£40m power plant to create over 180 jobs

Eastleigh Energy Recovery Centre

Eastleigh Energy Recovery Centre

First published in News

A MULTI-million pound green energy centre capable of powering 15,000 homes could be built in Hampshire.

Up to 34 full-time jobs and 150 temporary construction jobs could be created if a proposed Eastleigh Energy Recovery Centre is given the go ahead.

The £40m facility would use the advanced technologies of pyrolysis and anaerobic digestion to break down waste materials and convert it into electricity and heat – and include a solar farm.

15,000 homes The plant planned for unused land at Chickenhall Lane would produce enough renewable energy to power 15,000 homes recovering 195,000 tonnes of waste which would otherwise be incinerated or sent to landfill, according to the energy firm behind the scheme – Clean Power.

It would also provide a cheap, renewable source of heat that could be connected to the surrounding commercial and industrial buildings.

If planning is given the green light, building work could begin as early as next year with the first lorry loads of waste arriving in early 2016.

Plans for the centre include a 400ft long and 120ft wide warehouse building, two towering 75ft stacks to release odourless water vapour and a small amount of carbon dioxide and four tanks for storage and anaerobic digestion around 30ft high.

The facility, earmarked for agricultural land near the Deacon Trading Estate, would also include a learning and education facility for local schools and residents to learn about the hi-tech processes involved.

All waste would be unloaded and processed inside the building as soon as it arrives with the building sealed and operated under negative pressure to avoid odours.

Around ten lorries an hour would be needed to deliver the necessary amount of waste for conversion and bosses say there would be no storage of waste on site.

Eastleigh MP Mike Thornton said: “Anything that promotes energy efficiency and recycling is to be encouraged, but when the borough and county councils consider this application, it must be balanced with the impact the centre will have on the local community.

“I’m sure both councils will be looking at issues like traffic, the number of HGVs, and air quality when giving their verdict on this application.”

A planning application has been submitted to Hampshire County Council which will ultimately decide on the matter.

A spokesman for Clean Power said: “Clean Power has been delighted with the response to our proposals so far.

“The scheme is an excellent way to prevent locally produced waste from going to landfill or incinerators. The centre would maximise recycling rates and produce renewable energy and heat.”

Comments (36)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:04am Fri 22 Nov 13

The Wickham Man says...

Just tell us its sustained output in MW ok? THis dumbed down concept of stating the number of homes has already been abused by wind and solar farms trying to cover up their unreliablity so Echo Journalist, just do your job properly, stop being a dupe of the renewable industry and just tell us, at any given date or time what its output will be(I won't hold my breath).
Just tell us its sustained output in MW ok? THis dumbed down concept of stating the number of homes has already been abused by wind and solar farms trying to cover up their unreliablity so Echo Journalist, just do your job properly, stop being a dupe of the renewable industry and just tell us, at any given date or time what its output will be(I won't hold my breath). The Wickham Man
  • Score: 14

7:06am Fri 22 Nov 13

Ellwood says...

Quote:It would also provide a cheap, renewable source of heat ............ is there (or will there ever be even) such a thing I wonder?
Quote:It would also provide a cheap, renewable source of heat ............ is there (or will there ever be even) such a thing I wonder? Ellwood
  • Score: 19

7:42am Fri 22 Nov 13

sburman says...

Now watch the Nimby's gather
Now watch the Nimby's gather sburman
  • Score: -10

8:28am Fri 22 Nov 13

miltonarcher says...

Usual brain dead negative comments, for pities sake what is wrong with these people?
Usual brain dead negative comments, for pities sake what is wrong with these people? miltonarcher
  • Score: -7

8:37am Fri 22 Nov 13

Redhaired22 says...

As this is on an industrial estate and NOT near residential homes the site is preferable although 10 lorries an hour may mean 80 a day which could have it's own implications... again this offsets any 'green' credentials by increasing traffic, emissions etc. This may be unsustainable in itself.

Big tick for anaerobic digestion, not a big tick for pyrolysis which is basically BURNING stuff , i.e. biomass.... so we're back there again....
As this is on an industrial estate and NOT near residential homes the site is preferable although 10 lorries an hour may mean 80 a day which could have it's own implications... again this offsets any 'green' credentials by increasing traffic, emissions etc. This may be unsustainable in itself. Big tick for anaerobic digestion, not a big tick for pyrolysis which is basically BURNING stuff , i.e. biomass.... so we're back there again.... Redhaired22
  • Score: 13

8:57am Fri 22 Nov 13

Dusty says...

But those 80 lorries would still be on the road transferring waste from transfer stations like otterborne and netley to incinerators. Would you not rather see them going to a place where the waste has benefit, or go to some where were it goes up in smoke. The waste has to be transported somewhere, this is a step in the right direction and in these days of sky high gas and electricity prices and dwindling supplies. Anyone who thinks this is a bad idea, is a bit loopy, its the way to go for the future, its your waste after all.
But those 80 lorries would still be on the road transferring waste from transfer stations like otterborne and netley to incinerators. Would you not rather see them going to a place where the waste has benefit, or go to some where were it goes up in smoke. The waste has to be transported somewhere, this is a step in the right direction and in these days of sky high gas and electricity prices and dwindling supplies. Anyone who thinks this is a bad idea, is a bit loopy, its the way to go for the future, its your waste after all. Dusty
  • Score: 10

9:05am Fri 22 Nov 13

one in a million says...

"Eastleigh MP Mike Thornton said: “Anything that promotes energy efficiency and recycling is to be encouraged, but when the borough and county councils consider this application, it must be balanced with the impact the centre will have on the local community. "

Unlike his FIB DEMS collegues plans to buildoze the borough where they dont seem to give a monkeys about the local community,
"Eastleigh MP Mike Thornton said: “Anything that promotes energy efficiency and recycling is to be encouraged, but when the borough and county councils consider this application, it must be balanced with the impact the centre will have on the local community. " Unlike his FIB DEMS collegues plans to buildoze the borough where they dont seem to give a monkeys about the local community, one in a million
  • Score: 6

9:07am Fri 22 Nov 13

one in a million says...

Redhaired22 wrote:
As this is on an industrial estate and NOT near residential homes the site is preferable although 10 lorries an hour may mean 80 a day which could have it's own implications... again this offsets any 'green' credentials by increasing traffic, emissions etc. This may be unsustainable in itself. Big tick for anaerobic digestion, not a big tick for pyrolysis which is basically BURNING stuff , i.e. biomass.... so we're back there again....
To get to this site the lorries will have to pass through an already heavilly congested road system and housing though. All of which will be compounded by the FIB DEMS "local plan".
[quote][p][bold]Redhaired22[/bold] wrote: As this is on an industrial estate and NOT near residential homes the site is preferable although 10 lorries an hour may mean 80 a day which could have it's own implications... again this offsets any 'green' credentials by increasing traffic, emissions etc. This may be unsustainable in itself. Big tick for anaerobic digestion, not a big tick for pyrolysis which is basically BURNING stuff , i.e. biomass.... so we're back there again....[/p][/quote]To get to this site the lorries will have to pass through an already heavilly congested road system and housing though. All of which will be compounded by the FIB DEMS "local plan". one in a million
  • Score: 8

9:15am Fri 22 Nov 13

Ellwood says...

.............the simple truth here, is that to promote renewable energy as being cheap, is as disingenuous as it would be to suggest that petrol would be cheaper, if everyone were to drive an 'environmentally friendly' fuel efficient car. It just doesn't work this way. Which is why people are beginning to realise now, that their energy costs are going to continue to rise & rise, no matter how ethically or sustainably sourced their energy is or how many fuel saving measures they add to their homes. Bottom line..... the costs will continue to increase...... full stop
.............the simple truth here, is that to promote renewable energy as being cheap, is as disingenuous as it would be to suggest that petrol would be cheaper, if everyone were to drive an 'environmentally friendly' fuel efficient car. It just doesn't work this way. Which is why people are beginning to realise now, that their energy costs are going to continue to rise & rise, no matter how ethically or sustainably sourced their energy is or how many fuel saving measures they add to their homes. Bottom line..... the costs will continue to increase...... full stop Ellwood
  • Score: 14

9:18am Fri 22 Nov 13

Brock_and_Roll says...

Rejoice - finally there a place where we can send all the sh*te spouted by Southy for environmentally sound re-cycling!
Rejoice - finally there a place where we can send all the sh*te spouted by Southy for environmentally sound re-cycling! Brock_and_Roll
  • Score: 7

9:34am Fri 22 Nov 13

OSPREYSAINT says...

one in a million wrote:
Redhaired22 wrote:
As this is on an industrial estate and NOT near residential homes the site is preferable although 10 lorries an hour may mean 80 a day which could have it's own implications... again this offsets any 'green' credentials by increasing traffic, emissions etc. This may be unsustainable in itself. Big tick for anaerobic digestion, not a big tick for pyrolysis which is basically BURNING stuff , i.e. biomass.... so we're back there again....
To get to this site the lorries will have to pass through an already heavilly congested road system and housing though. All of which will be compounded by the FIB DEMS "local plan".
This site is not that far from the railway yard, so perhaps a link would save the influx of heavy vehicles, just a thought.
I would like to know a bit more about it before I give it a thumbs up or a raspberry, how does it compare with biomass e.t.c. However if it replaces landfill, it seems a reasonable use of resources. Perhaps before throwing it out, it would better to get the facts, from expert,s not numpties on here that just like to churn out their own garbage..
[quote][p][bold]one in a million[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Redhaired22[/bold] wrote: As this is on an industrial estate and NOT near residential homes the site is preferable although 10 lorries an hour may mean 80 a day which could have it's own implications... again this offsets any 'green' credentials by increasing traffic, emissions etc. This may be unsustainable in itself. Big tick for anaerobic digestion, not a big tick for pyrolysis which is basically BURNING stuff , i.e. biomass.... so we're back there again....[/p][/quote]To get to this site the lorries will have to pass through an already heavilly congested road system and housing though. All of which will be compounded by the FIB DEMS "local plan".[/p][/quote]This site is not that far from the railway yard, so perhaps a link would save the influx of heavy vehicles, just a thought. I would like to know a bit more about it before I give it a thumbs up or a raspberry, how does it compare with biomass e.t.c. However if it replaces landfill, it seems a reasonable use of resources. Perhaps before throwing it out, it would better to get the facts, from expert,s not numpties on here that just like to churn out their own garbage.. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 1

10:42am Fri 22 Nov 13

good-gosh says...

Pyrolysis sounds like good old fashioned incineration to me. Anyway, good luck if it fools the tree huggers.
Pyrolysis sounds like good old fashioned incineration to me. Anyway, good luck if it fools the tree huggers. good-gosh
  • Score: 6

10:44am Fri 22 Nov 13

EarlyRiser says...

'or go to some where were it goes up in smoke.'

incinerators these days have generators which are driven by turbines which are fueled the in the first instance by BURNING RUBBISH. This is nothing new they will still have to burn something genertors don't rotate themselves.

clean, renewable, cheap, non nuclear, reliable ??? wake up you cant have it all.
trouble is most people that moan about things like this could'nt even tell you how electricity is generated
'or go to some where were it goes up in smoke.' incinerators these days have generators which are driven by turbines which are fueled the in the first instance by BURNING RUBBISH. This is nothing new they will still have to burn something genertors don't rotate themselves. clean, renewable, cheap, non nuclear, reliable ??? wake up you cant have it all. trouble is most people that moan about things like this could'nt even tell you how electricity is generated EarlyRiser
  • Score: 2

10:57am Fri 22 Nov 13

southy says...

miltonarcher wrote:
Usual brain dead negative comments, for pities sake what is wrong with these people?
They are being realist that,s why the negative comments
[quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: Usual brain dead negative comments, for pities sake what is wrong with these people?[/p][/quote]They are being realist that,s why the negative comments southy
  • Score: -7

10:59am Fri 22 Nov 13

southy says...

Up to 34 full-time jobs and 150 temporary construction jobs

Normally it would be put down as creating 184 jobs.
Up to 34 full-time jobs and 150 temporary construction jobs Normally it would be put down as creating 184 jobs. southy
  • Score: -3

11:04am Fri 22 Nov 13

southy says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
Just tell us its sustained output in MW ok? THis dumbed down concept of stating the number of homes has already been abused by wind and solar farms trying to cover up their unreliablity so Echo Journalist, just do your job properly, stop being a dupe of the renewable industry and just tell us, at any given date or time what its output will be(I won't hold my breath).
I was reading a report about wind turbines (in wales) for a wind turbine to produce £5 of power it cost in over all £115 to produce that £5 of power.
The facts and figures on this was taking from a early one that as now come to the end of its life and the cost includes every thing from making parts and putting together to removing it and recycling the unit.
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: Just tell us its sustained output in MW ok? THis dumbed down concept of stating the number of homes has already been abused by wind and solar farms trying to cover up their unreliablity so Echo Journalist, just do your job properly, stop being a dupe of the renewable industry and just tell us, at any given date or time what its output will be(I won't hold my breath).[/p][/quote]I was reading a report about wind turbines (in wales) for a wind turbine to produce £5 of power it cost in over all £115 to produce that £5 of power. The facts and figures on this was taking from a early one that as now come to the end of its life and the cost includes every thing from making parts and putting together to removing it and recycling the unit. southy
  • Score: 0

11:17am Fri 22 Nov 13

HerbertC says...

southy wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Just tell us its sustained output in MW ok? THis dumbed down concept of stating the number of homes has already been abused by wind and solar farms trying to cover up their unreliablity so Echo Journalist, just do your job properly, stop being a dupe of the renewable industry and just tell us, at any given date or time what its output will be(I won't hold my breath).
I was reading a report about wind turbines (in wales) for a wind turbine to produce £5 of power it cost in over all £115 to produce that £5 of power.
The facts and figures on this was taking from a early one that as now come to the end of its life and the cost includes every thing from making parts and putting together to removing it and recycling the unit.
Indeed, but that's extremely selective quoting you've done there. You should really quote a reference for your source, so that others can judge themselves. I assume you're referring to :

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/uk-wales-24844
182

Just for balance, some key quotes from this story might be:

"But before it was installed, the turbine makers warned Welsh government contractors it would not be exposed to enough wind where it was positioned"

"I think the problem is quite simple - it's been put in the wrong place,"

"Unfortunately the Welsh government's one is located in a valley, two miles from the sea and has quite a short tower.

"It's located next to tall buildings so even if there's a strong wind it will be displaced by the time it reaches the turbine, it will be very patchy and lacking in potential so the turbine won't get the chance to spin properly."

So it sounds more like a public sector organisation wasting public money on a hair-brained scheme. Not a reflection on wind energy efficiency.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: Just tell us its sustained output in MW ok? THis dumbed down concept of stating the number of homes has already been abused by wind and solar farms trying to cover up their unreliablity so Echo Journalist, just do your job properly, stop being a dupe of the renewable industry and just tell us, at any given date or time what its output will be(I won't hold my breath).[/p][/quote]I was reading a report about wind turbines (in wales) for a wind turbine to produce £5 of power it cost in over all £115 to produce that £5 of power. The facts and figures on this was taking from a early one that as now come to the end of its life and the cost includes every thing from making parts and putting together to removing it and recycling the unit.[/p][/quote]Indeed, but that's extremely selective quoting you've done there. You should really quote a reference for your source, so that others can judge themselves. I assume you're referring to : http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-wales-24844 182 Just for balance, some key quotes from this story might be: "But before it was installed, the turbine makers warned Welsh government contractors it would not be exposed to enough wind where it was positioned" "I think the problem is quite simple - it's been put in the wrong place," "Unfortunately the Welsh government's one is located in a valley, two miles from the sea and has quite a short tower. "It's located next to tall buildings so even if there's a strong wind it will be displaced by the time it reaches the turbine, it will be very patchy and lacking in potential so the turbine won't get the chance to spin properly." So it sounds more like a public sector organisation wasting public money on a hair-brained scheme. Not a reflection on wind energy efficiency. HerbertC
  • Score: 4

11:31am Fri 22 Nov 13

Torchie1 says...

HerbertC wrote:
southy wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Just tell us its sustained output in MW ok? THis dumbed down concept of stating the number of homes has already been abused by wind and solar farms trying to cover up their unreliablity so Echo Journalist, just do your job properly, stop being a dupe of the renewable industry and just tell us, at any given date or time what its output will be(I won't hold my breath).
I was reading a report about wind turbines (in wales) for a wind turbine to produce £5 of power it cost in over all £115 to produce that £5 of power.
The facts and figures on this was taking from a early one that as now come to the end of its life and the cost includes every thing from making parts and putting together to removing it and recycling the unit.
Indeed, but that's extremely selective quoting you've done there. You should really quote a reference for your source, so that others can judge themselves. I assume you're referring to :

http://www.bbc.co.uk

/news/uk-wales-24844

182

Just for balance, some key quotes from this story might be:

"But before it was installed, the turbine makers warned Welsh government contractors it would not be exposed to enough wind where it was positioned"

"I think the problem is quite simple - it's been put in the wrong place,"

"Unfortunately the Welsh government's one is located in a valley, two miles from the sea and has quite a short tower.

"It's located next to tall buildings so even if there's a strong wind it will be displaced by the time it reaches the turbine, it will be very patchy and lacking in potential so the turbine won't get the chance to spin properly."

So it sounds more like a public sector organisation wasting public money on a hair-brained scheme. Not a reflection on wind energy efficiency.
If someone could harness the power of Southy's constant stream of hot air, the benefits to mankind would be incalculable.
[quote][p][bold]HerbertC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: Just tell us its sustained output in MW ok? THis dumbed down concept of stating the number of homes has already been abused by wind and solar farms trying to cover up their unreliablity so Echo Journalist, just do your job properly, stop being a dupe of the renewable industry and just tell us, at any given date or time what its output will be(I won't hold my breath).[/p][/quote]I was reading a report about wind turbines (in wales) for a wind turbine to produce £5 of power it cost in over all £115 to produce that £5 of power. The facts and figures on this was taking from a early one that as now come to the end of its life and the cost includes every thing from making parts and putting together to removing it and recycling the unit.[/p][/quote]Indeed, but that's extremely selective quoting you've done there. You should really quote a reference for your source, so that others can judge themselves. I assume you're referring to : http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-wales-24844 182 Just for balance, some key quotes from this story might be: "But before it was installed, the turbine makers warned Welsh government contractors it would not be exposed to enough wind where it was positioned" "I think the problem is quite simple - it's been put in the wrong place," "Unfortunately the Welsh government's one is located in a valley, two miles from the sea and has quite a short tower. "It's located next to tall buildings so even if there's a strong wind it will be displaced by the time it reaches the turbine, it will be very patchy and lacking in potential so the turbine won't get the chance to spin properly." So it sounds more like a public sector organisation wasting public money on a hair-brained scheme. Not a reflection on wind energy efficiency.[/p][/quote]If someone could harness the power of Southy's constant stream of hot air, the benefits to mankind would be incalculable. Torchie1
  • Score: 5

12:30pm Fri 22 Nov 13

The Wickham Man says...

Redhaired22 wrote:
As this is on an industrial estate and NOT near residential homes the site is preferable although 10 lorries an hour may mean 80 a day which could have it's own implications... again this offsets any 'green' credentials by increasing traffic, emissions etc. This may be unsustainable in itself.

Big tick for anaerobic digestion, not a big tick for pyrolysis which is basically BURNING stuff , i.e. biomass.... so we're back there again....
Biomass is far cleaner than coal, it consumes a lot of waste product that would otherwise have no use, and it produces far more electricity because there is more feedstock. This system is tiny by comparison and limited by its decomposition method so stop trying to rate electricity generation methods by their "niceness" and think a bit more about why we are doing it.
[quote][p][bold]Redhaired22[/bold] wrote: As this is on an industrial estate and NOT near residential homes the site is preferable although 10 lorries an hour may mean 80 a day which could have it's own implications... again this offsets any 'green' credentials by increasing traffic, emissions etc. This may be unsustainable in itself. Big tick for anaerobic digestion, not a big tick for pyrolysis which is basically BURNING stuff , i.e. biomass.... so we're back there again....[/p][/quote]Biomass is far cleaner than coal, it consumes a lot of waste product that would otherwise have no use, and it produces far more electricity because there is more feedstock. This system is tiny by comparison and limited by its decomposition method so stop trying to rate electricity generation methods by their "niceness" and think a bit more about why we are doing it. The Wickham Man
  • Score: -2

12:48pm Fri 22 Nov 13

localnews says...

All well and good putting this in Chickenhall Lane,maybe it will be a good thing but the road system will need a serious upgrade first its a pain as it is now,if all these Lorries are going back and forth it'll be total gridlock
All well and good putting this in Chickenhall Lane,maybe it will be a good thing but the road system will need a serious upgrade first its a pain as it is now,if all these Lorries are going back and forth it'll be total gridlock localnews
  • Score: 7

12:51pm Fri 22 Nov 13

southy says...

HerbertC wrote:
southy wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Just tell us its sustained output in MW ok? THis dumbed down concept of stating the number of homes has already been abused by wind and solar farms trying to cover up their unreliablity so Echo Journalist, just do your job properly, stop being a dupe of the renewable industry and just tell us, at any given date or time what its output will be(I won't hold my breath).
I was reading a report about wind turbines (in wales) for a wind turbine to produce £5 of power it cost in over all £115 to produce that £5 of power.
The facts and figures on this was taking from a early one that as now come to the end of its life and the cost includes every thing from making parts and putting together to removing it and recycling the unit.
Indeed, but that's extremely selective quoting you've done there. You should really quote a reference for your source, so that others can judge themselves. I assume you're referring to :

http://www.bbc.co.uk

/news/uk-wales-24844

182

Just for balance, some key quotes from this story might be:

"But before it was installed, the turbine makers warned Welsh government contractors it would not be exposed to enough wind where it was positioned"

"I think the problem is quite simple - it's been put in the wrong place,"

"Unfortunately the Welsh government's one is located in a valley, two miles from the sea and has quite a short tower.

"It's located next to tall buildings so even if there's a strong wind it will be displaced by the time it reaches the turbine, it will be very patchy and lacking in potential so the turbine won't get the chance to spin properly."

So it sounds more like a public sector organisation wasting public money on a hair-brained scheme. Not a reflection on wind energy efficiency.
No i was not referring to that one which is interesting also, as that one you posted about was not at its end of life span its only a few years old and when that one do come to its end of life span the costs will be far greater.
No this was an early one of 20 years old, since this one was built and erected there as been great improvements
[quote][p][bold]HerbertC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: Just tell us its sustained output in MW ok? THis dumbed down concept of stating the number of homes has already been abused by wind and solar farms trying to cover up their unreliablity so Echo Journalist, just do your job properly, stop being a dupe of the renewable industry and just tell us, at any given date or time what its output will be(I won't hold my breath).[/p][/quote]I was reading a report about wind turbines (in wales) for a wind turbine to produce £5 of power it cost in over all £115 to produce that £5 of power. The facts and figures on this was taking from a early one that as now come to the end of its life and the cost includes every thing from making parts and putting together to removing it and recycling the unit.[/p][/quote]Indeed, but that's extremely selective quoting you've done there. You should really quote a reference for your source, so that others can judge themselves. I assume you're referring to : http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-wales-24844 182 Just for balance, some key quotes from this story might be: "But before it was installed, the turbine makers warned Welsh government contractors it would not be exposed to enough wind where it was positioned" "I think the problem is quite simple - it's been put in the wrong place," "Unfortunately the Welsh government's one is located in a valley, two miles from the sea and has quite a short tower. "It's located next to tall buildings so even if there's a strong wind it will be displaced by the time it reaches the turbine, it will be very patchy and lacking in potential so the turbine won't get the chance to spin properly." So it sounds more like a public sector organisation wasting public money on a hair-brained scheme. Not a reflection on wind energy efficiency.[/p][/quote]No i was not referring to that one which is interesting also, as that one you posted about was not at its end of life span its only a few years old and when that one do come to its end of life span the costs will be far greater. No this was an early one of 20 years old, since this one was built and erected there as been great improvements southy
  • Score: -5

1:56pm Fri 22 Nov 13

House Sparrow says...

southy wrote:
HerbertC wrote:
southy wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Just tell us its sustained output in MW ok? THis dumbed down concept of stating the number of homes has already been abused by wind and solar farms trying to cover up their unreliablity so Echo Journalist, just do your job properly, stop being a dupe of the renewable industry and just tell us, at any given date or time what its output will be(I won't hold my breath).
I was reading a report about wind turbines (in wales) for a wind turbine to produce £5 of power it cost in over all £115 to produce that £5 of power.
The facts and figures on this was taking from a early one that as now come to the end of its life and the cost includes every thing from making parts and putting together to removing it and recycling the unit.
Indeed, but that's extremely selective quoting you've done there. You should really quote a reference for your source, so that others can judge themselves. I assume you're referring to :

http://www.bbc.co.uk


/news/uk-wales-24844


182

Just for balance, some key quotes from this story might be:

"But before it was installed, the turbine makers warned Welsh government contractors it would not be exposed to enough wind where it was positioned"

"I think the problem is quite simple - it's been put in the wrong place,"

"Unfortunately the Welsh government's one is located in a valley, two miles from the sea and has quite a short tower.

"It's located next to tall buildings so even if there's a strong wind it will be displaced by the time it reaches the turbine, it will be very patchy and lacking in potential so the turbine won't get the chance to spin properly."

So it sounds more like a public sector organisation wasting public money on a hair-brained scheme. Not a reflection on wind energy efficiency.
No i was not referring to that one which is interesting also, as that one you posted about was not at its end of life span its only a few years old and when that one do come to its end of life span the costs will be far greater.
No this was an early one of 20 years old, since this one was built and erected there as been great improvements
Please quote your source?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HerbertC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: Just tell us its sustained output in MW ok? THis dumbed down concept of stating the number of homes has already been abused by wind and solar farms trying to cover up their unreliablity so Echo Journalist, just do your job properly, stop being a dupe of the renewable industry and just tell us, at any given date or time what its output will be(I won't hold my breath).[/p][/quote]I was reading a report about wind turbines (in wales) for a wind turbine to produce £5 of power it cost in over all £115 to produce that £5 of power. The facts and figures on this was taking from a early one that as now come to the end of its life and the cost includes every thing from making parts and putting together to removing it and recycling the unit.[/p][/quote]Indeed, but that's extremely selective quoting you've done there. You should really quote a reference for your source, so that others can judge themselves. I assume you're referring to : http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-wales-24844 182 Just for balance, some key quotes from this story might be: "But before it was installed, the turbine makers warned Welsh government contractors it would not be exposed to enough wind where it was positioned" "I think the problem is quite simple - it's been put in the wrong place," "Unfortunately the Welsh government's one is located in a valley, two miles from the sea and has quite a short tower. "It's located next to tall buildings so even if there's a strong wind it will be displaced by the time it reaches the turbine, it will be very patchy and lacking in potential so the turbine won't get the chance to spin properly." So it sounds more like a public sector organisation wasting public money on a hair-brained scheme. Not a reflection on wind energy efficiency.[/p][/quote]No i was not referring to that one which is interesting also, as that one you posted about was not at its end of life span its only a few years old and when that one do come to its end of life span the costs will be far greater. No this was an early one of 20 years old, since this one was built and erected there as been great improvements[/p][/quote]Please quote your source? House Sparrow
  • Score: 5

2:28pm Fri 22 Nov 13

Stephen J says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
Just tell us its sustained output in MW ok? THis dumbed down concept of stating the number of homes has already been abused by wind and solar farms trying to cover up their unreliablity so Echo Journalist, just do your job properly, stop being a dupe of the renewable industry and just tell us, at any given date or time what its output will be(I won't hold my breath).
The company's website rates the plant at 10 - 15MW.
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: Just tell us its sustained output in MW ok? THis dumbed down concept of stating the number of homes has already been abused by wind and solar farms trying to cover up their unreliablity so Echo Journalist, just do your job properly, stop being a dupe of the renewable industry and just tell us, at any given date or time what its output will be(I won't hold my breath).[/p][/quote]The company's website rates the plant at 10 - 15MW. Stephen J
  • Score: 3

3:48pm Fri 22 Nov 13

loosehead says...

are there no railway tracks near this proposed site?
If there is maybe a provision in planning consent could be say 90% must come by rail?
But putting that to one side this would take waste earmarked for landfill or to be sold to the Norway or Sweden as they are grabbing it for their burners so come on open your arms & welcome it & the jobs or haven't there been any job losses lately?
are there no railway tracks near this proposed site? If there is maybe a provision in planning consent could be say 90% must come by rail? But putting that to one side this would take waste earmarked for landfill or to be sold to the Norway or Sweden as they are grabbing it for their burners so come on open your arms & welcome it & the jobs or haven't there been any job losses lately? loosehead
  • Score: 0

5:44pm Fri 22 Nov 13

Andy Locks Heath says...

loosehead wrote:
are there no railway tracks near this proposed site?
If there is maybe a provision in planning consent could be say 90% must come by rail?
But putting that to one side this would take waste earmarked for landfill or to be sold to the Norway or Sweden as they are grabbing it for their burners so come on open your arms & welcome it & the jobs or haven't there been any job losses lately?
Nice thought Loosehad. THe site is close to a rail line though of course the collector stations would have to be as well, and the cost of transfer infrastreucture would be enormous. The economics of railfreight mean even the transportation would be expensive unless the waste was travelling at least 100 miles, which runs counter to the ethos of saving the planet! On another tack it is revealing how "green bigots" mark down posts they "don't like" even if they those posts are well reasoned and making valid points. I've seen examples in this thread as well as others related to energy. It only shows that most Green sympathisers on this site have little knowledge or understanding of energy or engineering ssues - it is just some kind of google game without consequences as far as they are concened.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: are there no railway tracks near this proposed site? If there is maybe a provision in planning consent could be say 90% must come by rail? But putting that to one side this would take waste earmarked for landfill or to be sold to the Norway or Sweden as they are grabbing it for their burners so come on open your arms & welcome it & the jobs or haven't there been any job losses lately?[/p][/quote]Nice thought Loosehad. THe site is close to a rail line though of course the collector stations would have to be as well, and the cost of transfer infrastreucture would be enormous. The economics of railfreight mean even the transportation would be expensive unless the waste was travelling at least 100 miles, which runs counter to the ethos of saving the planet! On another tack it is revealing how "green bigots" mark down posts they "don't like" even if they those posts are well reasoned and making valid points. I've seen examples in this thread as well as others related to energy. It only shows that most Green sympathisers on this site have little knowledge or understanding of energy or engineering ssues - it is just some kind of google game without consequences as far as they are concened. Andy Locks Heath
  • Score: 1

7:51pm Fri 22 Nov 13

freefinker says...

House Sparrow wrote:
southy wrote:
HerbertC wrote:
southy wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Just tell us its sustained output in MW ok? THis dumbed down concept of stating the number of homes has already been abused by wind and solar farms trying to cover up their unreliablity so Echo Journalist, just do your job properly, stop being a dupe of the renewable industry and just tell us, at any given date or time what its output will be(I won't hold my breath).
I was reading a report about wind turbines (in wales) for a wind turbine to produce £5 of power it cost in over all £115 to produce that £5 of power.
The facts and figures on this was taking from a early one that as now come to the end of its life and the cost includes every thing from making parts and putting together to removing it and recycling the unit.
Indeed, but that's extremely selective quoting you've done there. You should really quote a reference for your source, so that others can judge themselves. I assume you're referring to :

http://www.bbc.co.uk



/news/uk-wales-24844



182

Just for balance, some key quotes from this story might be:

"But before it was installed, the turbine makers warned Welsh government contractors it would not be exposed to enough wind where it was positioned"

"I think the problem is quite simple - it's been put in the wrong place,"

"Unfortunately the Welsh government's one is located in a valley, two miles from the sea and has quite a short tower.

"It's located next to tall buildings so even if there's a strong wind it will be displaced by the time it reaches the turbine, it will be very patchy and lacking in potential so the turbine won't get the chance to spin properly."

So it sounds more like a public sector organisation wasting public money on a hair-brained scheme. Not a reflection on wind energy efficiency.
No i was not referring to that one which is interesting also, as that one you posted about was not at its end of life span its only a few years old and when that one do come to its end of life span the costs will be far greater.
No this was an early one of 20 years old, since this one was built and erected there as been great improvements
Please quote your source?
.. ah, you seem to be forgetting: -
"real debaters do not quote their sources only weak ones do, weak ones can not stand there ground, and stand by there commitment they need a escape clause. to hide behind." - southy 12 January 2011
[quote][p][bold]House Sparrow[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HerbertC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: Just tell us its sustained output in MW ok? THis dumbed down concept of stating the number of homes has already been abused by wind and solar farms trying to cover up their unreliablity so Echo Journalist, just do your job properly, stop being a dupe of the renewable industry and just tell us, at any given date or time what its output will be(I won't hold my breath).[/p][/quote]I was reading a report about wind turbines (in wales) for a wind turbine to produce £5 of power it cost in over all £115 to produce that £5 of power. The facts and figures on this was taking from a early one that as now come to the end of its life and the cost includes every thing from making parts and putting together to removing it and recycling the unit.[/p][/quote]Indeed, but that's extremely selective quoting you've done there. You should really quote a reference for your source, so that others can judge themselves. I assume you're referring to : http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/uk-wales-24844 182 Just for balance, some key quotes from this story might be: "But before it was installed, the turbine makers warned Welsh government contractors it would not be exposed to enough wind where it was positioned" "I think the problem is quite simple - it's been put in the wrong place," "Unfortunately the Welsh government's one is located in a valley, two miles from the sea and has quite a short tower. "It's located next to tall buildings so even if there's a strong wind it will be displaced by the time it reaches the turbine, it will be very patchy and lacking in potential so the turbine won't get the chance to spin properly." So it sounds more like a public sector organisation wasting public money on a hair-brained scheme. Not a reflection on wind energy efficiency.[/p][/quote]No i was not referring to that one which is interesting also, as that one you posted about was not at its end of life span its only a few years old and when that one do come to its end of life span the costs will be far greater. No this was an early one of 20 years old, since this one was built and erected there as been great improvements[/p][/quote]Please quote your source?[/p][/quote].. ah, you seem to be forgetting: - "real debaters do not quote their sources only weak ones do, weak ones can not stand there ground, and stand by there commitment they need a escape clause. to hide behind." - southy 12 January 2011 freefinker
  • Score: 4

9:00pm Fri 22 Nov 13

Sir Ad E Noid says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
Just tell us its sustained output in MW ok? THis dumbed down concept of stating the number of homes has already been abused by wind and solar farms trying to cover up their unreliablity so Echo Journalist, just do your job properly, stop being a dupe of the renewable industry and just tell us, at any given date or time what its output will be(I won't hold my breath).
If the average house uses an average of 1.5 kWH, I am being very generous, and there are 15,000 houses that could be supplied by this enterprise, you do the maths. Now you have this guess at the figure you require, what are you going to do with it?
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: Just tell us its sustained output in MW ok? THis dumbed down concept of stating the number of homes has already been abused by wind and solar farms trying to cover up their unreliablity so Echo Journalist, just do your job properly, stop being a dupe of the renewable industry and just tell us, at any given date or time what its output will be(I won't hold my breath).[/p][/quote]If the average house uses an average of 1.5 kWH, I am being very generous, and there are 15,000 houses that could be supplied by this enterprise, you do the maths. Now you have this guess at the figure you require, what are you going to do with it? Sir Ad E Noid
  • Score: 0

9:07pm Fri 22 Nov 13

loosehead says...

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
loosehead wrote:
are there no railway tracks near this proposed site?
If there is maybe a provision in planning consent could be say 90% must come by rail?
But putting that to one side this would take waste earmarked for landfill or to be sold to the Norway or Sweden as they are grabbing it for their burners so come on open your arms & welcome it & the jobs or haven't there been any job losses lately?
Nice thought Loosehad. THe site is close to a rail line though of course the collector stations would have to be as well, and the cost of transfer infrastreucture would be enormous. The economics of railfreight mean even the transportation would be expensive unless the waste was travelling at least 100 miles, which runs counter to the ethos of saving the planet! On another tack it is revealing how "green bigots" mark down posts they "don't like" even if they those posts are well reasoned and making valid points. I've seen examples in this thread as well as others related to energy. It only shows that most Green sympathisers on this site have little knowledge or understanding of energy or engineering ssues - it is just some kind of google game without consequences as far as they are concened.
andy I was watching a program where either Norway or Sweden were buying up all our waste(two authorities) & would love to get more they sort it use the stuff that could be composted to make methane & compost the other stuff they burnt it for Energy.
Norway was also doing the same thing with Sewage I've asked time after time when we have that technology at work here why aren't we using it at every sewage plant & rubbish tip?
this company proposes that & we get the"it's not that green if it's carried on lorry "brigade out in full.
Do they ever watch Eddie Stobbarts on telly?
He has "green" lorries run on gas with rolling beds to offload wood chip so this type of lorry could be used so it could be a far better energy source than Nuclear so why are they moaning about Jobs & green energy?
Do they want a rubbish tip next to them?
there council Southampton & Portsmouth could sell their waste to this plant bringing in much needed revenue so what are they giving me the thumbs down for?
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: are there no railway tracks near this proposed site? If there is maybe a provision in planning consent could be say 90% must come by rail? But putting that to one side this would take waste earmarked for landfill or to be sold to the Norway or Sweden as they are grabbing it for their burners so come on open your arms & welcome it & the jobs or haven't there been any job losses lately?[/p][/quote]Nice thought Loosehad. THe site is close to a rail line though of course the collector stations would have to be as well, and the cost of transfer infrastreucture would be enormous. The economics of railfreight mean even the transportation would be expensive unless the waste was travelling at least 100 miles, which runs counter to the ethos of saving the planet! On another tack it is revealing how "green bigots" mark down posts they "don't like" even if they those posts are well reasoned and making valid points. I've seen examples in this thread as well as others related to energy. It only shows that most Green sympathisers on this site have little knowledge or understanding of energy or engineering ssues - it is just some kind of google game without consequences as far as they are concened.[/p][/quote]andy I was watching a program where either Norway or Sweden were buying up all our waste(two authorities) & would love to get more they sort it use the stuff that could be composted to make methane & compost the other stuff they burnt it for Energy. Norway was also doing the same thing with Sewage I've asked time after time when we have that technology at work here why aren't we using it at every sewage plant & rubbish tip? this company proposes that & we get the"it's not that green if it's carried on lorry "brigade out in full. Do they ever watch Eddie Stobbarts on telly? He has "green" lorries run on gas with rolling beds to offload wood chip so this type of lorry could be used so it could be a far better energy source than Nuclear so why are they moaning about Jobs & green energy? Do they want a rubbish tip next to them? there council Southampton & Portsmouth could sell their waste to this plant bringing in much needed revenue so what are they giving me the thumbs down for? loosehead
  • Score: 0

10:02pm Fri 22 Nov 13

forest hump says...

Redhaired22 wrote:
As this is on an industrial estate and NOT near residential homes the site is preferable although 10 lorries an hour may mean 80 a day which could have it's own implications... again this offsets any 'green' credentials by increasing traffic, emissions etc. This may be unsustainable in itself.

Big tick for anaerobic digestion, not a big tick for pyrolysis which is basically BURNING stuff , i.e. biomass.... so we're back there again....
"10 lorries an hour may mean 80 a day" Got news for you ginge, these installations do not work 8 hour days. Like any useful/sustainable energy source they need to perform 24/7! And actually, an average of 1 truck per 6 minutes is not a big deal at all. This is more reliable and sustainable than wind or solar. Takes less space and is not visually unappealing. Every neighbourhood should have one!!
[quote][p][bold]Redhaired22[/bold] wrote: As this is on an industrial estate and NOT near residential homes the site is preferable although 10 lorries an hour may mean 80 a day which could have it's own implications... again this offsets any 'green' credentials by increasing traffic, emissions etc. This may be unsustainable in itself. Big tick for anaerobic digestion, not a big tick for pyrolysis which is basically BURNING stuff , i.e. biomass.... so we're back there again....[/p][/quote]"10 lorries an hour may mean 80 a day" Got news for you ginge, these installations do not work 8 hour days. Like any useful/sustainable energy source they need to perform 24/7! And actually, an average of 1 truck per 6 minutes is not a big deal at all. This is more reliable and sustainable than wind or solar. Takes less space and is not visually unappealing. Every neighbourhood should have one!! forest hump
  • Score: 2

12:13am Sat 23 Nov 13

andysaints007 says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
Just tell us its sustained output in MW ok? THis dumbed down concept of stating the number of homes has already been abused by wind and solar farms trying to cover up their unreliablity so Echo Journalist, just do your job properly, stop being a dupe of the renewable industry and just tell us, at any given date or time what its output will be(I won't hold my breath).
Find out for yourself you lazy plebb and stop contantly whining about the Echo! If you dislike it so much how come you always come back for more - nob
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: Just tell us its sustained output in MW ok? THis dumbed down concept of stating the number of homes has already been abused by wind and solar farms trying to cover up their unreliablity so Echo Journalist, just do your job properly, stop being a dupe of the renewable industry and just tell us, at any given date or time what its output will be(I won't hold my breath).[/p][/quote]Find out for yourself you lazy plebb and stop contantly whining about the Echo! If you dislike it so much how come you always come back for more - nob andysaints007
  • Score: 0

12:13am Sat 23 Nov 13

andysaints007 says...

miltonarcher wrote:
Usual brain dead negative comments, for pities sake what is wrong with these people?
They don't have a proper life - unless they are whinging!
[quote][p][bold]miltonarcher[/bold] wrote: Usual brain dead negative comments, for pities sake what is wrong with these people?[/p][/quote]They don't have a proper life - unless they are whinging! andysaints007
  • Score: 0

10:45am Sat 23 Nov 13

good-gosh says...

andysaints007 wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Just tell us its sustained output in MW ok? THis dumbed down concept of stating the number of homes has already been abused by wind and solar farms trying to cover up their unreliablity so Echo Journalist, just do your job properly, stop being a dupe of the renewable industry and just tell us, at any given date or time what its output will be(I won't hold my breath).
Find out for yourself you lazy plebb and stop contantly whining about the Echo! If you dislike it so much how come you always come back for more - nob
Dumbing down all things technical is the fashion. We now commonly measure lengths in jumbo jets, heights in Eifel Towers, areas in football pitches and volumes in Olympic swimming pools.
[quote][p][bold]andysaints007[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: Just tell us its sustained output in MW ok? THis dumbed down concept of stating the number of homes has already been abused by wind and solar farms trying to cover up their unreliablity so Echo Journalist, just do your job properly, stop being a dupe of the renewable industry and just tell us, at any given date or time what its output will be(I won't hold my breath).[/p][/quote]Find out for yourself you lazy plebb and stop contantly whining about the Echo! If you dislike it so much how come you always come back for more - nob[/p][/quote]Dumbing down all things technical is the fashion. We now commonly measure lengths in jumbo jets, heights in Eifel Towers, areas in football pitches and volumes in Olympic swimming pools. good-gosh
  • Score: 0

9:18am Sun 24 Nov 13

plastic_fantastic says...

Rather than 80 lorries a day extra couldn't they incorporate something with the rail network???

Not sure if it is possible but it would be better
Rather than 80 lorries a day extra couldn't they incorporate something with the rail network??? Not sure if it is possible but it would be better plastic_fantastic
  • Score: 2

8:43am Mon 25 Nov 13

derek james says...

Dusty wrote:
But those 80 lorries would still be on the road transferring waste from transfer stations like otterborne and netley to incinerators. Would you not rather see them going to a place where the waste has benefit, or go to some where were it goes up in smoke. The waste has to be transported somewhere, this is a step in the right direction and in these days of sky high gas and electricity prices and dwindling supplies. Anyone who thinks this is a bad idea, is a bit loopy, its the way to go for the future, its your waste after all.
i think you'll find there are no dwindling supplies of energy ie gas, oil coal etc, just the means to convert it to electricity in the uk due to shutting dow perfectly sevicable power stations
[quote][p][bold]Dusty[/bold] wrote: But those 80 lorries would still be on the road transferring waste from transfer stations like otterborne and netley to incinerators. Would you not rather see them going to a place where the waste has benefit, or go to some where were it goes up in smoke. The waste has to be transported somewhere, this is a step in the right direction and in these days of sky high gas and electricity prices and dwindling supplies. Anyone who thinks this is a bad idea, is a bit loopy, its the way to go for the future, its your waste after all.[/p][/quote]i think you'll find there are no dwindling supplies of energy ie gas, oil coal etc, just the means to convert it to electricity in the uk due to shutting dow perfectly sevicable power stations derek james
  • Score: 0

12:11pm Mon 25 Nov 13

loosehead says...

derek james wrote:
Dusty wrote:
But those 80 lorries would still be on the road transferring waste from transfer stations like otterborne and netley to incinerators. Would you not rather see them going to a place where the waste has benefit, or go to some where were it goes up in smoke. The waste has to be transported somewhere, this is a step in the right direction and in these days of sky high gas and electricity prices and dwindling supplies. Anyone who thinks this is a bad idea, is a bit loopy, its the way to go for the future, its your waste after all.
i think you'll find there are no dwindling supplies of energy ie gas, oil coal etc, just the means to convert it to electricity in the uk due to shutting dow perfectly sevicable power stations
so you think it's better to burn coal than BIO MASS?
[quote][p][bold]derek james[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dusty[/bold] wrote: But those 80 lorries would still be on the road transferring waste from transfer stations like otterborne and netley to incinerators. Would you not rather see them going to a place where the waste has benefit, or go to some where were it goes up in smoke. The waste has to be transported somewhere, this is a step in the right direction and in these days of sky high gas and electricity prices and dwindling supplies. Anyone who thinks this is a bad idea, is a bit loopy, its the way to go for the future, its your waste after all.[/p][/quote]i think you'll find there are no dwindling supplies of energy ie gas, oil coal etc, just the means to convert it to electricity in the uk due to shutting dow perfectly sevicable power stations[/p][/quote]so you think it's better to burn coal than BIO MASS? loosehead
  • Score: 0

5:06pm Tue 10 Dec 13

Dan Soton says...

The Coal/Oil Billionaire Koch Brothers are using their wealth to Break Wind power and undermine sustainable energy projects.


Lets not forget if we don't have a massive increase in pollution free Wind/Solar power generation in Southampton we will be hit by multimillion-pound EU fines..

Southampton already suffers from illegal levels of pollution we don't need the Coal/Oil Koch Brothers and Oxbows anti sustainable energy stance destroying an economic recovery..





THE KOCH BROTHERS ARE STILL TRYING TO BREAK WIND.

Posted: 12/09/2013 9:01 am.

AS CONGRESS DITHERS FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME OVER EXTENDING A KEY SUBSIDY FOR WIND ENERGY, THE INDUSTRY ONCE AGAIN IS UP IN THE AIR.

Called the production tax credit (PTC), the subsidy helps level the playing field between wind and fossil fuels and has proven to be critical for financing new projects, helping to make wind one of the fastest growing electricity sources in the country.

Given the planet needs to transition as quickly as possible away from coal and natural gas to carbon-free energy to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, who would be against renewing wind's tax credit?

The Koch brothers, that's who.

Charles G. and David H. Koch -- the billionaire owners of the coal, oil and gas Koch Industries conglomerate -- have enlisted their extensive network of think tanks, advocacy groups and friends on Capitol Hill to spearhead a campaign to pull the plug on the PTC.

NEVER MIND THE FACT THAT THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY HAS AVERAGED FOUR TIMES WHAT THE WIND TAX CREDIT IS WORTH IN FEDERAL TAX BREAKS AND SUBSIDIES ANNUALLY FOR THE LAST 95 YEARS.

The Koch network is fighting the wind industry on a number of fronts. Last month, Koch-funded Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-Kansas) sent a letter signed by 52 House members to the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, urging him to let the PTC expire. Meanwhile, a coalition of some 100 national and local groups organized by the Koch-founded Americans for Prosperity sent a letter to each member of Congress asking them to do the same. And earlier this month, the Koch-funded Institute for Energy Research launched an anti-PTC ad campaign and released a report claiming that only a handful of states actually benefit from the subsidy.

MALCOLM GLADWELL DIDN'T INCLUDE THIS BATTLE IN HIS NEW BOOK DAVID AND GOLIATH BECAUSE, GIVEN THE ODDS, IT'S MORE LIKE BAMBI VERSUS GODZILLA.

The Kochs' Man in Congress

The fact that Kansas Rep. Mike Pompeo is the Kochs' point man to scuttle the PTC in the House is a bit ironic given his state is a wind energy leader. Kansas has the second highest wind potential in the country, it has already attracted more than US 5 billion dollars in wind industry investment, and last year wind generated 11.4 percent of its electricity. With stats like that, the industry has broad bipartisan support. Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback and Sens. Jerry Moran and Pat Roberts -- all Republicans -- are big fans.

But there's a catch. Although it appears evenhanded, Pompeo's bill would severely hamper wind and solar but preserve a number of oil, gas and coal subsidies, including the percentage depletion allowance, the ability to expense the costs of exploration, and the accelerated depreciation of certain kinds of "geologic property." These and other tax breaks he left out of his bill would be worth about US 12.5 billion dollars to the oil and gas industry from 2011 through 2015, according to a March 2012 Congressional Research Service report.

Why is Pompeo so down on wind? Perhaps it's because Koch Industries is headquartered in Wichita, smack-dab in the middle of his district -- and the fact that the company is by far and away his biggest campaign contributor. Since 2010, Koch Industries has given him US 200,000 dollars more than four times what his second highest contributor kicked in. Besides Koch Industries, three other oil companies are among Pompeo's top five contributors -- McCoy Petroleum, Mull Drilling and Richie Exploration -- and they're also based in Wichita.

So who signed the AFP letter? About half of the signatories are local tea party affiliates and anti-wind NIMBY groups of indeterminate size and funding. The other half are, for the most part, relatively obscure national groups, but there are a few that have attracted attention over the years for their contrarian views on climate science and renewable energy. Like AFP, those groups are awash in petrodollars. The American Energy Alliance (and its parent, the Institute for Energy Research), Competitive Enterprise Institute, Freedom Works, Frontiers of Freedom and Heritage Action (and its parent, the Heritage Foundation) collectively have received millions of dollars from Koch family foundations, ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute, the oil and gas industry's premier trade association.

Given that it takes years to plan, finance and construct a wind farm, Congress is again undermining the industry's potential by slow-walking the PTC extension this year. And that potential is tremendous. Wind currently generates about 4 percent of U.S. electricity, but by 2030 it could produce more than 20 percent, the U.S. Department of Energy. The DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory also is bullish on wind and renewables writ large. LAST YEAR, IT PUBLISHED A REPORT THAT CONCLUDED TODAY'S COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGIES COULD EASILY GENERATE 80 PERCENT OF U.S. ELECTRICITY BY 2050, WITH NEARLY HALF COMING FROM WIND. IF THE KOCH BROTHERS AND THEIR ALLIES HAVE THEIR WAY, HOWEVER, IT LIKELY WILL TAKE A LOT LONGER TO GET THERE -- AND IT WILL COST A HELL OF A LOT MORE.

http://www.huffingto
npost.com/elliott-ne
gin/the-koch-brother
s-are-sti_b_4396033.
html










Ref: EU fines for Southampton.. failing in its legal duty to protect people from the harmful effects of air pollution.


http://www.clientear
th.org/201305012170/
news/press-releases/
supreme-court-rules-
uk-government-is-bre
aking-air-pollution-
laws-2170



Ref: Huge Koch/Oxbow pollution generating sulphur plant planned for Southampton.


http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/news/10381867
.Giant_sulphur_plant
__developers_to_face
_residents/
The Coal/Oil Billionaire Koch Brothers are using their wealth to Break Wind power and undermine sustainable energy projects. Lets not forget if we don't have a massive increase in pollution free Wind/Solar power generation in Southampton we will be hit by multimillion-pound EU fines.. Southampton already suffers from illegal levels of pollution we don't need the Coal/Oil Koch Brothers and Oxbows anti sustainable energy stance destroying an economic recovery.. THE KOCH BROTHERS ARE STILL TRYING TO BREAK WIND. Posted: 12/09/2013 9:01 am. AS CONGRESS DITHERS FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME OVER EXTENDING A KEY SUBSIDY FOR WIND ENERGY, THE INDUSTRY ONCE AGAIN IS UP IN THE AIR. Called the production tax credit (PTC), the subsidy helps level the playing field between wind and fossil fuels and has proven to be critical for financing new projects, helping to make wind one of the fastest growing electricity sources in the country. Given the planet needs to transition as quickly as possible away from coal and natural gas to carbon-free energy to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, who would be against renewing wind's tax credit? The Koch brothers, that's who. Charles G. and David H. Koch -- the billionaire owners of the coal, oil and gas Koch Industries conglomerate -- have enlisted their extensive network of think tanks, advocacy groups and friends on Capitol Hill to spearhead a campaign to pull the plug on the PTC. NEVER MIND THE FACT THAT THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY HAS AVERAGED FOUR TIMES WHAT THE WIND TAX CREDIT IS WORTH IN FEDERAL TAX BREAKS AND SUBSIDIES ANNUALLY FOR THE LAST 95 YEARS. The Koch network is fighting the wind industry on a number of fronts. Last month, Koch-funded Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-Kansas) sent a letter signed by 52 House members to the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, urging him to let the PTC expire. Meanwhile, a coalition of some 100 national and local groups organized by the Koch-founded Americans for Prosperity sent a letter to each member of Congress asking them to do the same. And earlier this month, the Koch-funded Institute for Energy Research launched an anti-PTC ad campaign and released a report claiming that only a handful of states actually benefit from the subsidy. MALCOLM GLADWELL DIDN'T INCLUDE THIS BATTLE IN HIS NEW BOOK DAVID AND GOLIATH BECAUSE, GIVEN THE ODDS, IT'S MORE LIKE BAMBI VERSUS GODZILLA. The Kochs' Man in Congress The fact that Kansas Rep. Mike Pompeo is the Kochs' point man to scuttle the PTC in the House is a bit ironic given his state is a wind energy leader. Kansas has the second highest wind potential in the country, it has already attracted more than US 5 billion dollars in wind industry investment, and last year wind generated 11.4 percent of its electricity. With stats like that, the industry has broad bipartisan support. Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback and Sens. Jerry Moran and Pat Roberts -- all Republicans -- are big fans. But there's a catch. Although it appears evenhanded, Pompeo's bill would severely hamper wind and solar but preserve a number of oil, gas and coal subsidies, including the percentage depletion allowance, the ability to expense the costs of exploration, and the accelerated depreciation of certain kinds of "geologic property." These and other tax breaks he left out of his bill would be worth about US 12.5 billion dollars to the oil and gas industry from 2011 through 2015, according to a March 2012 Congressional Research Service report. Why is Pompeo so down on wind? Perhaps it's because Koch Industries is headquartered in Wichita, smack-dab in the middle of his district -- and the fact that the company is by far and away his biggest campaign contributor. Since 2010, Koch Industries has given him US 200,000 dollars more than four times what his second highest contributor kicked in. Besides Koch Industries, three other oil companies are among Pompeo's top five contributors -- McCoy Petroleum, Mull Drilling and Richie Exploration -- and they're also based in Wichita. So who signed the AFP letter? About half of the signatories are local tea party affiliates and anti-wind NIMBY groups of indeterminate size and funding. The other half are, for the most part, relatively obscure national groups, but there are a few that have attracted attention over the years for their contrarian views on climate science and renewable energy. Like AFP, those groups are awash in petrodollars. The American Energy Alliance (and its parent, the Institute for Energy Research), Competitive Enterprise Institute, Freedom Works, Frontiers of Freedom and Heritage Action (and its parent, the Heritage Foundation) collectively have received millions of dollars from Koch family foundations, ExxonMobil and the American Petroleum Institute, the oil and gas industry's premier trade association. Given that it takes years to plan, finance and construct a wind farm, Congress is again undermining the industry's potential by slow-walking the PTC extension this year. And that potential is tremendous. Wind currently generates about 4 percent of U.S. electricity, but by 2030 it could produce more than 20 percent, the U.S. Department of Energy. The DOE's National Renewable Energy Laboratory also is bullish on wind and renewables writ large. LAST YEAR, IT PUBLISHED A REPORT THAT CONCLUDED TODAY'S COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGIES COULD EASILY GENERATE 80 PERCENT OF U.S. ELECTRICITY BY 2050, WITH NEARLY HALF COMING FROM WIND. IF THE KOCH BROTHERS AND THEIR ALLIES HAVE THEIR WAY, HOWEVER, IT LIKELY WILL TAKE A LOT LONGER TO GET THERE -- AND IT WILL COST A HELL OF A LOT MORE. http://www.huffingto npost.com/elliott-ne gin/the-koch-brother s-are-sti_b_4396033. html Ref: EU fines for Southampton.. failing in its legal duty to protect people from the harmful effects of air pollution. http://www.clientear th.org/201305012170/ news/press-releases/ supreme-court-rules- uk-government-is-bre aking-air-pollution- laws-2170 Ref: Huge Koch/Oxbow pollution generating sulphur plant planned for Southampton. http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/news/10381867 .Giant_sulphur_plant __developers_to_face _residents/ 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