is NOT harmless to the environment btw. As for suggesting we all just move out of the area, nice if you can AFFORD to do it! Selling the house to do that just might cause a slight problem ..... I like Freemantle, we had a smell from the BAT Factory for years which was a very welcome absence when it closed but I realised that this came at a cost for jobs. We welcome the CostCo place no-one objected to that - because we realise the sensible reasons behind it and making use of a currently redundant site. There is no coherence to development in Southampton, both former and current council's seem to stab around in the dark producing plan after plan but fail dismally to actually consult its citizens about it! freemantlegirl2
  • Score: 0

2:53pm Thu 4 Apr 13

kingnotail says...

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
FFS! I agree this site should be used for dock purposes BUT that which doesn't harm nearby residents. Whether the accusers on here like it or not WE live here, and there have been houses here for just as long as industry! I don't have an objection to process plants what I do object to is smells, huge great big structures that obscure the skyline. Although it is over the railway line, it is VERY near schools, nurseries and residential area. The council used that argument against Biomass which is why Helius made their pathetic attempt to move it back. I'm of the opinion that Helius won't make a full planning application as I think they know the battle is lost.. However, I would plead with the council not to be arrogant about development on these sites. If people are told and get information and are informed they are less likely to be angry!!

Biomass is NOT harmless to the environment btw.

As for suggesting we all just move out of the area, nice if you can AFFORD to do it! Selling the house to do that just might cause a slight problem ..... I like Freemantle, we had a smell from the BAT Factory for years which was a very welcome absence when it closed but I realised that this came at a cost for jobs. We welcome the CostCo place no-one objected to that - because we realise the sensible reasons behind it and making use of a currently redundant site.

There is no coherence to development in Southampton, both former and current council's seem to stab around in the dark producing plan after plan but fail dismally to actually consult its citizens about it!
Totally agree about the complete lack of coordination with development in Southampton. Even when plans do get passed, the prevailing attitude seems to be 'lets stick this here, then this miles away, then this in a hidden corner, then hope everything just links up magicaly, never mind worrying about the actual necessary infrastructure'.

If there was a UK award for poor city-planning, Southampton would win hands down.
[quote][p][bold]freemantlegirl2[/bold] wrote: FFS! I agree this site should be used for dock purposes BUT that which doesn't harm nearby residents. Whether the accusers on here like it or not WE live here, and there have been houses here for just as long as industry! I don't have an objection to process plants what I do object to is smells, huge great big structures that obscure the skyline. Although it is over the railway line, it is VERY near schools, nurseries and residential area. The council used that argument against Biomass which is why Helius made their pathetic attempt to move it back. I'm of the opinion that Helius won't make a full planning application as I think they know the battle is lost.. However, I would plead with the council not to be arrogant about development on these sites. If people are told and get information and are informed they are less likely to be angry!! Biomass is NOT harmless to the environment btw. As for suggesting we all just move out of the area, nice if you can AFFORD to do it! Selling the house to do that just might cause a slight problem ..... I like Freemantle, we had a smell from the BAT Factory for years which was a very welcome absence when it closed but I realised that this came at a cost for jobs. We welcome the CostCo place no-one objected to that - because we realise the sensible reasons behind it and making use of a currently redundant site. There is no coherence to development in Southampton, both former and current council's seem to stab around in the dark producing plan after plan but fail dismally to actually consult its citizens about it![/p][/quote]Totally agree about the complete lack of coordination with development in Southampton. Even when plans do get passed, the prevailing attitude seems to be 'lets stick this here, then this miles away, then this in a hidden corner, then hope everything just links up magicaly, never mind worrying about the actual necessary infrastructure'. If there was a UK award for poor city-planning, Southampton would win hands down. kingnotail
  • Score: 0

7:35pm Thu 4 Apr 13

cantthinkofone says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
.. and I already have a good start for April.
You have no start how about posting also where after some time you been proven wrong. or dont that count in your eyes.
southy, feel free to post these up on SolentNow also. The boards are free for all to use, and your comments won't be moderated for any reason not in breach of the FAQs. Freedom of speech is the watchword!
.
http://solentnow.pro
boards.com/index.cgi
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: .. and I already have a good start for April.[/p][/quote]You have no start how about posting also where after some time you been proven wrong. or dont that count in your eyes.[/p][/quote]southy, feel free to post these up on SolentNow also. The boards are free for all to use, and your comments won't be moderated for any reason not in breach of the FAQs. Freedom of speech is the watchword! . http://solentnow.pro boards.com/index.cgi cantthinkofone
  • Score: 0

7:40pm Thu 4 Apr 13

cantthinkofone says...

Oh, and you can all stick your 'correct modern spellings' in your exhaust pipes. This isn't the US, and it's "sulphur"! Bleedin yanks.
.
As the late, great Damon Albarn once said, modern life is rubbish ;-)
Oh, and you can all stick your 'correct modern spellings' in your exhaust pipes. This isn't the US, and it's "sulphur"! Bleedin yanks. . As the late, great Damon Albarn once said, modern life is rubbish ;-) cantthinkofone
  • Score: 0

2:12pm Fri 5 Apr 13

lisa whitemore says...

southamptongeordie wrote:
"A Southampton City Council spokesperson stressed the authority was not required to carry out public consultation because the nearest houses are 200 metres away from the site and are separated by a railway line, the A33 and other industries at the docks.

She added: “There are no plans to extend the consultation"

I thought the Labour Council was going to listen to people, not hide behind council employees and hide information from the public.

This is shameful.
The Labour Council are Shameful and do not want to listen to us! Full of Lies and broken promises.
[quote][p][bold]southamptongeordie[/bold] wrote: "A Southampton City Council spokesperson stressed the authority was not required to carry out public consultation because the nearest houses are 200 metres away from the site and are separated by a railway line, the A33 and other industries at the docks. She added: “There are no plans to extend the consultation" I thought the Labour Council was going to listen to people, not hide behind council employees and hide information from the public. This is shameful.[/p][/quote]The Labour Council are Shameful and do not want to listen to us! Full of Lies and broken promises. lisa whitemore
  • Score: 0

5:59pm Fri 5 Apr 13

Dan Soton says...

ABP/Goldman Sachs trashing Southampton again.. re Helius, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator.



The simple truth is Goldman Sachs will keep trashing Southampton till it makes $ billions of profit.


in 2006 a Goldman Sachs consortium offered £2.79 billion/$5.23 billion for Associated British Ports.. ABP de-listed from the London Stock Exchange.


given the £/$ exchange rates that $5.23 billion is only $4.28 billion today.



expect more of the same to come.
ABP/Goldman Sachs trashing Southampton again.. re Helius, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator. The simple truth is Goldman Sachs will keep trashing Southampton till it makes $ billions of profit. in 2006 a Goldman Sachs consortium offered £2.79 billion/$5.23 billion for Associated British Ports.. ABP de-listed from the London Stock Exchange. given the £/$ exchange rates that $5.23 billion is only $4.28 billion today. expect more of the same to come. Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

1:37pm Sat 6 Apr 13

Dan Soton says...

ABP/Goldman Sachs trashing Southampton again.. Look on my works, ye of Southampton, and despair!"




EX-GOLDMAN SACHS TRADER FACES FRAUD CHARGE AFTER SURRENDER TO FBI

guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 3 April 2013 17.10 BST

A former Goldman Sachs trader surrendered to FBI agents Wednesday amid accusations that he concealed a $8.3bn futures bet that went wrong.


http://www.guardian.
co.uk/business/2013/
apr/03/goldman-sachs
-trader-fbi-fraud


-



"My name is Goldman Sachs, King of Fraud, Kickbacks and Bribes

Look on my works, ye of Southampton, and despair!"

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay.

Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare.

The lone and level sands stretch far away.
ABP/Goldman Sachs trashing Southampton again.. Look on my works, ye of Southampton, and despair!" EX-GOLDMAN SACHS TRADER FACES FRAUD CHARGE AFTER SURRENDER TO FBI guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 3 April 2013 17.10 BST A former Goldman Sachs trader surrendered to FBI agents Wednesday amid accusations that he concealed a $8.3bn futures bet that went wrong. http://www.guardian. co.uk/business/2013/ apr/03/goldman-sachs -trader-fbi-fraud - "My name is Goldman Sachs, King of Fraud, Kickbacks and Bribes Look on my works, ye of Southampton, and despair!" Nothing beside remains. Round the decay. Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare. The lone and level sands stretch far away. Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

1:39pm Sat 6 Apr 13

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
ABP/Goldman Sachs trashing Southampton again.. re Helius, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator.



The simple truth is Goldman Sachs will keep trashing Southampton till it makes $ billions of profit.


in 2006 a Goldman Sachs consortium offered £2.79 billion/$5.23 billion for Associated British Ports.. ABP de-listed from the London Stock Exchange.


given the £/$ exchange rates that $5.23 billion is only $4.28 billion today.



expect more of the same to come.
ABP/Goldman Sachs trashing Southampton again.. Look on my works, ye of Southampton, and despair!"




EX-GOLDMAN SACHS TRADER FACES FRAUD CHARGE AFTER SURRENDER TO FBI

guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 3 April 2013 17.10 BST.

A former Goldman Sachs trader surrendered to FBI agents Wednesday amid accusations that he concealed a $8.3bn futures bet that went wrong.


http://www.guardian.

co.uk/business/2013/

apr/03/goldman-sachs

-trader-fbi-fraud


-



"My name is Goldman Sachs, King of Fraud, Kickbacks and Bribes.

Look on my works, ye of Southampton, and despair!"

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay.

Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare.

The lone and level sands stretch far away.
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: ABP/Goldman Sachs trashing Southampton again.. re Helius, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator. The simple truth is Goldman Sachs will keep trashing Southampton till it makes $ billions of profit. in 2006 a Goldman Sachs consortium offered £2.79 billion/$5.23 billion for Associated British Ports.. ABP de-listed from the London Stock Exchange. given the £/$ exchange rates that $5.23 billion is only $4.28 billion today. expect more of the same to come.[/p][/quote]ABP/Goldman Sachs trashing Southampton again.. Look on my works, ye of Southampton, and despair!" EX-GOLDMAN SACHS TRADER FACES FRAUD CHARGE AFTER SURRENDER TO FBI guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 3 April 2013 17.10 BST. A former Goldman Sachs trader surrendered to FBI agents Wednesday amid accusations that he concealed a $8.3bn futures bet that went wrong. http://www.guardian. co.uk/business/2013/ apr/03/goldman-sachs -trader-fbi-fraud - "My name is Goldman Sachs, King of Fraud, Kickbacks and Bribes. Look on my works, ye of Southampton, and despair!" Nothing beside remains. Round the decay. Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare. The lone and level sands stretch far away. Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

5:16pm Sat 6 Apr 13

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
ABP/Goldman Sachs trashing Southampton again.. re Helius, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator.



The simple truth is Goldman Sachs will keep trashing Southampton till it makes $ billions of profit.


in 2006 a Goldman Sachs consortium offered £2.79 billion/$5.23 billion for Associated British Ports.. ABP de-listed from the London Stock Exchange.


given the £/$ exchange rates that $5.23 billion is only $4.28 billion today.



expect more of the same to come.
ABP/Goldman Sachs trashing Southampton again.. Look on my works, ye of Southampton, and despair!"




EX-GOLDMAN SACHS TRADER FACES FRAUD CHARGE AFTER SURRENDER TO FBI

guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 3 April 2013 17.10 BST.

A former Goldman Sachs trader surrendered to FBI agents Wednesday amid accusations that he concealed a $8.3bn futures bet that went wrong.


http://www.guardian.


co.uk/business/2013/


apr/03/goldman-sachs


-trader-fbi-fraud


-



"My name is Goldman Sachs, King of Fraud, Kickbacks and Bribes.

Look on my works, ye of Southampton, and despair!"

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay.

Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare.

The lone and level sands stretch far away.
My name is Oxbow Carbon, King of Fraud, Kickbacks and Bribes.


-


BILLIONAIRE KOCH BROTHER SUED AFTER HE 'IMPRISONED AND INTERROGATED EXECUTIVE'.

By Snejana Farberov.
UPDATED: 06:29, 14 October 2012.

Tycoon: William Koch, the CEO of the Oxbow Group with a personal worth of $4billion, is accused of imprisoning and interrogating one of his executives.

Billionaire and major Republican donor William Koch had one of his executives imprisoned and interrogated for hours on a secluded ranch because he was suspected of defrauding his employers, according to a federal lawsuit.

Kirby Martensen, of Berkley, California, alleges in his complaint that he worked as an executive for several companies in Koch's Oxbow Group until March, when he was suddenly fired.

According to Martensen, Oxbow Carbon & Minerals (OCM) International, the world's largest petroleum coke distributer, promoted him to senior vice president of its Asia operation in 2011 and he moved to the company's Singapore office.

THE LAWSUIT FILED IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA STATES THAT AFTER MAKING THE MOVE, MARTENSEN WAS TOLD BY HIS SUPERIORS THAT HIS GOAL AS VICE PRESIDENT OF OCM ASIA WAS TO HELP THE COMPANY EVADE PAYING TAXES TO THE U.S. ON PROFITS TOTALING MORE THAN $200 MILLION A YEAR.

Last year, William Koch received an anonymous letter alleging that Martensen and another OCM employee had been engaging in theft, breaches of fiduciary duty and fraud.

-

http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
2217401/Billionaire-
Koch-brother-sued-im
prisoned-interrogate
d-executive.html



-



"My name is Oxbow Carbon, King of Fraud, Kickbacks and Bribes

Look on my works, ye of Southampton, and despair!"

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay.

Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare.

The lone and level sands stretch far away.
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: ABP/Goldman Sachs trashing Southampton again.. re Helius, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator. The simple truth is Goldman Sachs will keep trashing Southampton till it makes $ billions of profit. in 2006 a Goldman Sachs consortium offered £2.79 billion/$5.23 billion for Associated British Ports.. ABP de-listed from the London Stock Exchange. given the £/$ exchange rates that $5.23 billion is only $4.28 billion today. expect more of the same to come.[/p][/quote]ABP/Goldman Sachs trashing Southampton again.. Look on my works, ye of Southampton, and despair!" EX-GOLDMAN SACHS TRADER FACES FRAUD CHARGE AFTER SURRENDER TO FBI guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 3 April 2013 17.10 BST. A former Goldman Sachs trader surrendered to FBI agents Wednesday amid accusations that he concealed a $8.3bn futures bet that went wrong. http://www.guardian. co.uk/business/2013/ apr/03/goldman-sachs -trader-fbi-fraud - "My name is Goldman Sachs, King of Fraud, Kickbacks and Bribes. Look on my works, ye of Southampton, and despair!" Nothing beside remains. Round the decay. Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare. The lone and level sands stretch far away.[/p][/quote]My name is Oxbow Carbon, King of Fraud, Kickbacks and Bribes. - BILLIONAIRE KOCH BROTHER SUED AFTER HE 'IMPRISONED AND INTERROGATED EXECUTIVE'. By Snejana Farberov. UPDATED: 06:29, 14 October 2012. Tycoon: William Koch, the CEO of the Oxbow Group with a personal worth of $4billion, is accused of imprisoning and interrogating one of his executives. Billionaire and major Republican donor William Koch had one of his executives imprisoned and interrogated for hours on a secluded ranch because he was suspected of defrauding his employers, according to a federal lawsuit. Kirby Martensen, of Berkley, California, alleges in his complaint that he worked as an executive for several companies in Koch's Oxbow Group until March, when he was suddenly fired. According to Martensen, Oxbow Carbon & Minerals (OCM) International, the world's largest petroleum coke distributer, promoted him to senior vice president of its Asia operation in 2011 and he moved to the company's Singapore office. THE LAWSUIT FILED IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA STATES THAT AFTER MAKING THE MOVE, MARTENSEN WAS TOLD BY HIS SUPERIORS THAT HIS GOAL AS VICE PRESIDENT OF OCM ASIA WAS TO HELP THE COMPANY EVADE PAYING TAXES TO THE U.S. ON PROFITS TOTALING MORE THAN $200 MILLION A YEAR. Last year, William Koch received an anonymous letter alleging that Martensen and another OCM employee had been engaging in theft, breaches of fiduciary duty and fraud. - http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2217401/Billionaire- Koch-brother-sued-im prisoned-interrogate d-executive.html - "My name is Oxbow Carbon, King of Fraud, Kickbacks and Bribes Look on my works, ye of Southampton, and despair!" Nothing beside remains. Round the decay. Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare. The lone and level sands stretch far away. Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

1:26pm Sun 7 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

I have just posted this on another thread relating to the sulphur plant, but I think it is very important that everyone who has taken an interest in the proposal reads the information I have pullled together below. As there are 4 threads on this:

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together says...
12:55pm Sun 7 Apr 13
What are the requirements re requiring an environmental impact assessment (EIA), and a public consultation?

I believe it is down to the council to decide, but residents should lobby the council to ensure this happens.

It seems a disgrace that 200m with no residents inside is enough for this project to escape scrutiny, when we are talking about sulphur products.

Fair enough it is said it will incloude scrubbers, but how effective are these, what are the consequences when these fail, or need to be changed over, what are the chances of a serious industrial accident, and what would be the impact if one happened.

We know when we recently had sulphurous smells coming from over the channel that sulphur compounds are some of those most odourous there are, an some sulphur compounds are considerably toxic at low levels.

What if there was a fire at the plant, would we have clouds of mercaptans or hydrogen sulphide drifting across the city an surrounding area? How many residents could be killed if we had a sulphurous cloud drifting across the city?

I believe such a sulphur pellet plant would use sulphuric acid as the source of liquid sulphur, but I am not sure about this, or what the intermediate products and by products of the industrial process would be.

Surely we need an impact assessment on the potential impacts of the release of any or all of the above, together with the produts that could be released if the process failed, either through inadvertent combination, explosion, or fire etc.

Sulphuric acid fumes if released by this plant would I imagine be horrendous. The effects on air quality, asthmatics, acid rain, acid erosion of monuments and listed buildings... it doesnt bear thinking about. I have great concerns about this plant.

The entire population of Southampton should demand that the council withhold consent subject to a full environmental impact assessment and public inquiry.

People should look to campaigns against such sulphur pellet plants elsewhere - I shall post an example below.

Quote » | Report this post »

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together says...
12:59pm Sun 7 Apr 13
Here is a good article on opposition to a sulphur / slufur plant in the US in a similar waterfront location - opponents of the southampton plans should take note and follow this case:

http://hamptonroads.

com/2012/01/tension-

rises-over-plans-por

tsmouth-sulfur-plant



"PotashCorp (pronounced "pot-ash") and the Virginia Port Authority had hoped for a calmer response. Officials from both entities said they were trying to be open.

"It's disappointing that a good-faith effort has gone awry, but I understand the concerns of the citizens," said Joe Harris, a Port Authority spokesman. "Any time something like this comes along, it should raise questions."

The last time Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. tried to build a sulfur melting plant - last summer in Morehead City, N.C. - it did not go well.

Residents fretted about odor, explosions and environmental damage, despite assurances from the company that the concerns were exaggerated. An opposition group drew some 400 people to its formative meeting, protesters appeared in protective suits and the governor intervened, the Raleigh News & Observer reported.

Fueling the outrage was the fact that residents and businesses did not learn of the proposal until it was well into the permitting process. PotashCorp withdrew its plans amid the backlash."


Anything sound familiar here?

Quote » | Report this post »

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together says...
1:00pm Sun 7 Apr 13
When people look for other examples of such plants, remember that sulphur is written sulfur in the US....

Quote » | Report this post »

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together says...
1:04pm Sun 7 Apr 13
See how public pressure got rid of a sulphur pellet plant in a US port location - I only hope our council stand up for the residents in the same way.

http://hamptonroads.

com/2012/01/portsmou

th-crowd-tells-sulfu

r-plant-we-dont-want

-you

"Hundreds of residents showed up Tuesday night with an unequivocal message for the Virginia Port Authority: A sulfur melting plant is not welcome in the city.

The outpouring of angst and outrage came just one week after the public learned the state-run Port Authority was talking with a company about building a sulfur melting operation near several neighborhoods on the Elizabeth River at the Portsmouth Marine Terminal.

City Council members agreed and said they would pass a resolution opposing the idea and ask Norfolk officials to join them.

"You've told us what you want, so we'll support you," Councilman Paige Cherrytold the crowd to applause.

The turnout against the project materialized at a council-led community meeting held twice a year that often draws only a few dozen residents, if that many.

This time, some 350 people came, and of the many who lined up for a microphone in I.C. Norcom High School's auditorium, only representatives from the company behind the proposal spoke favorably of it."

(by the way, worth reading the comments on some of those articles on this project too)

Quote » | Report this post »

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together says...
1:07pm Sun 7 Apr 13
What would be the impacts on the Solent if there were leaks from the plant?

Quote » | Report this post »

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together says...
1:07pm Sun 7 Apr 13
Worth watching this video on sulphur plant concerns:

http://www.wvec.com/

my-city/portsmouth/S

ulfur-plant-being-pr

oposed-for-Portsmout

h-137040253.html

Quote » | Report this post »

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together says...
1:09pm Sun 7 Apr 13
http://www.wdnweb.co

m/2012/01/20/portsmo

uth-site-off-the-tab

le-for-sulfur-meltin

g-plant/

"Portsmouth site off the table for sulfur-melting plant

January 20, 2012

Facing growing public protest, Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan announced Thursday that it is withdrawing a site on the Elizabeth River near Portsmouth, Va. as the possible location for a sulfur-melting plant, according to a report in Friday’s Virginian-Pilot of Norfolk, Va.
This is the second time that the company has eliminated a possible site for the operation because of public outcry.
Meanwhile, the company is still exploring other options for the plant – options that still include the PotashCorp Aurora location, according to Tom Pasztor, senior director of corporate and government relations.
“We still have several options open to us,” Pasztor said in a telephone interview with the Daily News.
Pasztor did not say what those options are or where the Beaufort County plant site ranks in the order of preference of those options.
The Virginian-Pilot last week reported that the company was in talks with the Virginia Port Authority about locating the plant at the Portsmouth Marine Terminal, which, the newspaper said, had been dormant for about a year.
As in Morehead City last year, the news of a possible siting of a sulfur-melting plant in their community “was met with immediate and loud protests from residents worried about odors, environmental risks and the impact on property values,” the newspaper reported on Friday.

Quote » | Report this post »

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together says...
1:15pm Sun 7 Apr 13
Read this report on the hazards associated with sulfur handling, dust explosions, fire risks, risks from static electricity, mixing of incompatible chemicals, fire and explosion risks with liquid sulphur, risks associated with fertilisers containing sulphur, the toxity of sluphur dioxide....

http://www.osh.govt.

nz/order/catalogue/p

df/sulphur.pdf

Quote » | Report this post »

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together says...
1:16pm Sun 7 Apr 13
Reading that report above on the potential hazards involved in plants which handle sulphur products, there seems to me no way that this should not have a full environmental impact assessment and public inquiry.

Quote » | Report this post »

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together says...
1:22pm Sun 7 Apr 13
Every parent, every grandparent, every child, every asthmatic will want a voice on the proposals for this plant.

It is highly alarming that proposals have got this far without people being aware let alone consulted.

Seeing the rejected proposals for such a plant in the USA above, it makes me wonder whether the companies behind such plants target port land around the world as it may be easier to try and get these projects approved as the land is already zoned for industry... well if so it seems like local residents have been able to push back these plans where they have been proposed.

I am horrified that all our homes could be in the path of the fallout from any explosion or fire or gas cloud release that could happen from this plant. How realistic is this? We dont know yet - but that is exactly why we need an environmental impact assessment and a public inquiry. The massive backlash and withdrawn proposals elsewhere suggest that we are right to be concerned in Southampton about this plant. People need to get up to speed quick.
I have just posted this on another thread relating to the sulphur plant, but I think it is very important that everyone who has taken an interest in the proposal reads the information I have pullled together below. As there are 4 threads on this: Sotonians_lets_pull_ together says... 12:55pm Sun 7 Apr 13 What are the requirements re requiring an environmental impact assessment (EIA), and a public consultation? I believe it is down to the council to decide, but residents should lobby the council to ensure this happens. It seems a disgrace that 200m with no residents inside is enough for this project to escape scrutiny, when we are talking about sulphur products. Fair enough it is said it will incloude scrubbers, but how effective are these, what are the consequences when these fail, or need to be changed over, what are the chances of a serious industrial accident, and what would be the impact if one happened. We know when we recently had sulphurous smells coming from over the channel that sulphur compounds are some of those most odourous there are, an some sulphur compounds are considerably toxic at low levels. What if there was a fire at the plant, would we have clouds of mercaptans or hydrogen sulphide drifting across the city an surrounding area? How many residents could be killed if we had a sulphurous cloud drifting across the city? I believe such a sulphur pellet plant would use sulphuric acid as the source of liquid sulphur, but I am not sure about this, or what the intermediate products and by products of the industrial process would be. Surely we need an impact assessment on the potential impacts of the release of any or all of the above, together with the produts that could be released if the process failed, either through inadvertent combination, explosion, or fire etc. Sulphuric acid fumes if released by this plant would I imagine be horrendous. The effects on air quality, asthmatics, acid rain, acid erosion of monuments and listed buildings... it doesnt bear thinking about. I have great concerns about this plant. The entire population of Southampton should demand that the council withhold consent subject to a full environmental impact assessment and public inquiry. People should look to campaigns against such sulphur pellet plants elsewhere - I shall post an example below. Quote » | Report this post » Sotonians_lets_pull_ together says... 12:59pm Sun 7 Apr 13 Here is a good article on opposition to a sulphur / slufur plant in the US in a similar waterfront location - opponents of the southampton plans should take note and follow this case: http://hamptonroads. com/2012/01/tension- rises-over-plans-por tsmouth-sulfur-plant "PotashCorp (pronounced "pot-ash") and the Virginia Port Authority had hoped for a calmer response. Officials from both entities said they were trying to be open. "It's disappointing that a good-faith effort has gone awry, but I understand the concerns of the citizens," said Joe Harris, a Port Authority spokesman. "Any time something like this comes along, it should raise questions." The last time Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. tried to build a sulfur melting plant - last summer in Morehead City, N.C. - it did not go well. Residents fretted about odor, explosions and environmental damage, despite assurances from the company that the concerns were exaggerated. An opposition group drew some 400 people to its formative meeting, protesters appeared in protective suits and the governor intervened, the Raleigh News & Observer reported. Fueling the outrage was the fact that residents and businesses did not learn of the proposal until it was well into the permitting process. PotashCorp withdrew its plans amid the backlash." Anything sound familiar here? Quote » | Report this post » Sotonians_lets_pull_ together says... 1:00pm Sun 7 Apr 13 When people look for other examples of such plants, remember that sulphur is written sulfur in the US.... Quote » | Report this post » Sotonians_lets_pull_ together says... 1:04pm Sun 7 Apr 13 See how public pressure got rid of a sulphur pellet plant in a US port location - I only hope our council stand up for the residents in the same way. http://hamptonroads. com/2012/01/portsmou th-crowd-tells-sulfu r-plant-we-dont-want -you "Hundreds of residents showed up Tuesday night with an unequivocal message for the Virginia Port Authority: A sulfur melting plant is not welcome in the city. The outpouring of angst and outrage came just one week after the public learned the state-run Port Authority was talking with a company about building a sulfur melting operation near several neighborhoods on the Elizabeth River at the Portsmouth Marine Terminal. City Council members agreed and said they would pass a resolution opposing the idea and ask Norfolk officials to join them. "You've told us what you want, so we'll support you," Councilman Paige Cherrytold the crowd to applause. The turnout against the project materialized at a council-led community meeting held twice a year that often draws only a few dozen residents, if that many. This time, some 350 people came, and of the many who lined up for a microphone in I.C. Norcom High School's auditorium, only representatives from the company behind the proposal spoke favorably of it." (by the way, worth reading the comments on some of those articles on this project too) Quote » | Report this post » Sotonians_lets_pull_ together says... 1:07pm Sun 7 Apr 13 What would be the impacts on the Solent if there were leaks from the plant? Quote » | Report this post » Sotonians_lets_pull_ together says... 1:07pm Sun 7 Apr 13 Worth watching this video on sulphur plant concerns: http://www.wvec.com/ my-city/portsmouth/S ulfur-plant-being-pr oposed-for-Portsmout h-137040253.html Quote » | Report this post » Sotonians_lets_pull_ together says... 1:09pm Sun 7 Apr 13 http://www.wdnweb.co m/2012/01/20/portsmo uth-site-off-the-tab le-for-sulfur-meltin g-plant/ "Portsmouth site off the table for sulfur-melting plant January 20, 2012 Facing growing public protest, Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan announced Thursday that it is withdrawing a site on the Elizabeth River near Portsmouth, Va. as the possible location for a sulfur-melting plant, according to a report in Friday’s Virginian-Pilot of Norfolk, Va. This is the second time that the company has eliminated a possible site for the operation because of public outcry. Meanwhile, the company is still exploring other options for the plant – options that still include the PotashCorp Aurora location, according to Tom Pasztor, senior director of corporate and government relations. “We still have several options open to us,” Pasztor said in a telephone interview with the Daily News. Pasztor did not say what those options are or where the Beaufort County plant site ranks in the order of preference of those options. The Virginian-Pilot last week reported that the company was in talks with the Virginia Port Authority about locating the plant at the Portsmouth Marine Terminal, which, the newspaper said, had been dormant for about a year. As in Morehead City last year, the news of a possible siting of a sulfur-melting plant in their community “was met with immediate and loud protests from residents worried about odors, environmental risks and the impact on property values,” the newspaper reported on Friday. Quote » | Report this post » Sotonians_lets_pull_ together says... 1:15pm Sun 7 Apr 13 Read this report on the hazards associated with sulfur handling, dust explosions, fire risks, risks from static electricity, mixing of incompatible chemicals, fire and explosion risks with liquid sulphur, risks associated with fertilisers containing sulphur, the toxity of sluphur dioxide.... http://www.osh.govt. nz/order/catalogue/p df/sulphur.pdf Quote » | Report this post » Sotonians_lets_pull_ together says... 1:16pm Sun 7 Apr 13 Reading that report above on the potential hazards involved in plants which handle sulphur products, there seems to me no way that this should not have a full environmental impact assessment and public inquiry. Quote » | Report this post » Sotonians_lets_pull_ together says... 1:22pm Sun 7 Apr 13 Every parent, every grandparent, every child, every asthmatic will want a voice on the proposals for this plant. It is highly alarming that proposals have got this far without people being aware let alone consulted. Seeing the rejected proposals for such a plant in the USA above, it makes me wonder whether the companies behind such plants target port land around the world as it may be easier to try and get these projects approved as the land is already zoned for industry... well if so it seems like local residents have been able to push back these plans where they have been proposed. I am horrified that all our homes could be in the path of the fallout from any explosion or fire or gas cloud release that could happen from this plant. How realistic is this? We dont know yet - but that is exactly why we need an environmental impact assessment and a public inquiry. The massive backlash and withdrawn proposals elsewhere suggest that we are right to be concerned in Southampton about this plant. People need to get up to speed quick. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

2:37pm Sun 7 Apr 13

Inform Al says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
I have just posted this on another thread relating to the sulphur plant, but I think it is very important that everyone who has taken an interest in the proposal reads the information I have pullled together below. As there are 4 threads on this:

Sotonians_lets_pull_

together says...
12:55pm Sun 7 Apr 13
What are the requirements re requiring an environmental impact assessment (EIA), and a public consultation?

I believe it is down to the council to decide, but residents should lobby the council to ensure this happens.

It seems a disgrace that 200m with no residents inside is enough for this project to escape scrutiny, when we are talking about sulphur products.

Fair enough it is said it will incloude scrubbers, but how effective are these, what are the consequences when these fail, or need to be changed over, what are the chances of a serious industrial accident, and what would be the impact if one happened.

We know when we recently had sulphurous smells coming from over the channel that sulphur compounds are some of those most odourous there are, an some sulphur compounds are considerably toxic at low levels.

What if there was a fire at the plant, would we have clouds of mercaptans or hydrogen sulphide drifting across the city an surrounding area? How many residents could be killed if we had a sulphurous cloud drifting across the city?

I believe such a sulphur pellet plant would use sulphuric acid as the source of liquid sulphur, but I am not sure about this, or what the intermediate products and by products of the industrial process would be.

Surely we need an impact assessment on the potential impacts of the release of any or all of the above, together with the produts that could be released if the process failed, either through inadvertent combination, explosion, or fire etc.

Sulphuric acid fumes if released by this plant would I imagine be horrendous. The effects on air quality, asthmatics, acid rain, acid erosion of monuments and listed buildings... it doesnt bear thinking about. I have great concerns about this plant.

The entire population of Southampton should demand that the council withhold consent subject to a full environmental impact assessment and public inquiry.

People should look to campaigns against such sulphur pellet plants elsewhere - I shall post an example below.

Quote » | Report this post »

Sotonians_lets_pull_

together says...
12:59pm Sun 7 Apr 13
Here is a good article on opposition to a sulphur / slufur plant in the US in a similar waterfront location - opponents of the southampton plans should take note and follow this case:

http://hamptonroads.


com/2012/01/tension-


rises-over-plans-por


tsmouth-sulfur-plant




"PotashCorp (pronounced "pot-ash") and the Virginia Port Authority had hoped for a calmer response. Officials from both entities said they were trying to be open.

"It's disappointing that a good-faith effort has gone awry, but I understand the concerns of the citizens," said Joe Harris, a Port Authority spokesman. "Any time something like this comes along, it should raise questions."

The last time Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. tried to build a sulfur melting plant - last summer in Morehead City, N.C. - it did not go well.

Residents fretted about odor, explosions and environmental damage, despite assurances from the company that the concerns were exaggerated. An opposition group drew some 400 people to its formative meeting, protesters appeared in protective suits and the governor intervened, the Raleigh News & Observer reported.

Fueling the outrage was the fact that residents and businesses did not learn of the proposal until it was well into the permitting process. PotashCorp withdrew its plans amid the backlash."


Anything sound familiar here?

Quote » | Report this post »

Sotonians_lets_pull_

together says...
1:00pm Sun 7 Apr 13
When people look for other examples of such plants, remember that sulphur is written sulfur in the US....

Quote » | Report this post »

Sotonians_lets_pull_

together says...
1:04pm Sun 7 Apr 13
See how public pressure got rid of a sulphur pellet plant in a US port location - I only hope our council stand up for the residents in the same way.

http://hamptonroads.


com/2012/01/portsmou


th-crowd-tells-sulfu


r-plant-we-dont-want


-you

"Hundreds of residents showed up Tuesday night with an unequivocal message for the Virginia Port Authority: A sulfur melting plant is not welcome in the city.

The outpouring of angst and outrage came just one week after the public learned the state-run Port Authority was talking with a company about building a sulfur melting operation near several neighborhoods on the Elizabeth River at the Portsmouth Marine Terminal.

City Council members agreed and said they would pass a resolution opposing the idea and ask Norfolk officials to join them.

"You've told us what you want, so we'll support you," Councilman Paige Cherrytold the crowd to applause.

The turnout against the project materialized at a council-led community meeting held twice a year that often draws only a few dozen residents, if that many.

This time, some 350 people came, and of the many who lined up for a microphone in I.C. Norcom High School's auditorium, only representatives from the company behind the proposal spoke favorably of it."

(by the way, worth reading the comments on some of those articles on this project too)

Quote » | Report this post »

Sotonians_lets_pull_

together says...
1:07pm Sun 7 Apr 13
What would be the impacts on the Solent if there were leaks from the plant?

Quote » | Report this post »

Sotonians_lets_pull_

together says...
1:07pm Sun 7 Apr 13
Worth watching this video on sulphur plant concerns:

http://www.wvec.com/


my-city/portsmouth/S


ulfur-plant-being-pr


oposed-for-Portsmout


h-137040253.html

Quote » | Report this post »

Sotonians_lets_pull_

together says...
1:09pm Sun 7 Apr 13
http://www.wdnweb.co


m/2012/01/20/portsmo


uth-site-off-the-tab


le-for-sulfur-meltin


g-plant/

"Portsmouth site off the table for sulfur-melting plant

January 20, 2012

Facing growing public protest, Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan announced Thursday that it is withdrawing a site on the Elizabeth River near Portsmouth, Va. as the possible location for a sulfur-melting plant, according to a report in Friday’s Virginian-Pilot of Norfolk, Va.
This is the second time that the company has eliminated a possible site for the operation because of public outcry.
Meanwhile, the company is still exploring other options for the plant – options that still include the PotashCorp Aurora location, according to Tom Pasztor, senior director of corporate and government relations.
“We still have several options open to us,” Pasztor said in a telephone interview with the Daily News.
Pasztor did not say what those options are or where the Beaufort County plant site ranks in the order of preference of those options.
The Virginian-Pilot last week reported that the company was in talks with the Virginia Port Authority about locating the plant at the Portsmouth Marine Terminal, which, the newspaper said, had been dormant for about a year.
As in Morehead City last year, the news of a possible siting of a sulfur-melting plant in their community “was met with immediate and loud protests from residents worried about odors, environmental risks and the impact on property values,” the newspaper reported on Friday.

Quote » | Report this post »

Sotonians_lets_pull_

together says...
1:15pm Sun 7 Apr 13
Read this report on the hazards associated with sulfur handling, dust explosions, fire risks, risks from static electricity, mixing of incompatible chemicals, fire and explosion risks with liquid sulphur, risks associated with fertilisers containing sulphur, the toxity of sluphur dioxide....

http://www.osh.govt.


nz/order/catalogue/p


df/sulphur.pdf

Quote » | Report this post »

Sotonians_lets_pull_

together says...
1:16pm Sun 7 Apr 13
Reading that report above on the potential hazards involved in plants which handle sulphur products, there seems to me no way that this should not have a full environmental impact assessment and public inquiry.

Quote » | Report this post »

Sotonians_lets_pull_

together says...
1:22pm Sun 7 Apr 13
Every parent, every grandparent, every child, every asthmatic will want a voice on the proposals for this plant.

It is highly alarming that proposals have got this far without people being aware let alone consulted.

Seeing the rejected proposals for such a plant in the USA above, it makes me wonder whether the companies behind such plants target port land around the world as it may be easier to try and get these projects approved as the land is already zoned for industry... well if so it seems like local residents have been able to push back these plans where they have been proposed.

I am horrified that all our homes could be in the path of the fallout from any explosion or fire or gas cloud release that could happen from this plant. How realistic is this? We dont know yet - but that is exactly why we need an environmental impact assessment and a public inquiry. The massive backlash and withdrawn proposals elsewhere suggest that we are right to be concerned in Southampton about this plant. People need to get up to speed quick.
I never read posts this long, but saw enough from a glance to see that others are worried about an accident involving water, plenty of, oxygen, plenty of and the supplied sulphur giving Southampton a Bhopal type tragedy. Of course those intending to make money out of this scheme will say the same as Union Carbide did, that it can't happen.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: I have just posted this on another thread relating to the sulphur plant, but I think it is very important that everyone who has taken an interest in the proposal reads the information I have pullled together below. As there are 4 threads on this: Sotonians_lets_pull_ together says... 12:55pm Sun 7 Apr 13 What are the requirements re requiring an environmental impact assessment (EIA), and a public consultation? I believe it is down to the council to decide, but residents should lobby the council to ensure this happens. It seems a disgrace that 200m with no residents inside is enough for this project to escape scrutiny, when we are talking about sulphur products. Fair enough it is said it will incloude scrubbers, but how effective are these, what are the consequences when these fail, or need to be changed over, what are the chances of a serious industrial accident, and what would be the impact if one happened. We know when we recently had sulphurous smells coming from over the channel that sulphur compounds are some of those most odourous there are, an some sulphur compounds are considerably toxic at low levels. What if there was a fire at the plant, would we have clouds of mercaptans or hydrogen sulphide drifting across the city an surrounding area? How many residents could be killed if we had a sulphurous cloud drifting across the city? I believe such a sulphur pellet plant would use sulphuric acid as the source of liquid sulphur, but I am not sure about this, or what the intermediate products and by products of the industrial process would be. Surely we need an impact assessment on the potential impacts of the release of any or all of the above, together with the produts that could be released if the process failed, either through inadvertent combination, explosion, or fire etc. Sulphuric acid fumes if released by this plant would I imagine be horrendous. The effects on air quality, asthmatics, acid rain, acid erosion of monuments and listed buildings... it doesnt bear thinking about. I have great concerns about this plant. The entire population of Southampton should demand that the council withhold consent subject to a full environmental impact assessment and public inquiry. People should look to campaigns against such sulphur pellet plants elsewhere - I shall post an example below. Quote » | Report this post » Sotonians_lets_pull_ together says... 12:59pm Sun 7 Apr 13 Here is a good article on opposition to a sulphur / slufur plant in the US in a similar waterfront location - opponents of the southampton plans should take note and follow this case: http://hamptonroads. com/2012/01/tension- rises-over-plans-por tsmouth-sulfur-plant "PotashCorp (pronounced "pot-ash") and the Virginia Port Authority had hoped for a calmer response. Officials from both entities said they were trying to be open. "It's disappointing that a good-faith effort has gone awry, but I understand the concerns of the citizens," said Joe Harris, a Port Authority spokesman. "Any time something like this comes along, it should raise questions." The last time Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. tried to build a sulfur melting plant - last summer in Morehead City, N.C. - it did not go well. Residents fretted about odor, explosions and environmental damage, despite assurances from the company that the concerns were exaggerated. An opposition group drew some 400 people to its formative meeting, protesters appeared in protective suits and the governor intervened, the Raleigh News & Observer reported. Fueling the outrage was the fact that residents and businesses did not learn of the proposal until it was well into the permitting process. PotashCorp withdrew its plans amid the backlash." Anything sound familiar here? Quote » | Report this post » Sotonians_lets_pull_ together says... 1:00pm Sun 7 Apr 13 When people look for other examples of such plants, remember that sulphur is written sulfur in the US.... Quote » | Report this post » Sotonians_lets_pull_ together says... 1:04pm Sun 7 Apr 13 See how public pressure got rid of a sulphur pellet plant in a US port location - I only hope our council stand up for the residents in the same way. http://hamptonroads. com/2012/01/portsmou th-crowd-tells-sulfu r-plant-we-dont-want -you "Hundreds of residents showed up Tuesday night with an unequivocal message for the Virginia Port Authority: A sulfur melting plant is not welcome in the city. The outpouring of angst and outrage came just one week after the public learned the state-run Port Authority was talking with a company about building a sulfur melting operation near several neighborhoods on the Elizabeth River at the Portsmouth Marine Terminal. City Council members agreed and said they would pass a resolution opposing the idea and ask Norfolk officials to join them. "You've told us what you want, so we'll support you," Councilman Paige Cherrytold the crowd to applause. The turnout against the project materialized at a council-led community meeting held twice a year that often draws only a few dozen residents, if that many. This time, some 350 people came, and of the many who lined up for a microphone in I.C. Norcom High School's auditorium, only representatives from the company behind the proposal spoke favorably of it." (by the way, worth reading the comments on some of those articles on this project too) Quote » | Report this post » Sotonians_lets_pull_ together says... 1:07pm Sun 7 Apr 13 What would be the impacts on the Solent if there were leaks from the plant? Quote » | Report this post » Sotonians_lets_pull_ together says... 1:07pm Sun 7 Apr 13 Worth watching this video on sulphur plant concerns: http://www.wvec.com/ my-city/portsmouth/S ulfur-plant-being-pr oposed-for-Portsmout h-137040253.html Quote » | Report this post » Sotonians_lets_pull_ together says... 1:09pm Sun 7 Apr 13 http://www.wdnweb.co m/2012/01/20/portsmo uth-site-off-the-tab le-for-sulfur-meltin g-plant/ "Portsmouth site off the table for sulfur-melting plant January 20, 2012 Facing growing public protest, Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan announced Thursday that it is withdrawing a site on the Elizabeth River near Portsmouth, Va. as the possible location for a sulfur-melting plant, according to a report in Friday’s Virginian-Pilot of Norfolk, Va. This is the second time that the company has eliminated a possible site for the operation because of public outcry. Meanwhile, the company is still exploring other options for the plant – options that still include the PotashCorp Aurora location, according to Tom Pasztor, senior director of corporate and government relations. “We still have several options open to us,” Pasztor said in a telephone interview with the Daily News. Pasztor did not say what those options are or where the Beaufort County plant site ranks in the order of preference of those options. The Virginian-Pilot last week reported that the company was in talks with the Virginia Port Authority about locating the plant at the Portsmouth Marine Terminal, which, the newspaper said, had been dormant for about a year. As in Morehead City last year, the news of a possible siting of a sulfur-melting plant in their community “was met with immediate and loud protests from residents worried about odors, environmental risks and the impact on property values,” the newspaper reported on Friday. Quote » | Report this post » Sotonians_lets_pull_ together says... 1:15pm Sun 7 Apr 13 Read this report on the hazards associated with sulfur handling, dust explosions, fire risks, risks from static electricity, mixing of incompatible chemicals, fire and explosion risks with liquid sulphur, risks associated with fertilisers containing sulphur, the toxity of sluphur dioxide.... http://www.osh.govt. nz/order/catalogue/p df/sulphur.pdf Quote » | Report this post » Sotonians_lets_pull_ together says... 1:16pm Sun 7 Apr 13 Reading that report above on the potential hazards involved in plants which handle sulphur products, there seems to me no way that this should not have a full environmental impact assessment and public inquiry. Quote » | Report this post » Sotonians_lets_pull_ together says... 1:22pm Sun 7 Apr 13 Every parent, every grandparent, every child, every asthmatic will want a voice on the proposals for this plant. It is highly alarming that proposals have got this far without people being aware let alone consulted. Seeing the rejected proposals for such a plant in the USA above, it makes me wonder whether the companies behind such plants target port land around the world as it may be easier to try and get these projects approved as the land is already zoned for industry... well if so it seems like local residents have been able to push back these plans where they have been proposed. I am horrified that all our homes could be in the path of the fallout from any explosion or fire or gas cloud release that could happen from this plant. How realistic is this? We dont know yet - but that is exactly why we need an environmental impact assessment and a public inquiry. The massive backlash and withdrawn proposals elsewhere suggest that we are right to be concerned in Southampton about this plant. People need to get up to speed quick.[/p][/quote]I never read posts this long, but saw enough from a glance to see that others are worried about an accident involving water, plenty of, oxygen, plenty of and the supplied sulphur giving Southampton a Bhopal type tragedy. Of course those intending to make money out of this scheme will say the same as Union Carbide did, that it can't happen. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

2:44pm Sun 7 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Inform Al,

Apologies for the length of the post, but I felt someone needed to do some legwork on this to find out what the risks and concerns had been with similar projects elsewhere...

Please do take the time to read it, and I hope others then take up the campaign and have an informed debate.
Inform Al, Apologies for the length of the post, but I felt someone needed to do some legwork on this to find out what the risks and concerns had been with similar projects elsewhere... Please do take the time to read it, and I hope others then take up the campaign and have an informed debate. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

2:47pm Sun 7 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

Inform Al - I think it would be good for some other people to read the information under Ian's editorial, and get some debate going there...

http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/yoursay/blogs
/ian_murray/10336457
.If_not_there__then_
where_can_we_stick_t
hese_monstrosities_/
Inform Al - I think it would be good for some other people to read the information under Ian's editorial, and get some debate going there... http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/yoursay/blogs /ian_murray/10336457 .If_not_there__then_ where_can_we_stick_t hese_monstrosities_/ Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

6:13pm Sun 7 Apr 13

cantthinkofone says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
Inform Al - I think it would be good for some other people to read the information under Ian's editorial, and get some debate going there...

http://www.dailyecho

.co.uk/yoursay/blogs

/ian_murray/10336457

.If_not_there__then_

where_can_we_stick_t

hese_monstrosities_/
Get it going on SolentNow too. Local bulletin board / forum with light moderation, and better suited to involved discussions than web comments.

http://solentnow.pro
boards.com/index.cgi
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: Inform Al - I think it would be good for some other people to read the information under Ian's editorial, and get some debate going there... http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/yoursay/blogs /ian_murray/10336457 .If_not_there__then_ where_can_we_stick_t hese_monstrosities_/[/p][/quote]Get it going on SolentNow too. Local bulletin board / forum with light moderation, and better suited to involved discussions than web comments. http://solentnow.pro boards.com/index.cgi cantthinkofone
  • Score: 0

7:14pm Sun 7 Apr 13

Sotonians_lets_pull_together says...

cantthinkofone,

Please feel free to share the material I have found over there, and get the debate going.
cantthinkofone, Please feel free to share the material I have found over there, and get the debate going. Sotonians_lets_pull_together
  • Score: 0

5:22pm Mon 8 Apr 13

cantthinkofone says...

Sotonians_lets_pull_
together
wrote:
cantthinkofone,

Please feel free to share the material I have found over there, and get the debate going.
I'm afraid with the formatting restrictions you've had to work within on here I've not managed to piece together what the flow of your argument is!
.
That's one of the main reasons I set those boards going - the formatting of these comments makes it hard to understand detailed/longer posts.
[quote][p][bold]Sotonians_lets_pull_ together[/bold] wrote: cantthinkofone, Please feel free to share the material I have found over there, and get the debate going.[/p][/quote]I'm afraid with the formatting restrictions you've had to work within on here I've not managed to piece together what the flow of your argument is! . That's one of the main reasons I set those boards going - the formatting of these comments makes it hard to understand detailed/longer posts. cantthinkofone
  • Score: 0

6:54pm Tue 16 Apr 13

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
ABP/Goldman Sachs trashing Southampton again.. re Helius, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator.



The simple truth is Goldman Sachs will keep trashing Southampton till it makes $ billions of profit.


in 2006 a Goldman Sachs consortium offered £2.79 billion/$5.23 billion for Associated British Ports.. ABP de-listed from the London Stock Exchange.


given the £/$ exchange rates that $5.23 billion is only $4.28 billion today.



expect more of the same to come.
ABP/Goldman Sachs trashing Southampton again.. Look on my works, ye of Southampton, and despair!"




EX-GOLDMAN SACHS TRADER FACES FRAUD CHARGE AFTER SURRENDER TO FBI

guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 3 April 2013 17.10 BST.

A former Goldman Sachs trader surrendered to FBI agents Wednesday amid accusations that he concealed a $8.3bn futures bet that went wrong.


http://www.guardian.



co.uk/business/2013/



apr/03/goldman-sachs



-trader-fbi-fraud


-



"My name is Goldman Sachs, King of Fraud, Kickbacks and Bribes.

Look on my works, ye of Southampton, and despair!"

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay.

Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare.

The lone and level sands stretch far away.
My name is Oxbow Carbon, King of Fraud, Kickbacks and Bribes.


-


BILLIONAIRE KOCH BROTHER SUED AFTER HE 'IMPRISONED AND INTERROGATED EXECUTIVE'.

By Snejana Farberov.
UPDATED: 06:29, 14 October 2012.

Tycoon: William Koch, the CEO of the Oxbow Group with a personal worth of $4billion, is accused of imprisoning and interrogating one of his executives.

Billionaire and major Republican donor William Koch had one of his executives imprisoned and interrogated for hours on a secluded ranch because he was suspected of defrauding his employers, according to a federal lawsuit.

Kirby Martensen, of Berkley, California, alleges in his complaint that he worked as an executive for several companies in Koch's Oxbow Group until March, when he was suddenly fired.

According to Martensen, Oxbow Carbon & Minerals (OCM) International, the world's largest petroleum coke distributer, promoted him to senior vice president of its Asia operation in 2011 and he moved to the company's Singapore office.

THE LAWSUIT FILED IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA STATES THAT AFTER MAKING THE MOVE, MARTENSEN WAS TOLD BY HIS SUPERIORS THAT HIS GOAL AS VICE PRESIDENT OF OCM ASIA WAS TO HELP THE COMPANY EVADE PAYING TAXES TO THE U.S. ON PROFITS TOTALING MORE THAN $200 MILLION A YEAR.

Last year, William Koch received an anonymous letter alleging that Martensen and another OCM employee had been engaging in theft, breaches of fiduciary duty and fraud.

-

http://www.dailymail

.co.uk/news/article-

2217401/Billionaire-

Koch-brother-sued-im

prisoned-interrogate

d-executive.html



-



"My name is Oxbow Carbon, King of Fraud, Kickbacks and Bribes

Look on my works, ye of Southampton, and despair!"

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay.

Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare.

The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Billionaire, Tycoon, William Koch CEO of Oxbow Carbon using his wealth to undermine sustainable energy projects.



Given the below, why would William Koch worry about his pollution affecting the local community?


AFAIK Southampton Council has never tried and never will win a Green Clean City Award.. Southampton is one of the very few Cities in England that has to send (28,000) Asthma sufferers text alerts when pollution levels get dangerously high, I'd say all in all it amounts to an open innovation for Oxbow Carbon and Helius to come here and not care diddly squat about pollution.




THE MAN BEHIND CAPE WIND AND THE PROJECT'S BIGGEST OPPONENT HAVE BEEN NEGOTIATING PRIVATELY FOR MORE THAN A DECADE.

BY: BRUCE MOHL.
April 09, 2013.

AFTER SPENDING 12 YEARS and $65 million trying to bring wind turbines to Nantucket Sound, Jim Gordon thinks the end of his struggle is in sight. "This is the year," he says in February at a Boston conference attended by about 150 offshore wind industry officials from around the world. Gordon is cautious by nature, careful not to get ahead of himself in a struggle that has assumed Sisyphean proportions. But in front of a crowd that is counting on Cape Wind to become the nation's first offshore wind farm, he offers reassuring words. The nation's only commercial offshore wind lease is safely in his back pocket, along with all of the state and federal permits he needs. President Obama and Gov. Deval Patrick are firmly on his side. And Gordon says he is making progress in arranging construction financing for the project with the Bank of Tokyo and the federal Depart­ment of Energy.


All that remains is a handful of lawsuits in Washington challenging federal government approvals of the wind farm. Gordon tells the audience the lawsuits don't have any merit, but it's clear he's also worried about the "coal billionaire" behind the litigation and the potential for delay. HE DOESN'T MENTION THE BILLIONAIRE'S NAME, BUT EVERYONE IN THE ROOM KNOWS HE IS TALKING ABOUT BILL KOCH, THE FLAMBOYANT FLORIDA BUSINESSMAN WHO OPPOSES CAPE WIND BECAUSE HE DOESN'T WANT TO LOOK AT IT FROM HIS OSTERVILLE SUMMER HOME. Koch has plowed more than $5 million into a group opposing Cape Wind, pursuing a strategy of "delay, delay, delay" in an effort to bleed Gordon financially until he gives up and walks away.


KOCH, WHO IS WORTH $4 BILLION AND RANKED NO. 320 ON THE FORBES LIST OF THE WEALTHIEST PEOPLE ON THE PLANET. (KOCH'S MORE CONSERVATIVE BROTHERS, CHARLES AND DAVIS, ARE TIED FOR SIXTH AT $34 BILLION EACH.) KOCH RUNS OXBOW CORP., an energy company that mines and markets coal, petroleum coke (a byproduct of oil refining), steel, and natural gas with more than $4 billion in sales and 1,100 employees. Koch is an avid collector of fine wines, fine art, nautical gear, and western memorabilia. He owns a home in Palm Beach and is building a complete western town on land he owns near Aspen, Colorado, where he plans to play host to his wife's extended family, his six children (four of whom are 16 or under), and various customers and suppliers. His sprawling Cape Cod land holdings, including his long-time summer place called Homeport, carry an assessed value of nearly $33 million.




http://tinyurl.com/c
hmwxv5
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: ABP/Goldman Sachs trashing Southampton again.. re Helius, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator. The simple truth is Goldman Sachs will keep trashing Southampton till it makes $ billions of profit. in 2006 a Goldman Sachs consortium offered £2.79 billion/$5.23 billion for Associated British Ports.. ABP de-listed from the London Stock Exchange. given the £/$ exchange rates that $5.23 billion is only $4.28 billion today. expect more of the same to come.[/p][/quote]ABP/Goldman Sachs trashing Southampton again.. Look on my works, ye of Southampton, and despair!" EX-GOLDMAN SACHS TRADER FACES FRAUD CHARGE AFTER SURRENDER TO FBI guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 3 April 2013 17.10 BST. A former Goldman Sachs trader surrendered to FBI agents Wednesday amid accusations that he concealed a $8.3bn futures bet that went wrong. http://www.guardian. co.uk/business/2013/ apr/03/goldman-sachs -trader-fbi-fraud - "My name is Goldman Sachs, King of Fraud, Kickbacks and Bribes. Look on my works, ye of Southampton, and despair!" Nothing beside remains. Round the decay. Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare. The lone and level sands stretch far away.[/p][/quote]My name is Oxbow Carbon, King of Fraud, Kickbacks and Bribes. - BILLIONAIRE KOCH BROTHER SUED AFTER HE 'IMPRISONED AND INTERROGATED EXECUTIVE'. By Snejana Farberov. UPDATED: 06:29, 14 October 2012. Tycoon: William Koch, the CEO of the Oxbow Group with a personal worth of $4billion, is accused of imprisoning and interrogating one of his executives. Billionaire and major Republican donor William Koch had one of his executives imprisoned and interrogated for hours on a secluded ranch because he was suspected of defrauding his employers, according to a federal lawsuit. Kirby Martensen, of Berkley, California, alleges in his complaint that he worked as an executive for several companies in Koch's Oxbow Group until March, when he was suddenly fired. According to Martensen, Oxbow Carbon & Minerals (OCM) International, the world's largest petroleum coke distributer, promoted him to senior vice president of its Asia operation in 2011 and he moved to the company's Singapore office. THE LAWSUIT FILED IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA STATES THAT AFTER MAKING THE MOVE, MARTENSEN WAS TOLD BY HIS SUPERIORS THAT HIS GOAL AS VICE PRESIDENT OF OCM ASIA WAS TO HELP THE COMPANY EVADE PAYING TAXES TO THE U.S. ON PROFITS TOTALING MORE THAN $200 MILLION A YEAR. Last year, William Koch received an anonymous letter alleging that Martensen and another OCM employee had been engaging in theft, breaches of fiduciary duty and fraud. - http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2217401/Billionaire- Koch-brother-sued-im prisoned-interrogate d-executive.html - "My name is Oxbow Carbon, King of Fraud, Kickbacks and Bribes Look on my works, ye of Southampton, and despair!" Nothing beside remains. Round the decay. Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare. The lone and level sands stretch far away.[/p][/quote]Billionaire, Tycoon, William Koch CEO of Oxbow Carbon using his wealth to undermine sustainable energy projects. Given the below, why would William Koch worry about his pollution affecting the local community? AFAIK Southampton Council has never tried and never will win a Green Clean City Award.. Southampton is one of the very few Cities in England that has to send (28,000) Asthma sufferers text alerts when pollution levels get dangerously high, I'd say all in all it amounts to an open innovation for Oxbow Carbon and Helius to come here and not care diddly squat about pollution. THE MAN BEHIND CAPE WIND AND THE PROJECT'S BIGGEST OPPONENT HAVE BEEN NEGOTIATING PRIVATELY FOR MORE THAN A DECADE. BY: BRUCE MOHL. April 09, 2013. AFTER SPENDING 12 YEARS and $65 million trying to bring wind turbines to Nantucket Sound, Jim Gordon thinks the end of his struggle is in sight. "This is the year," he says in February at a Boston conference attended by about 150 offshore wind industry officials from around the world. Gordon is cautious by nature, careful not to get ahead of himself in a struggle that has assumed Sisyphean proportions. But in front of a crowd that is counting on Cape Wind to become the nation's first offshore wind farm, he offers reassuring words. The nation's only commercial offshore wind lease is safely in his back pocket, along with all of the state and federal permits he needs. President Obama and Gov. Deval Patrick are firmly on his side. And Gordon says he is making progress in arranging construction financing for the project with the Bank of Tokyo and the federal Depart­ment of Energy. All that remains is a handful of lawsuits in Washington challenging federal government approvals of the wind farm. Gordon tells the audience the lawsuits don't have any merit, but it's clear he's also worried about the "coal billionaire" behind the litigation and the potential for delay. HE DOESN'T MENTION THE BILLIONAIRE'S NAME, BUT EVERYONE IN THE ROOM KNOWS HE IS TALKING ABOUT BILL KOCH, THE FLAMBOYANT FLORIDA BUSINESSMAN WHO OPPOSES CAPE WIND BECAUSE HE DOESN'T WANT TO LOOK AT IT FROM HIS OSTERVILLE SUMMER HOME. Koch has plowed more than $5 million into a group opposing Cape Wind, pursuing a strategy of "delay, delay, delay" in an effort to bleed Gordon financially until he gives up and walks away. KOCH, WHO IS WORTH $4 BILLION AND RANKED NO. 320 ON THE FORBES LIST OF THE WEALTHIEST PEOPLE ON THE PLANET. (KOCH'S MORE CONSERVATIVE BROTHERS, CHARLES AND DAVIS, ARE TIED FOR SIXTH AT $34 BILLION EACH.) KOCH RUNS OXBOW CORP., an energy company that mines and markets coal, petroleum coke (a byproduct of oil refining), steel, and natural gas with more than $4 billion in sales and 1,100 employees. Koch is an avid collector of fine wines, fine art, nautical gear, and western memorabilia. He owns a home in Palm Beach and is building a complete western town on land he owns near Aspen, Colorado, where he plans to play host to his wife's extended family, his six children (four of whom are 16 or under), and various customers and suppliers. His sprawling Cape Cod land holdings, including his long-time summer place called Homeport, carry an assessed value of nearly $33 million. http://tinyurl.com/c hmwxv5 Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

3:10pm Thu 18 Apr 13

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
ABP/Goldman Sachs trashing Southampton again.. re Helius, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator.



The simple truth is Goldman Sachs will keep trashing Southampton till it makes $ billions of profit.


in 2006 a Goldman Sachs consortium offered £2.79 billion/$5.23 billion for Associated British Ports.. ABP de-listed from the London Stock Exchange.


given the £/$ exchange rates that $5.23 billion is only $4.28 billion today.



expect more of the same to come.
ABP/Goldman Sachs trashing Southampton again.. Look on my works, ye of Southampton, and despair!"




EX-GOLDMAN SACHS TRADER FACES FRAUD CHARGE AFTER SURRENDER TO FBI

guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 3 April 2013 17.10 BST.

A former Goldman Sachs trader surrendered to FBI agents Wednesday amid accusations that he concealed a $8.3bn futures bet that went wrong.


http://www.guardian.




co.uk/business/2013/




apr/03/goldman-sachs




-trader-fbi-fraud


-



"My name is Goldman Sachs, King of Fraud, Kickbacks and Bribes.

Look on my works, ye of Southampton, and despair!"

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay.

Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare.

The lone and level sands stretch far away.
My name is Oxbow Carbon, King of Fraud, Kickbacks and Bribes.


-


BILLIONAIRE KOCH BROTHER SUED AFTER HE 'IMPRISONED AND INTERROGATED EXECUTIVE'.

By Snejana Farberov.
UPDATED: 06:29, 14 October 2012.

Tycoon: William Koch, the CEO of the Oxbow Group with a personal worth of $4billion, is accused of imprisoning and interrogating one of his executives.

Billionaire and major Republican donor William Koch had one of his executives imprisoned and interrogated for hours on a secluded ranch because he was suspected of defrauding his employers, according to a federal lawsuit.

Kirby Martensen, of Berkley, California, alleges in his complaint that he worked as an executive for several companies in Koch's Oxbow Group until March, when he was suddenly fired.

According to Martensen, Oxbow Carbon & Minerals (OCM) International, the world's largest petroleum coke distributer, promoted him to senior vice president of its Asia operation in 2011 and he moved to the company's Singapore office.

THE LAWSUIT FILED IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA STATES THAT AFTER MAKING THE MOVE, MARTENSEN WAS TOLD BY HIS SUPERIORS THAT HIS GOAL AS VICE PRESIDENT OF OCM ASIA WAS TO HELP THE COMPANY EVADE PAYING TAXES TO THE U.S. ON PROFITS TOTALING MORE THAN $200 MILLION A YEAR.

Last year, William Koch received an anonymous letter alleging that Martensen and another OCM employee had been engaging in theft, breaches of fiduciary duty and fraud.

-

http://www.dailymail


.co.uk/news/article-


2217401/Billionaire-


Koch-brother-sued-im


prisoned-interrogate


d-executive.html



-



"My name is Oxbow Carbon, King of Fraud, Kickbacks and Bribes

Look on my works, ye of Southampton, and despair!"

Nothing beside remains. Round the decay.

Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare.

The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Billionaire, Tycoon, William Koch CEO of Oxbow Carbon using his wealth to undermine sustainable energy projects.



Given the below, why would William Koch worry about his pollution affecting the local community?


AFAIK Southampton Council has never tried and never will win a Green Clean City Award.. Southampton is one of the very few Cities in England that has to send (28,000) Asthma sufferers text alerts when pollution levels get dangerously high, I'd say all in all it amounts to an open innovation for Oxbow Carbon and Helius to come here and not care diddly squat about pollution.




THE MAN BEHIND CAPE WIND AND THE PROJECT'S BIGGEST OPPONENT HAVE BEEN NEGOTIATING PRIVATELY FOR MORE THAN A DECADE.

BY: BRUCE MOHL.
April 09, 2013.

AFTER SPENDING 12 YEARS and $65 million trying to bring wind turbines to Nantucket Sound, Jim Gordon thinks the end of his struggle is in sight. "This is the year," he says in February at a Boston conference attended by about 150 offshore wind industry officials from around the world. Gordon is cautious by nature, careful not to get ahead of himself in a struggle that has assumed Sisyphean proportions. But in front of a crowd that is counting on Cape Wind to become the nation's first offshore wind farm, he offers reassuring words. The nation's only commercial offshore wind lease is safely in his back pocket, along with all of the state and federal permits he needs. President Obama and Gov. Deval Patrick are firmly on his side. And Gordon says he is making progress in arranging construction financing for the project with the Bank of Tokyo and the federal Depart­ment of Energy.


All that remains is a handful of lawsuits in Washington challenging federal government approvals of the wind farm. Gordon tells the audience the lawsuits don't have any merit, but it's clear he's also worried about the "coal billionaire" behind the litigation and the potential for delay. HE DOESN'T MENTION THE BILLIONAIRE'S NAME, BUT EVERYONE IN THE ROOM KNOWS HE IS TALKING ABOUT BILL KOCH, THE FLAMBOYANT FLORIDA BUSINESSMAN WHO OPPOSES CAPE WIND BECAUSE HE DOESN'T WANT TO LOOK AT IT FROM HIS OSTERVILLE SUMMER HOME. Koch has plowed more than $5 million into a group opposing Cape Wind, pursuing a strategy of "delay, delay, delay" in an effort to bleed Gordon financially until he gives up and walks away.


KOCH, WHO IS WORTH $4 BILLION AND RANKED NO. 320 ON THE FORBES LIST OF THE WEALTHIEST PEOPLE ON THE PLANET. (KOCH'S MORE CONSERVATIVE BROTHERS, CHARLES AND DAVIS, ARE TIED FOR SIXTH AT $34 BILLION EACH.) KOCH RUNS OXBOW CORP., an energy company that mines and markets coal, petroleum coke (a byproduct of oil refining), steel, and natural gas with more than $4 billion in sales and 1,100 employees. Koch is an avid collector of fine wines, fine art, nautical gear, and western memorabilia. He owns a home in Palm Beach and is building a complete western town on land he owns near Aspen, Colorado, where he plans to play host to his wife's extended family, his six children (four of whom are 16 or under), and various customers and suppliers. His sprawling Cape Cod land holdings, including his long-time summer place called Homeport, carry an assessed value of nearly $33 million.




http://tinyurl.com/c

hmwxv5
So is Oxbow's end product the very rare non-explosive or the regular but hard to buy explosive fertiliser ?





TEXAS EXPLOSION: FATALITIES CONFIRMED AT FERTILISER PLANT – LIVE

Peter Walker, Rory Carroll, Alison Rourke and Warren Murray.
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 18 April 2013 14.32 BST.


Many casualties are feared in the town of West near Waco in Texas after a fertiliser plant exploded, severely damaging a nursing home, schools and houses, authorities say.

Between five and 15 people have died and another 160 taken to hospital after a huge explosion tore through a fertiliser plant in the small town of West, near Waco in Texas.THE EXPLOSION, AT ABOUT 19:50PM LOCAL TIME (1.50AM BST) WAS DESCRIBED AS SOUNDING LIKE "AN ATOM BOMB" , and devastated a residential area nearby, including more than 50 houses, an apartment block and nursing home. The blast blew out doors and windows several miles away and was heard almost 50 miles away.



http://www.guardian.
co.uk/world/2013/apr
/18/texas-explosion-
fertiliser-plant-liv
e
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: ABP/Goldman Sachs trashing Southampton again.. re Helius, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator. The simple truth is Goldman Sachs will keep trashing Southampton till it makes $ billions of profit. in 2006 a Goldman Sachs consortium offered £2.79 billion/$5.23 billion for Associated British Ports.. ABP de-listed from the London Stock Exchange. given the £/$ exchange rates that $5.23 billion is only $4.28 billion today. expect more of the same to come.[/p][/quote]ABP/Goldman Sachs trashing Southampton again.. Look on my works, ye of Southampton, and despair!" EX-GOLDMAN SACHS TRADER FACES FRAUD CHARGE AFTER SURRENDER TO FBI guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 3 April 2013 17.10 BST. A former Goldman Sachs trader surrendered to FBI agents Wednesday amid accusations that he concealed a $8.3bn futures bet that went wrong. http://www.guardian. co.uk/business/2013/ apr/03/goldman-sachs -trader-fbi-fraud - "My name is Goldman Sachs, King of Fraud, Kickbacks and Bribes. Look on my works, ye of Southampton, and despair!" Nothing beside remains. Round the decay. Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare. The lone and level sands stretch far away.[/p][/quote]My name is Oxbow Carbon, King of Fraud, Kickbacks and Bribes. - BILLIONAIRE KOCH BROTHER SUED AFTER HE 'IMPRISONED AND INTERROGATED EXECUTIVE'. By Snejana Farberov. UPDATED: 06:29, 14 October 2012. Tycoon: William Koch, the CEO of the Oxbow Group with a personal worth of $4billion, is accused of imprisoning and interrogating one of his executives. Billionaire and major Republican donor William Koch had one of his executives imprisoned and interrogated for hours on a secluded ranch because he was suspected of defrauding his employers, according to a federal lawsuit. Kirby Martensen, of Berkley, California, alleges in his complaint that he worked as an executive for several companies in Koch's Oxbow Group until March, when he was suddenly fired. According to Martensen, Oxbow Carbon & Minerals (OCM) International, the world's largest petroleum coke distributer, promoted him to senior vice president of its Asia operation in 2011 and he moved to the company's Singapore office. THE LAWSUIT FILED IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA STATES THAT AFTER MAKING THE MOVE, MARTENSEN WAS TOLD BY HIS SUPERIORS THAT HIS GOAL AS VICE PRESIDENT OF OCM ASIA WAS TO HELP THE COMPANY EVADE PAYING TAXES TO THE U.S. ON PROFITS TOTALING MORE THAN $200 MILLION A YEAR. Last year, William Koch received an anonymous letter alleging that Martensen and another OCM employee had been engaging in theft, breaches of fiduciary duty and fraud. - http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2217401/Billionaire- Koch-brother-sued-im prisoned-interrogate d-executive.html - "My name is Oxbow Carbon, King of Fraud, Kickbacks and Bribes Look on my works, ye of Southampton, and despair!" Nothing beside remains. Round the decay. Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare. The lone and level sands stretch far away.[/p][/quote]Billionaire, Tycoon, William Koch CEO of Oxbow Carbon using his wealth to undermine sustainable energy projects. Given the below, why would William Koch worry about his pollution affecting the local community? AFAIK Southampton Council has never tried and never will win a Green Clean City Award.. Southampton is one of the very few Cities in England that has to send (28,000) Asthma sufferers text alerts when pollution levels get dangerously high, I'd say all in all it amounts to an open innovation for Oxbow Carbon and Helius to come here and not care diddly squat about pollution. THE MAN BEHIND CAPE WIND AND THE PROJECT'S BIGGEST OPPONENT HAVE BEEN NEGOTIATING PRIVATELY FOR MORE THAN A DECADE. BY: BRUCE MOHL. April 09, 2013. AFTER SPENDING 12 YEARS and $65 million trying to bring wind turbines to Nantucket Sound, Jim Gordon thinks the end of his struggle is in sight. "This is the year," he says in February at a Boston conference attended by about 150 offshore wind industry officials from around the world. Gordon is cautious by nature, careful not to get ahead of himself in a struggle that has assumed Sisyphean proportions. But in front of a crowd that is counting on Cape Wind to become the nation's first offshore wind farm, he offers reassuring words. The nation's only commercial offshore wind lease is safely in his back pocket, along with all of the state and federal permits he needs. President Obama and Gov. Deval Patrick are firmly on his side. And Gordon says he is making progress in arranging construction financing for the project with the Bank of Tokyo and the federal Depart­ment of Energy. All that remains is a handful of lawsuits in Washington challenging federal government approvals of the wind farm. Gordon tells the audience the lawsuits don't have any merit, but it's clear he's also worried about the "coal billionaire" behind the litigation and the potential for delay. HE DOESN'T MENTION THE BILLIONAIRE'S NAME, BUT EVERYONE IN THE ROOM KNOWS HE IS TALKING ABOUT BILL KOCH, THE FLAMBOYANT FLORIDA BUSINESSMAN WHO OPPOSES CAPE WIND BECAUSE HE DOESN'T WANT TO LOOK AT IT FROM HIS OSTERVILLE SUMMER HOME. Koch has plowed more than $5 million into a group opposing Cape Wind, pursuing a strategy of "delay, delay, delay" in an effort to bleed Gordon financially until he gives up and walks away. KOCH, WHO IS WORTH $4 BILLION AND RANKED NO. 320 ON THE FORBES LIST OF THE WEALTHIEST PEOPLE ON THE PLANET. (KOCH'S MORE CONSERVATIVE BROTHERS, CHARLES AND DAVIS, ARE TIED FOR SIXTH AT $34 BILLION EACH.) KOCH RUNS OXBOW CORP., an energy company that mines and markets coal, petroleum coke (a byproduct of oil refining), steel, and natural gas with more than $4 billion in sales and 1,100 employees. Koch is an avid collector of fine wines, fine art, nautical gear, and western memorabilia. He owns a home in Palm Beach and is building a complete western town on land he owns near Aspen, Colorado, where he plans to play host to his wife's extended family, his six children (four of whom are 16 or under), and various customers and suppliers. His sprawling Cape Cod land holdings, including his long-time summer place called Homeport, carry an assessed value of nearly $33 million. http://tinyurl.com/c hmwxv5[/p][/quote]So is Oxbow's end product the very rare non-explosive or the regular but hard to buy explosive fertiliser ? TEXAS EXPLOSION: FATALITIES CONFIRMED AT FERTILISER PLANT – LIVE Peter Walker, Rory Carroll, Alison Rourke and Warren Murray. guardian.co.uk, Thursday 18 April 2013 14.32 BST. Many casualties are feared in the town of West near Waco in Texas after a fertiliser plant exploded, severely damaging a nursing home, schools and houses, authorities say. Between five and 15 people have died and another 160 taken to hospital after a huge explosion tore through a fertiliser plant in the small town of West, near Waco in Texas.THE EXPLOSION, AT ABOUT 19:50PM LOCAL TIME (1.50AM BST) WAS DESCRIBED AS SOUNDING LIKE "AN ATOM BOMB" , and devastated a residential area nearby, including more than 50 houses, an apartment block and nursing home. The blast blew out doors and windows several miles away and was heard almost 50 miles away. http://www.guardian. co.uk/world/2013/apr /18/texas-explosion- fertiliser-plant-liv e Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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