Shelve Southampton biomass plant say campaigners after Helius admits cash problems

One of the proposed desgins for the Southampton biomass plant

One of the proposed desgins for the Southampton biomass plant

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

CAMPAIGNERS have called for a controversial biomass plant planned for Southampton to be scrapped after the firm behind it admitted it was struggling for cash.

Helius bosses have had to delay plans to open a similar plant near Bristol after problems raising the money needed.

Now councillors in Southampton say the £300m wood-fuelled plant planned for the Western Docks should be shelved so city residents are not “left in limbo”.

Last night company bosses insisted they were pressing ahead with plans for the 100-megawatt (MW) Southampton site regardless of the delays at Avonmouth.

It comes as a scathing Government report questioned biomass as a viable green fuel source and claimed it is potentially more polluting than fossil fuels.

Helius says the Southampton plant will be capable of producing enough energy to power 200,000 homes and save the equivalent of 470,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide annually.

It would be a similar size to a 100MW Avonmouth site which has already been granted planning permission.

The firm had aimed to secure funding for that project by last month.

But in a statement released in the company’s interim reports, chairman John Seed progress has “proved more difficult” and added: “It remains our aim to finalise all contract terms, along with the financing for the project, later in the year at which point we expect to secure development fees, which are necessary to provide the working capital required to meet its longer term development and corporate costs.”

A spokesman refused to confirm whether this also delays the Southampton project.

But furious campaigners and politicians have accused them of leaving residents in “limbo”.

Daily Echo: Campaigners against biomass march through Southampton

Campaigners march through Southampton against the proposed biomass plant.

Millbrook ward Conservative councillor Steve Galton, who heads the No Southampton Biomass group, said: “If they haven’t got the money then what the company needs to do is mothball Southampton.

“It’s been so much time since the pre-consultation without an application and it’s leaving this hanging over the people of this city.”

Millbrook ward Labour councillor Asa Thorpe added: “This is like a Sword of Damocles hanging over the people of Millbrook. It’s causing worry for hundreds of people.”

Comments (31)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:17am Mon 28 Jul 14

skeptik says...

Green fuel - 'No money to burn'.
Green fuel - 'No money to burn'. skeptik
  • Score: -3

9:16am Mon 28 Jul 14

FoysCornerBoy says...

It increasingly looks like this isn't going to happen any time soon. We should be worried, though, that the new minister in charge of energy policy is conservative Matt Hancock who doubles as minister for Portsmouth. He's the guy who will also be dishing out licenses for fracking exploration (especially if they're in non conservative areas in the north) and he'd have absolutely no qualms about foisting a large biomass energy plant in Southampton or Marchwood ports.
It increasingly looks like this isn't going to happen any time soon. We should be worried, though, that the new minister in charge of energy policy is conservative Matt Hancock who doubles as minister for Portsmouth. He's the guy who will also be dishing out licenses for fracking exploration (especially if they're in non conservative areas in the north) and he'd have absolutely no qualms about foisting a large biomass energy plant in Southampton or Marchwood ports. FoysCornerBoy
  • Score: -8

10:17am Mon 28 Jul 14

southy says...

And this is what its all about how to get there hands on public money, When they can't they go under, Personally if they are a private concern they should not be getting any tax payers money, it should only be state owned industary that should be getting it public money
And this is what its all about how to get there hands on public money, When they can't they go under, Personally if they are a private concern they should not be getting any tax payers money, it should only be state owned industary that should be getting it public money southy
  • Score: -2

10:19am Mon 28 Jul 14

Mr E says...

Can somebody please come up with a way of generating Electricity that NOBODY will object to before we run out.
Can somebody please come up with a way of generating Electricity that NOBODY will object to before we run out. Mr E
  • Score: 3

11:45am Mon 28 Jul 14

southy says...

Mr E wrote:
Can somebody please come up with a way of generating Electricity that NOBODY will object to before we run out.
I have done in the pass.
[quote][p][bold]Mr E[/bold] wrote: Can somebody please come up with a way of generating Electricity that NOBODY will object to before we run out.[/p][/quote]I have done in the pass. southy
  • Score: -11

11:51am Mon 28 Jul 14

AFrustratedCyclist says...

Mr E wrote:
Can somebody please come up with a way of generating Electricity that NOBODY will object to before we run out.
Never going to happen!

Everybody just wants cheap and NIMBY! You will never please everybody!
personally I'm for Biomass, Solar and Wind even Nuclear as long as they're well placed. Existing industrial sites\ports do fit in my book. Where else should we put it, middle of a national park?

Not keen on Fracking because of the pollution\water issues and general distrust of the large companies running them in not cutting corners to maximise profit and causing pollution which is possibly avoidable.

No biomass isn't perfect but if we don't start doing something our energy bills are just going to go up and up quicker and quicker! We as a country need to diversify and get away from Coal and Gas which we buy in.
[quote][p][bold]Mr E[/bold] wrote: Can somebody please come up with a way of generating Electricity that NOBODY will object to before we run out.[/p][/quote]Never going to happen! Everybody just wants cheap and NIMBY! You will never please everybody! personally I'm for Biomass, Solar and Wind even Nuclear as long as they're well placed. Existing industrial sites\ports do fit in my book. Where else should we put it, middle of a national park? Not keen on Fracking because of the pollution\water issues and general distrust of the large companies running them in not cutting corners to maximise profit and causing pollution which is possibly avoidable. No biomass isn't perfect but if we don't start doing something our energy bills are just going to go up and up quicker and quicker! We as a country need to diversify and get away from Coal and Gas which we buy in. AFrustratedCyclist
  • Score: -2

12:49pm Mon 28 Jul 14

The Wickham Man says...

The best way to hit back at Putin and his bunch of thugs in Eastern Ukraine is not for that idiot Cameron to shoot his mouth off about sanctions - all that does is cause reprisals against our industry and allow countries like France to step in and take the business. The best way is to completely remove our dependency on Russian gas for our power generation. That means (amongst other things) fracking and biomass - neither of which are any more harmful than importing gas from somebody else. Being self sufficient in energy brings jobs back onshore, helps reduce our trade deficit and stops us being blackmailed by other countries. Southampton has had lots of factories in the past, in the days before flue gas scrubbing and clean combustion - so why are councillors and people on here suddenly terrified of chimneys?
The best way to hit back at Putin and his bunch of thugs in Eastern Ukraine is not for that idiot Cameron to shoot his mouth off about sanctions - all that does is cause reprisals against our industry and allow countries like France to step in and take the business. The best way is to completely remove our dependency on Russian gas for our power generation. That means (amongst other things) fracking and biomass - neither of which are any more harmful than importing gas from somebody else. Being self sufficient in energy brings jobs back onshore, helps reduce our trade deficit and stops us being blackmailed by other countries. Southampton has had lots of factories in the past, in the days before flue gas scrubbing and clean combustion - so why are councillors and people on here suddenly terrified of chimneys? The Wickham Man
  • Score: -7

1:11pm Mon 28 Jul 14

Cyber__Fug says...

southy wrote:
Mr E wrote:
Can somebody please come up with a way of generating Electricity that NOBODY will object to before we run out.
I have done in the pass.
Really ? Come on then lets hear it !!.... now this should be entertaining.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr E[/bold] wrote: Can somebody please come up with a way of generating Electricity that NOBODY will object to before we run out.[/p][/quote]I have done in the pass.[/p][/quote]Really ? Come on then lets hear it !!.... now this should be entertaining. Cyber__Fug
  • Score: 6

4:01pm Mon 28 Jul 14

southy says...

Cyber__Fug wrote:
southy wrote:
Mr E wrote:
Can somebody please come up with a way of generating Electricity that NOBODY will object to before we run out.
I have done in the pass.
Really ? Come on then lets hear it !!.... now this should be entertaining.
What do we get loads off in this country, if you can answer that then your half way there
[quote][p][bold]Cyber__Fug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr E[/bold] wrote: Can somebody please come up with a way of generating Electricity that NOBODY will object to before we run out.[/p][/quote]I have done in the pass.[/p][/quote]Really ? Come on then lets hear it !!.... now this should be entertaining.[/p][/quote]What do we get loads off in this country, if you can answer that then your half way there southy
  • Score: -4

5:12pm Mon 28 Jul 14

Dan Soton says...

,,

The new Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) report should of tip Helius into Bankruptcy..


Given the report confirms burning trees from overseas forests make Wood Biomass power more carbon intensive than coal-fired power stations..

As if that wasn't bad enough... DECC has refused to subsidise one of Drax's Coal-To-Biomass conversion projects, ( fat chance Helius getting any Government help ) the High Court has told the Government to reconsider its decision, DECC intends to appeal against the High Court ruling...


,,
,, The new Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) report should of tip Helius into Bankruptcy.. Given the report confirms burning trees from overseas forests make Wood Biomass power more carbon intensive than coal-fired power stations.. As if that wasn't bad enough... DECC has refused to subsidise one of Drax's Coal-To-Biomass conversion projects, ( fat chance Helius getting any Government help ) the High Court has told the Government to reconsider its decision, DECC intends to appeal against the High Court ruling... ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 2

5:38pm Mon 28 Jul 14

Zexagon says...

southy wrote:
Cyber__Fug wrote:
southy wrote:
Mr E wrote:
Can somebody please come up with a way of generating Electricity that NOBODY will object to before we run out.
I have done in the pass.
Really ? Come on then lets hear it !!.... now this should be entertaining.
What do we get loads off in this country, if you can answer that then your half way there
Immigrants ?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cyber__Fug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr E[/bold] wrote: Can somebody please come up with a way of generating Electricity that NOBODY will object to before we run out.[/p][/quote]I have done in the pass.[/p][/quote]Really ? Come on then lets hear it !!.... now this should be entertaining.[/p][/quote]What do we get loads off in this country, if you can answer that then your half way there[/p][/quote]Immigrants ? Zexagon
  • Score: -2

5:38pm Mon 28 Jul 14

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
Cyber__Fug wrote:
southy wrote:
Mr E wrote:
Can somebody please come up with a way of generating Electricity that NOBODY will object to before we run out.
I have done in the pass.
Really ? Come on then lets hear it !!.... now this should be entertaining.
What do we get loads off in this country, if you can answer that then your half way there
.. southy, you have been told many times that your rather stupid idea for 'a few hundred' water wheels will not produce the energy you say they will.
Andy from Locks Heath went into your calculations in considerable depth - they don't stack up by several orders of magnitude.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cyber__Fug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr E[/bold] wrote: Can somebody please come up with a way of generating Electricity that NOBODY will object to before we run out.[/p][/quote]I have done in the pass.[/p][/quote]Really ? Come on then lets hear it !!.... now this should be entertaining.[/p][/quote]What do we get loads off in this country, if you can answer that then your half way there[/p][/quote].. southy, you have been told many times that your rather stupid idea for 'a few hundred' water wheels will not produce the energy you say they will. Andy from Locks Heath went into your calculations in considerable depth - they don't stack up by several orders of magnitude. freefinker
  • Score: 2

6:12pm Mon 28 Jul 14

forest hump says...

AFrustratedCyclist wrote:
Mr E wrote:
Can somebody please come up with a way of generating Electricity that NOBODY will object to before we run out.
Never going to happen!

Everybody just wants cheap and NIMBY! You will never please everybody!
personally I'm for Biomass, Solar and Wind even Nuclear as long as they're well placed. Existing industrial sites\ports do fit in my book. Where else should we put it, middle of a national park?

Not keen on Fracking because of the pollution\water issues and general distrust of the large companies running them in not cutting corners to maximise profit and causing pollution which is possibly avoidable.

No biomass isn't perfect but if we don't start doing something our energy bills are just going to go up and up quicker and quicker! We as a country need to diversify and get away from Coal and Gas which we buy in.
Fracking is safe and has been used for over 50 years in the U.S. It is a fully developed technique so it is not revolutionary. Communities locally and nationally have benefitted from both local investment and jobs. You lot have been poisoned by the filth written against it. Trouble is, you want to keep your nice homes warm in the winter but refuse to allow the professionals develop areas safely. People need to open their eyes and ignore all of the compounded lies being bandied around. Unfortunately, there are people who are just simply against any kind of development. BANANAS. I sincerely hope they are made to eat their own words when the supply runs dry.
[quote][p][bold]AFrustratedCyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr E[/bold] wrote: Can somebody please come up with a way of generating Electricity that NOBODY will object to before we run out.[/p][/quote]Never going to happen! Everybody just wants cheap and NIMBY! You will never please everybody! personally I'm for Biomass, Solar and Wind even Nuclear as long as they're well placed. Existing industrial sites\ports do fit in my book. Where else should we put it, middle of a national park? Not keen on Fracking because of the pollution\water issues and general distrust of the large companies running them in not cutting corners to maximise profit and causing pollution which is possibly avoidable. No biomass isn't perfect but if we don't start doing something our energy bills are just going to go up and up quicker and quicker! We as a country need to diversify and get away from Coal and Gas which we buy in.[/p][/quote]Fracking is safe and has been used for over 50 years in the U.S. It is a fully developed technique so it is not revolutionary. Communities locally and nationally have benefitted from both local investment and jobs. You lot have been poisoned by the filth written against it. Trouble is, you want to keep your nice homes warm in the winter but refuse to allow the professionals develop areas safely. People need to open their eyes and ignore all of the compounded lies being bandied around. Unfortunately, there are people who are just simply against any kind of development. BANANAS. I sincerely hope they are made to eat their own words when the supply runs dry. forest hump
  • Score: 0

6:17pm Mon 28 Jul 14

wilson castaway says...

Our house is powered by a biomass burner.Our fuel bill per month is around ten pound.Twenty in winter if you need the heating on.This is a large 3 bedroom house.When I lived in a 2 bed flat I was paying up to 15 pound a week for gas.That was 3 years ago so image how much I save now.
Our house is powered by a biomass burner.Our fuel bill per month is around ten pound.Twenty in winter if you need the heating on.This is a large 3 bedroom house.When I lived in a 2 bed flat I was paying up to 15 pound a week for gas.That was 3 years ago so image how much I save now. wilson castaway
  • Score: -1

6:28pm Mon 28 Jul 14

loosehead says...

The reason this plant has been said to be more pollutant than a coal generator is because we'd ship in the wood chip yet if they used the piles of wood that are stacked in the docks to be sent abroad to fuel bio mass generators it becomes far more green than coal.
As for fracking if it can be proven not to hurt the local area (National Park) it can still happen . The idiot who said it would happen up North really? Did you see the map on the news today?
Much of the area to be bid for is in the South & the midlands.
I personally would welcome Fracking & as it has been tested & all the environmental issues have come to light & solutions found in America I can't understand what the opposition is to it?
Will this gas leak out over time? will it add to greenhouse gasses? will burning it mean less greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere?
If any one can prove that Bio Mass is dangerous for people fine prove it & I'd be against it.
Now Asa Thorpe says Millbrook residents? does he mean Millbrook Green Park residents are worried about it?
So they're no worried or upset at the stench coming from the Sewage works then?
The reason this plant has been said to be more pollutant than a coal generator is because we'd ship in the wood chip yet if they used the piles of wood that are stacked in the docks to be sent abroad to fuel bio mass generators it becomes far more green than coal. As for fracking if it can be proven not to hurt the local area (National Park) it can still happen . The idiot who said it would happen up North really? Did you see the map on the news today? Much of the area to be bid for is in the South & the midlands. I personally would welcome Fracking & as it has been tested & all the environmental issues have come to light & solutions found in America I can't understand what the opposition is to it? Will this gas leak out over time? will it add to greenhouse gasses? will burning it mean less greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere? If any one can prove that Bio Mass is dangerous for people fine prove it & I'd be against it. Now Asa Thorpe says Millbrook residents? does he mean Millbrook Green Park residents are worried about it? So they're no worried or upset at the stench coming from the Sewage works then? loosehead
  • Score: -3

6:34pm Mon 28 Jul 14

Andy Locks Heath says...

Dan Soton wrote:
,,

The new Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) report should of tip Helius into Bankruptcy..


Given the report confirms burning trees from overseas forests make Wood Biomass power more carbon intensive than coal-fired power stations..

As if that wasn't bad enough... DECC has refused to subsidise one of Drax's Coal-To-Biomass conversion projects, ( fat chance Helius getting any Government help ) the High Court has told the Government to reconsider its decision, DECC intends to appeal against the High Court ruling...


,,
Speaking as someone who is involved in the timber industry not to mention biomass it is quite tiring having to endlessly correct people like yourself who know little or nothing about the industry thinking they are experts merely by googling their choice words or visiting selected. Firstly, as I have pointed out before, the biomass market will gradually and increasingly be supplied by native waste wood and brash, so the figures are not true. 40% by weight of a felled tree is waste that currently never leaves the site. THat is biomass, as is an increasing quantity of cereal and food by product. When you talk about Drax, are you seriously gloating because you think coal is better than biomass? Do you even know where Drax coal (and gas) comes from? Your amateurish and ill informed campaigning is not going to persuade the people that count, who fortunately have a better understanding of the mathematics and economics of energy conversion than you. If you want to see a serious industry study of biomass potential from native timber try this report, but being an uninformed unskilled unqualified googler you will not understand it, let alone know how to interpret it. If you were serious about actually understanding the industry I would explain it to you but like others, I doubt that you have the aptitude or the dedication. http://www.google.co
.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q
=&esrc=s&source=web&
cd=1&ved=0CEcQFjAA&u
rl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.
researchgate.net%2Fp
ublication%2F2265348
25_Biomass_expansion
_factors_for_Sitka_s
pruce_%28Picea_sitch
ensis%28Bong.%29_Car
r.%29_in_Ireland%2Ff
ile%2F5046351ad8c008
eda1.pdf&ei=mIbWU4nO
JtCy7AazpoDACQ&usg=A
FQjCNHztcteiWk7F0wp4
QXIXyGTgbD13g&sig2=M
ld9jajDVv2JHH3gPO4vA
g&bvm=bv.71778758,d.
ZGU
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: ,, The new Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) report should of tip Helius into Bankruptcy.. Given the report confirms burning trees from overseas forests make Wood Biomass power more carbon intensive than coal-fired power stations.. As if that wasn't bad enough... DECC has refused to subsidise one of Drax's Coal-To-Biomass conversion projects, ( fat chance Helius getting any Government help ) the High Court has told the Government to reconsider its decision, DECC intends to appeal against the High Court ruling... ,,[/p][/quote]Speaking as someone who is involved in the timber industry not to mention biomass it is quite tiring having to endlessly correct people like yourself who know little or nothing about the industry thinking they are experts merely by googling their choice words or visiting selected. Firstly, as I have pointed out before, the biomass market will gradually and increasingly be supplied by native waste wood and brash, so the figures are not true. 40% by weight of a felled tree is waste that currently never leaves the site. THat is biomass, as is an increasing quantity of cereal and food by product. When you talk about Drax, are you seriously gloating because you think coal is better than biomass? Do you even know where Drax coal (and gas) comes from? Your amateurish and ill informed campaigning is not going to persuade the people that count, who fortunately have a better understanding of the mathematics and economics of energy conversion than you. If you want to see a serious industry study of biomass potential from native timber try this report, but being an uninformed unskilled unqualified googler you will not understand it, let alone know how to interpret it. If you were serious about actually understanding the industry I would explain it to you but like others, I doubt that you have the aptitude or the dedication. http://www.google.co .uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q =&esrc=s&source=web& cd=1&ved=0CEcQFjAA&u rl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww. researchgate.net%2Fp ublication%2F2265348 25_Biomass_expansion _factors_for_Sitka_s pruce_%28Picea_sitch ensis%28Bong.%29_Car r.%29_in_Ireland%2Ff ile%2F5046351ad8c008 eda1.pdf&ei=mIbWU4nO JtCy7AazpoDACQ&usg=A FQjCNHztcteiWk7F0wp4 QXIXyGTgbD13g&sig2=M ld9jajDVv2JHH3gPO4vA g&bvm=bv.71778758,d. ZGU Andy Locks Heath
  • Score: -7

8:29pm Mon 28 Jul 14

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
Cyber__Fug wrote:
southy wrote:
Mr E wrote:
Can somebody please come up with a way of generating Electricity that NOBODY will object to before we run out.
I have done in the pass.
Really ? Come on then lets hear it !!.... now this should be entertaining.
What do we get loads off in this country, if you can answer that then your half way there
There's a **** of hot air down Redbridge way apparently.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cyber__Fug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr E[/bold] wrote: Can somebody please come up with a way of generating Electricity that NOBODY will object to before we run out.[/p][/quote]I have done in the pass.[/p][/quote]Really ? Come on then lets hear it !!.... now this should be entertaining.[/p][/quote]What do we get loads off in this country, if you can answer that then your half way there[/p][/quote]There's a **** of hot air down Redbridge way apparently. Shoong
  • Score: -3

9:04pm Mon 28 Jul 14

loosehead says...

wilson castaway wrote:
Our house is powered by a biomass burner.Our fuel bill per month is around ten pound.Twenty in winter if you need the heating on.This is a large 3 bedroom house.When I lived in a 2 bed flat I was paying up to 15 pound a week for gas.That was 3 years ago so image how much I save now.
I have Solar panels I pay £30 electric & £20 Gas I receive about £95-£150 rebate on each one every 6 months at this moment I'm paying £12 gas £15 electric a month yet people say they don't produce enough energy?
If I had a detached house in a non smoke free zone I'd go for a wood burner under ground pipes plus solar panels for electric & hot water.
Now why aren't the protestors asking what happened to the Tory plan to pipe hot water from the incinerator to the Itchen side of the city the plan Labour promised to continue with?
What happened to the Geothermal plant to give heating to the Test side of the city? it was stopped by environmentalists saying it wasn't green?
[quote][p][bold]wilson castaway[/bold] wrote: Our house is powered by a biomass burner.Our fuel bill per month is around ten pound.Twenty in winter if you need the heating on.This is a large 3 bedroom house.When I lived in a 2 bed flat I was paying up to 15 pound a week for gas.That was 3 years ago so image how much I save now.[/p][/quote]I have Solar panels I pay £30 electric & £20 Gas I receive about £95-£150 rebate on each one every 6 months at this moment I'm paying £12 gas £15 electric a month yet people say they don't produce enough energy? If I had a detached house in a non smoke free zone I'd go for a wood burner under ground pipes plus solar panels for electric & hot water. Now why aren't the protestors asking what happened to the Tory plan to pipe hot water from the incinerator to the Itchen side of the city the plan Labour promised to continue with? What happened to the Geothermal plant to give heating to the Test side of the city? it was stopped by environmentalists saying it wasn't green? loosehead
  • Score: -1

9:10pm Mon 28 Jul 14

forest hump says...

loosehead wrote:
wilson castaway wrote:
Our house is powered by a biomass burner.Our fuel bill per month is around ten pound.Twenty in winter if you need the heating on.This is a large 3 bedroom house.When I lived in a 2 bed flat I was paying up to 15 pound a week for gas.That was 3 years ago so image how much I save now.
I have Solar panels I pay £30 electric & £20 Gas I receive about £95-£150 rebate on each one every 6 months at this moment I'm paying £12 gas £15 electric a month yet people say they don't produce enough energy?
If I had a detached house in a non smoke free zone I'd go for a wood burner under ground pipes plus solar panels for electric & hot water.
Now why aren't the protestors asking what happened to the Tory plan to pipe hot water from the incinerator to the Itchen side of the city the plan Labour promised to continue with?
What happened to the Geothermal plant to give heating to the Test side of the city? it was stopped by environmentalists saying it wasn't green?
They produce energy but not consistently. For a technical detailed explanation, Andy from Locks Heath will provide. In your own little world, the return might please. Open your eyes to the big picture and you would suffer many power cuts relying on solar and wind.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wilson castaway[/bold] wrote: Our house is powered by a biomass burner.Our fuel bill per month is around ten pound.Twenty in winter if you need the heating on.This is a large 3 bedroom house.When I lived in a 2 bed flat I was paying up to 15 pound a week for gas.That was 3 years ago so image how much I save now.[/p][/quote]I have Solar panels I pay £30 electric & £20 Gas I receive about £95-£150 rebate on each one every 6 months at this moment I'm paying £12 gas £15 electric a month yet people say they don't produce enough energy? If I had a detached house in a non smoke free zone I'd go for a wood burner under ground pipes plus solar panels for electric & hot water. Now why aren't the protestors asking what happened to the Tory plan to pipe hot water from the incinerator to the Itchen side of the city the plan Labour promised to continue with? What happened to the Geothermal plant to give heating to the Test side of the city? it was stopped by environmentalists saying it wasn't green?[/p][/quote]They produce energy but not consistently. For a technical detailed explanation, Andy from Locks Heath will provide. In your own little world, the return might please. Open your eyes to the big picture and you would suffer many power cuts relying on solar and wind. forest hump
  • Score: -3

9:14pm Mon 28 Jul 14

Balsamic says...

Mr E wrote:
Can somebody please come up with a way of generating Electricity that NOBODY will object to before we run out.
Build it in Alresford .
Let's really give them something to moan about .
[quote][p][bold]Mr E[/bold] wrote: Can somebody please come up with a way of generating Electricity that NOBODY will object to before we run out.[/p][/quote]Build it in Alresford . Let's really give them something to moan about . Balsamic
  • Score: 0

10:31pm Mon 28 Jul 14

Dan Soton says...

,,

The new Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) report should of tipped Helius into Bankruptcy..



Given the report confirms burning trees from overseas forests make Wood Biomass power more carbon intensive than coal-fired power stations..

http://www.bbc.com/n
ews/uk-28457104


As if that wasn't bad enough... DECC has refused to subsidise one of Drax's Coal-To-Biomass conversion projects, ( fat chance Helius getting any Government help ) the High Court has told the Government to reconsider its decision, DECC intends to appeal against the High Court ruling...

In addition, Drax faces another headache over EU state aid policy. The European Commission yesterday approved the majority of UK energy market reforms, but stopped short of a judgement on the early stage funding used by Drax and two other projects.


http://www.standard.
co.uk/business/busin
ess-news/market-roun
dup-drax-flounders-a
s-subsidy-row-with-d
ecc-rumbles-on-96261
88.html


-

Sorry folks for reposting the above..


Andy Locks Heath ( same again with URLs ) do you really think the BBCs Environmental Analyst Roger Harrabin is ill informed.. ?


,,,
,, The new Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) report should of tipped Helius into Bankruptcy.. Given the report confirms burning trees from overseas forests make Wood Biomass power more carbon intensive than coal-fired power stations.. http://www.bbc.com/n ews/uk-28457104 As if that wasn't bad enough... DECC has refused to subsidise one of Drax's Coal-To-Biomass conversion projects, ( fat chance Helius getting any Government help ) the High Court has told the Government to reconsider its decision, DECC intends to appeal against the High Court ruling... In addition, Drax faces another headache over EU state aid policy. The European Commission yesterday approved the majority of UK energy market reforms, but stopped short of a judgement on the early stage funding used by Drax and two other projects. http://www.standard. co.uk/business/busin ess-news/market-roun dup-drax-flounders-a s-subsidy-row-with-d ecc-rumbles-on-96261 88.html - Sorry folks for reposting the above.. Andy Locks Heath ( same again with URLs ) do you really think the BBCs Environmental Analyst Roger Harrabin is ill informed.. ? ,,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 4

10:43pm Mon 28 Jul 14

Andy Locks Heath says...

Yes of course I do. He is a journalist who is expected to cover a myriad of subjects with little or not warning at the drop of a hat. FUrthermore it is quite clear that you would either choose to agree or discard what he happens to say based on whether it happened to aligh with your chosen belief or not. Objectivity is not one of your strengths. Furthermore you will find that Harrabin's entire workload is driven by and based on Government departmental output which itself is driven by briefings. It is unsurprising that you hold him up as a paragon of truth, because as I've pointed out before, you are not half the informed expert you think you are. You have chosen to take against biomass - that is your prerogative, but if you want to present yourself as someone whose opinion is worth listening to, you should learn a lot more about the UK timber sector and its propensity to changes in demand for its products. As I have said before, in 25 years time biomass can be a self sustaining provider of around 2 to 5% of our energy needs that currently come from coal or gas with no need to import any feedstocjk at all, but it should be obvious even to a fool why that material doesn't just sit around accumulating today.
Yes of course I do. He is a journalist who is expected to cover a myriad of subjects with little or not warning at the drop of a hat. FUrthermore it is quite clear that you would either choose to agree or discard what he happens to say based on whether it happened to aligh with your chosen belief or not. Objectivity is not one of your strengths. Furthermore you will find that Harrabin's entire workload is driven by and based on Government departmental output which itself is driven by briefings. It is unsurprising that you hold him up as a paragon of truth, because as I've pointed out before, you are not half the informed expert you think you are. You have chosen to take against biomass - that is your prerogative, but if you want to present yourself as someone whose opinion is worth listening to, you should learn a lot more about the UK timber sector and its propensity to changes in demand for its products. As I have said before, in 25 years time biomass can be a self sustaining provider of around 2 to 5% of our energy needs that currently come from coal or gas with no need to import any feedstocjk at all, but it should be obvious even to a fool why that material doesn't just sit around accumulating today. Andy Locks Heath
  • Score: -4

10:54pm Mon 28 Jul 14

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
,,

The new Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) report should of tipped Helius into Bankruptcy..



Given the report confirms burning trees from overseas forests make Wood Biomass power more carbon intensive than coal-fired power stations..

http://www.bbc.com/n

ews/uk-28457104


As if that wasn't bad enough... DECC has refused to subsidise one of Drax's Coal-To-Biomass conversion projects, ( fat chance Helius getting any Government help ) the High Court has told the Government to reconsider its decision, DECC intends to appeal against the High Court ruling...

In addition, Drax faces another headache over EU state aid policy. The European Commission yesterday approved the majority of UK energy market reforms, but stopped short of a judgement on the early stage funding used by Drax and two other projects.


http://www.standard.

co.uk/business/busin

ess-news/market-roun

dup-drax-flounders-a

s-subsidy-row-with-d

ecc-rumbles-on-96261

88.html


-

Sorry folks for reposting the above..


Andy Locks Heath ( same again with URLs ) do you really think the BBCs Environmental Analyst Roger Harrabin is ill informed.. ?


,,,
,,

Andy Locks whats your 2004 Industry study on samples taken from 36 trees got to do with Drax and Global Deforestation?

Quote....

A total of 36 trees were harvested from across the chronosequence (six trees from each stand in the time series) and destructively sampled.


-

Andy Locks, as if you didn't know.. since 2004 there's been a sea change in our ( all the worlds ) Governments understanding and attitude towards Wood Biomass power.


,,
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: ,, The new Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) report should of tipped Helius into Bankruptcy.. Given the report confirms burning trees from overseas forests make Wood Biomass power more carbon intensive than coal-fired power stations.. http://www.bbc.com/n ews/uk-28457104 As if that wasn't bad enough... DECC has refused to subsidise one of Drax's Coal-To-Biomass conversion projects, ( fat chance Helius getting any Government help ) the High Court has told the Government to reconsider its decision, DECC intends to appeal against the High Court ruling... In addition, Drax faces another headache over EU state aid policy. The European Commission yesterday approved the majority of UK energy market reforms, but stopped short of a judgement on the early stage funding used by Drax and two other projects. http://www.standard. co.uk/business/busin ess-news/market-roun dup-drax-flounders-a s-subsidy-row-with-d ecc-rumbles-on-96261 88.html - Sorry folks for reposting the above.. Andy Locks Heath ( same again with URLs ) do you really think the BBCs Environmental Analyst Roger Harrabin is ill informed.. ? ,,,[/p][/quote],, Andy Locks whats your 2004 Industry study on samples taken from 36 trees got to do with Drax and Global Deforestation? Quote.... A total of 36 trees were harvested from across the chronosequence (six trees from each stand in the time series) and destructively sampled. - Andy Locks, as if you didn't know.. since 2004 there's been a sea change in our ( all the worlds ) Governments understanding and attitude towards Wood Biomass power. ,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 7

11:08pm Mon 28 Jul 14

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
,,

The new Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) report should of tipped Helius into Bankruptcy..



Given the report confirms burning trees from overseas forests make Wood Biomass power more carbon intensive than coal-fired power stations..

http://www.bbc.com/n


ews/uk-28457104


As if that wasn't bad enough... DECC has refused to subsidise one of Drax's Coal-To-Biomass conversion projects, ( fat chance Helius getting any Government help ) the High Court has told the Government to reconsider its decision, DECC intends to appeal against the High Court ruling...

In addition, Drax faces another headache over EU state aid policy. The European Commission yesterday approved the majority of UK energy market reforms, but stopped short of a judgement on the early stage funding used by Drax and two other projects.


http://www.standard.


co.uk/business/busin


ess-news/market-roun


dup-drax-flounders-a


s-subsidy-row-with-d


ecc-rumbles-on-96261


88.html


-

Sorry folks for reposting the above..


Andy Locks Heath ( same again with URLs ) do you really think the BBCs Environmental Analyst Roger Harrabin is ill informed.. ?


,,,
,,

Andy Locks whats your 2004 Industry study on samples taken from 36 trees got to do with Drax and Global Deforestation?

Quote....

A total of 36 trees were harvested from across the chronosequence (six trees from each stand in the time series) and destructively sampled.


-

Andy Locks, as if you didn't know.. since 2004 there's been a sea change in our ( all the worlds ) Governments understanding and attitude towards Wood Biomass power.


,,
,,

Here's the new Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) Report


Too many estimated scenarios in the report for my liking, but their CONCLUSIONS are pretty sound.




LIFE CYCLE IMPACTS OF BIOMASS ELECTRICITY IN 2020

Impacts and Energy Input Requirements of Using North American Woody Biomass for Electricity Generation in the UK

Dr Anna L Stephenson
Professor David J C MacKay FRS

July 2014

CONCLUSIONS

238. The energy input requirement of biomass electricity generated from North American wood used by the UK in 2020 is likely to be in the range 0.13 to 0.96 MWh energy carrier input per MWh delivered energy, SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER THAN OTHER ELECTRICITY GENERATING TECHNOLOGIES, SUCH AS COAL, NATURAL GAS, NUCLEAR AND WIND.

The Energy Input Requirement is smallest when (i) the transport distances are minimised, (ii) the moisture content of the biomass is reduced by passive drying and drying using local biomass resources as fuel, and (iii) the energetic efficiency of the technology is maximised.

https://www.gov.uk/g
overnment/uploads/sy
stem/uploads/attachm
ent_data/file/336038
/beac_report.pdf




,,,
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: ,, The new Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) report should of tipped Helius into Bankruptcy.. Given the report confirms burning trees from overseas forests make Wood Biomass power more carbon intensive than coal-fired power stations.. http://www.bbc.com/n ews/uk-28457104 As if that wasn't bad enough... DECC has refused to subsidise one of Drax's Coal-To-Biomass conversion projects, ( fat chance Helius getting any Government help ) the High Court has told the Government to reconsider its decision, DECC intends to appeal against the High Court ruling... In addition, Drax faces another headache over EU state aid policy. The European Commission yesterday approved the majority of UK energy market reforms, but stopped short of a judgement on the early stage funding used by Drax and two other projects. http://www.standard. co.uk/business/busin ess-news/market-roun dup-drax-flounders-a s-subsidy-row-with-d ecc-rumbles-on-96261 88.html - Sorry folks for reposting the above.. Andy Locks Heath ( same again with URLs ) do you really think the BBCs Environmental Analyst Roger Harrabin is ill informed.. ? ,,,[/p][/quote],, Andy Locks whats your 2004 Industry study on samples taken from 36 trees got to do with Drax and Global Deforestation? Quote.... A total of 36 trees were harvested from across the chronosequence (six trees from each stand in the time series) and destructively sampled. - Andy Locks, as if you didn't know.. since 2004 there's been a sea change in our ( all the worlds ) Governments understanding and attitude towards Wood Biomass power. ,,[/p][/quote],, Here's the new Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) Report Too many estimated scenarios in the report for my liking, but their CONCLUSIONS are pretty sound. LIFE CYCLE IMPACTS OF BIOMASS ELECTRICITY IN 2020 Impacts and Energy Input Requirements of Using North American Woody Biomass for Electricity Generation in the UK Dr Anna L Stephenson Professor David J C MacKay FRS July 2014 CONCLUSIONS 238. The energy input requirement of biomass electricity generated from North American wood used by the UK in 2020 is likely to be in the range 0.13 to 0.96 MWh energy carrier input per MWh delivered energy, SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER THAN OTHER ELECTRICITY GENERATING TECHNOLOGIES, SUCH AS COAL, NATURAL GAS, NUCLEAR AND WIND. The Energy Input Requirement is smallest when (i) the transport distances are minimised, (ii) the moisture content of the biomass is reduced by passive drying and drying using local biomass resources as fuel, and (iii) the energetic efficiency of the technology is maximised. https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/336038 /beac_report.pdf ,,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 3

11:27pm Mon 28 Jul 14

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
,,

The new Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) report should of tipped Helius into Bankruptcy..



Given the report confirms burning trees from overseas forests make Wood Biomass power more carbon intensive than coal-fired power stations..

http://www.bbc.com/n



ews/uk-28457104


As if that wasn't bad enough... DECC has refused to subsidise one of Drax's Coal-To-Biomass conversion projects, ( fat chance Helius getting any Government help ) the High Court has told the Government to reconsider its decision, DECC intends to appeal against the High Court ruling...

In addition, Drax faces another headache over EU state aid policy. The European Commission yesterday approved the majority of UK energy market reforms, but stopped short of a judgement on the early stage funding used by Drax and two other projects.


http://www.standard.



co.uk/business/busin



ess-news/market-roun



dup-drax-flounders-a



s-subsidy-row-with-d



ecc-rumbles-on-96261



88.html


-

Sorry folks for reposting the above..


Andy Locks Heath ( same again with URLs ) do you really think the BBCs Environmental Analyst Roger Harrabin is ill informed.. ?


,,,
,,

Andy Locks whats your 2004 Industry study on samples taken from 36 trees got to do with Drax and Global Deforestation?

Quote....

A total of 36 trees were harvested from across the chronosequence (six trees from each stand in the time series) and destructively sampled.


-

Andy Locks, as if you didn't know.. since 2004 there's been a sea change in our ( all the worlds ) Governments understanding and attitude towards Wood Biomass power.


,,
,,

Here's the new Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) Report


Too many estimated scenarios in the report for my liking, but their CONCLUSIONS are pretty sound.




LIFE CYCLE IMPACTS OF BIOMASS ELECTRICITY IN 2020

Impacts and Energy Input Requirements of Using North American Woody Biomass for Electricity Generation in the UK

Dr Anna L Stephenson
Professor David J C MacKay FRS

July 2014

CONCLUSIONS

238. The energy input requirement of biomass electricity generated from North American wood used by the UK in 2020 is likely to be in the range 0.13 to 0.96 MWh energy carrier input per MWh delivered energy, SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER THAN OTHER ELECTRICITY GENERATING TECHNOLOGIES, SUCH AS COAL, NATURAL GAS, NUCLEAR AND WIND.

The Energy Input Requirement is smallest when (i) the transport distances are minimised, (ii) the moisture content of the biomass is reduced by passive drying and drying using local biomass resources as fuel, and (iii) the energetic efficiency of the technology is maximised.

https://www.gov.uk/g

overnment/uploads/sy

stem/uploads/attachm

ent_data/file/336038

/beac_report.pdf




,,,
,,

A New Study on 88 Biomass Plants



Here's a report on Climate Change and Wood Biomass I like... it's investigative and has a ring of truth about it..



STUDY: BIOMASS PLANTS MAY POLLUTE WORSE THAN COAL.

Posted by Matt Power.
Jul 15, 2014 1:10:21 PM.

New scrutiny finds that large-scale biomass burners, often sold as a "clean" or "sustainable" source of renewable energy, are actually far more polluting than their claims.

The reason, according to Mary Booth, PhD., author of Trees, Trash, and Toxics: How Biomass Energy Has Become the New Coal is that the EPA has drastically weakened regulation for biomass burners.

BOOTH'S STUDY ANALYZED 88 BIOMASS PLANTS, AND FOUND THAT HALF OF THEM USE A LOOPHOLE TO AVOID REPORTING THEIR POLLUTION AT ALL, and many that do are releasing more than twice the pollutants of fossil fuel plants of similar energy output. But instead of being held accountable, biomass plants are given special treatment in the Clean Air Act.

This makes no sense, Booth notes, because the pollutants being released by biomass are nearly identical to those produced by fossil fuels, including coal.

Every biomass plant producing 8 MW or more can contribute 100,000 tons of CO2 pollution to the enviroment, and EPA loopholes allow them to burn waste wood and other construction debris. So their overall toxic footprint can be very large.

The argument for biomass advocates has been that because they burn wood, and wood is a renewable resource that releases CO2 as it decays, they are a "greener" alternative than fossil fuels. BUT THE STUDY NOTES THAT BIOMASS BURNERS RELEASE THE CO2 MUCH MORE RAPIDLY THAN WOULD NATURALLY OCCUR, TIPPING THE BALANCE TOWARD CLIMATE CHANGE.

"The EPA needs to put people first--not the bioenergy industry," she writes, " which has an inexhaustible appetite for contaminated fuels, particularly those that generate "tipping fees" for their disposal. The EPA should ensure that it does not create a loophole for unregulated incineration and that it protects public health by ensuring that all waste burners –including those that label themselves biomass units meet the protective standards that Congress enacted for waste burning."




http://www.pfpi.net/
wp-content/uploads/2
014/04/PFPI-Biomass-
is-the-New-Coal-Apri
l-2-2014.pdf




,,,
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: ,, The new Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) report should of tipped Helius into Bankruptcy.. Given the report confirms burning trees from overseas forests make Wood Biomass power more carbon intensive than coal-fired power stations.. http://www.bbc.com/n ews/uk-28457104 As if that wasn't bad enough... DECC has refused to subsidise one of Drax's Coal-To-Biomass conversion projects, ( fat chance Helius getting any Government help ) the High Court has told the Government to reconsider its decision, DECC intends to appeal against the High Court ruling... In addition, Drax faces another headache over EU state aid policy. The European Commission yesterday approved the majority of UK energy market reforms, but stopped short of a judgement on the early stage funding used by Drax and two other projects. http://www.standard. co.uk/business/busin ess-news/market-roun dup-drax-flounders-a s-subsidy-row-with-d ecc-rumbles-on-96261 88.html - Sorry folks for reposting the above.. Andy Locks Heath ( same again with URLs ) do you really think the BBCs Environmental Analyst Roger Harrabin is ill informed.. ? ,,,[/p][/quote],, Andy Locks whats your 2004 Industry study on samples taken from 36 trees got to do with Drax and Global Deforestation? Quote.... A total of 36 trees were harvested from across the chronosequence (six trees from each stand in the time series) and destructively sampled. - Andy Locks, as if you didn't know.. since 2004 there's been a sea change in our ( all the worlds ) Governments understanding and attitude towards Wood Biomass power. ,,[/p][/quote],, Here's the new Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) Report Too many estimated scenarios in the report for my liking, but their CONCLUSIONS are pretty sound. LIFE CYCLE IMPACTS OF BIOMASS ELECTRICITY IN 2020 Impacts and Energy Input Requirements of Using North American Woody Biomass for Electricity Generation in the UK Dr Anna L Stephenson Professor David J C MacKay FRS July 2014 CONCLUSIONS 238. The energy input requirement of biomass electricity generated from North American wood used by the UK in 2020 is likely to be in the range 0.13 to 0.96 MWh energy carrier input per MWh delivered energy, SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER THAN OTHER ELECTRICITY GENERATING TECHNOLOGIES, SUCH AS COAL, NATURAL GAS, NUCLEAR AND WIND. The Energy Input Requirement is smallest when (i) the transport distances are minimised, (ii) the moisture content of the biomass is reduced by passive drying and drying using local biomass resources as fuel, and (iii) the energetic efficiency of the technology is maximised. https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/336038 /beac_report.pdf ,,,[/p][/quote],, A New Study on 88 Biomass Plants Here's a report on Climate Change and Wood Biomass I like... it's investigative and has a ring of truth about it.. STUDY: BIOMASS PLANTS MAY POLLUTE WORSE THAN COAL. Posted by Matt Power. Jul 15, 2014 1:10:21 PM. New scrutiny finds that large-scale biomass burners, often sold as a "clean" or "sustainable" source of renewable energy, are actually far more polluting than their claims. The reason, according to Mary Booth, PhD., author of Trees, Trash, and Toxics: How Biomass Energy Has Become the New Coal is that the EPA has drastically weakened regulation for biomass burners. BOOTH'S STUDY ANALYZED 88 BIOMASS PLANTS, AND FOUND THAT HALF OF THEM USE A LOOPHOLE TO AVOID REPORTING THEIR POLLUTION AT ALL, and many that do are releasing more than twice the pollutants of fossil fuel plants of similar energy output. But instead of being held accountable, biomass plants are given special treatment in the Clean Air Act. This makes no sense, Booth notes, because the pollutants being released by biomass are nearly identical to those produced by fossil fuels, including coal. Every biomass plant producing 8 MW or more can contribute 100,000 tons of CO2 pollution to the enviroment, and EPA loopholes allow them to burn waste wood and other construction debris. So their overall toxic footprint can be very large. The argument for biomass advocates has been that because they burn wood, and wood is a renewable resource that releases CO2 as it decays, they are a "greener" alternative than fossil fuels. BUT THE STUDY NOTES THAT BIOMASS BURNERS RELEASE THE CO2 MUCH MORE RAPIDLY THAN WOULD NATURALLY OCCUR, TIPPING THE BALANCE TOWARD CLIMATE CHANGE. "The EPA needs to put people first--not the bioenergy industry," she writes, " which has an inexhaustible appetite for contaminated fuels, particularly those that generate "tipping fees" for their disposal. The EPA should ensure that it does not create a loophole for unregulated incineration and that it protects public health by ensuring that all waste burners –including those that label themselves biomass units meet the protective standards that Congress enacted for waste burning." http://www.pfpi.net/ wp-content/uploads/2 014/04/PFPI-Biomass- is-the-New-Coal-Apri l-2-2014.pdf ,,, Dan Soton
  • Score: 7

9:53am Tue 29 Jul 14

forest hump says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
,,

The new Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) report should of tipped Helius into Bankruptcy..



Given the report confirms burning trees from overseas forests make Wood Biomass power more carbon intensive than coal-fired power stations..

http://www.bbc.com/n




ews/uk-28457104


As if that wasn't bad enough... DECC has refused to subsidise one of Drax's Coal-To-Biomass conversion projects, ( fat chance Helius getting any Government help ) the High Court has told the Government to reconsider its decision, DECC intends to appeal against the High Court ruling...

In addition, Drax faces another headache over EU state aid policy. The European Commission yesterday approved the majority of UK energy market reforms, but stopped short of a judgement on the early stage funding used by Drax and two other projects.


http://www.standard.




co.uk/business/busin




ess-news/market-roun




dup-drax-flounders-a




s-subsidy-row-with-d




ecc-rumbles-on-96261




88.html


-

Sorry folks for reposting the above..


Andy Locks Heath ( same again with URLs ) do you really think the BBCs Environmental Analyst Roger Harrabin is ill informed.. ?


,,,
,,

Andy Locks whats your 2004 Industry study on samples taken from 36 trees got to do with Drax and Global Deforestation?

Quote....

A total of 36 trees were harvested from across the chronosequence (six trees from each stand in the time series) and destructively sampled.


-

Andy Locks, as if you didn't know.. since 2004 there's been a sea change in our ( all the worlds ) Governments understanding and attitude towards Wood Biomass power.


,,
,,

Here's the new Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) Report


Too many estimated scenarios in the report for my liking, but their CONCLUSIONS are pretty sound.




LIFE CYCLE IMPACTS OF BIOMASS ELECTRICITY IN 2020

Impacts and Energy Input Requirements of Using North American Woody Biomass for Electricity Generation in the UK

Dr Anna L Stephenson
Professor David J C MacKay FRS

July 2014

CONCLUSIONS

238. The energy input requirement of biomass electricity generated from North American wood used by the UK in 2020 is likely to be in the range 0.13 to 0.96 MWh energy carrier input per MWh delivered energy, SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER THAN OTHER ELECTRICITY GENERATING TECHNOLOGIES, SUCH AS COAL, NATURAL GAS, NUCLEAR AND WIND.

The Energy Input Requirement is smallest when (i) the transport distances are minimised, (ii) the moisture content of the biomass is reduced by passive drying and drying using local biomass resources as fuel, and (iii) the energetic efficiency of the technology is maximised.

https://www.gov.uk/g


overnment/uploads/sy


stem/uploads/attachm


ent_data/file/336038


/beac_report.pdf




,,,
,,

A New Study on 88 Biomass Plants



Here's a report on Climate Change and Wood Biomass I like... it's investigative and has a ring of truth about it..



STUDY: BIOMASS PLANTS MAY POLLUTE WORSE THAN COAL.

Posted by Matt Power.
Jul 15, 2014 1:10:21 PM.

New scrutiny finds that large-scale biomass burners, often sold as a "clean" or "sustainable" source of renewable energy, are actually far more polluting than their claims.

The reason, according to Mary Booth, PhD., author of Trees, Trash, and Toxics: How Biomass Energy Has Become the New Coal is that the EPA has drastically weakened regulation for biomass burners.

BOOTH'S STUDY ANALYZED 88 BIOMASS PLANTS, AND FOUND THAT HALF OF THEM USE A LOOPHOLE TO AVOID REPORTING THEIR POLLUTION AT ALL, and many that do are releasing more than twice the pollutants of fossil fuel plants of similar energy output. But instead of being held accountable, biomass plants are given special treatment in the Clean Air Act.

This makes no sense, Booth notes, because the pollutants being released by biomass are nearly identical to those produced by fossil fuels, including coal.

Every biomass plant producing 8 MW or more can contribute 100,000 tons of CO2 pollution to the enviroment, and EPA loopholes allow them to burn waste wood and other construction debris. So their overall toxic footprint can be very large.

The argument for biomass advocates has been that because they burn wood, and wood is a renewable resource that releases CO2 as it decays, they are a "greener" alternative than fossil fuels. BUT THE STUDY NOTES THAT BIOMASS BURNERS RELEASE THE CO2 MUCH MORE RAPIDLY THAN WOULD NATURALLY OCCUR, TIPPING THE BALANCE TOWARD CLIMATE CHANGE.

"The EPA needs to put people first--not the bioenergy industry," she writes, " which has an inexhaustible appetite for contaminated fuels, particularly those that generate "tipping fees" for their disposal. The EPA should ensure that it does not create a loophole for unregulated incineration and that it protects public health by ensuring that all waste burners –including those that label themselves biomass units meet the protective standards that Congress enacted for waste burning."




http://www.pfpi.net/

wp-content/uploads/2

014/04/PFPI-Biomass-

is-the-New-Coal-Apri

l-2-2014.pdf




,,,
"a ring of truth?" well that's it sorted then! Until politics and emotion are removed from these arguments (climate change both political and emotive) I would not believe even the ink it is written with.
[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: ,, The new Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) report should of tipped Helius into Bankruptcy.. Given the report confirms burning trees from overseas forests make Wood Biomass power more carbon intensive than coal-fired power stations.. http://www.bbc.com/n ews/uk-28457104 As if that wasn't bad enough... DECC has refused to subsidise one of Drax's Coal-To-Biomass conversion projects, ( fat chance Helius getting any Government help ) the High Court has told the Government to reconsider its decision, DECC intends to appeal against the High Court ruling... In addition, Drax faces another headache over EU state aid policy. The European Commission yesterday approved the majority of UK energy market reforms, but stopped short of a judgement on the early stage funding used by Drax and two other projects. http://www.standard. co.uk/business/busin ess-news/market-roun dup-drax-flounders-a s-subsidy-row-with-d ecc-rumbles-on-96261 88.html - Sorry folks for reposting the above.. Andy Locks Heath ( same again with URLs ) do you really think the BBCs Environmental Analyst Roger Harrabin is ill informed.. ? ,,,[/p][/quote],, Andy Locks whats your 2004 Industry study on samples taken from 36 trees got to do with Drax and Global Deforestation? Quote.... A total of 36 trees were harvested from across the chronosequence (six trees from each stand in the time series) and destructively sampled. - Andy Locks, as if you didn't know.. since 2004 there's been a sea change in our ( all the worlds ) Governments understanding and attitude towards Wood Biomass power. ,,[/p][/quote],, Here's the new Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) Report Too many estimated scenarios in the report for my liking, but their CONCLUSIONS are pretty sound. LIFE CYCLE IMPACTS OF BIOMASS ELECTRICITY IN 2020 Impacts and Energy Input Requirements of Using North American Woody Biomass for Electricity Generation in the UK Dr Anna L Stephenson Professor David J C MacKay FRS July 2014 CONCLUSIONS 238. The energy input requirement of biomass electricity generated from North American wood used by the UK in 2020 is likely to be in the range 0.13 to 0.96 MWh energy carrier input per MWh delivered energy, SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER THAN OTHER ELECTRICITY GENERATING TECHNOLOGIES, SUCH AS COAL, NATURAL GAS, NUCLEAR AND WIND. The Energy Input Requirement is smallest when (i) the transport distances are minimised, (ii) the moisture content of the biomass is reduced by passive drying and drying using local biomass resources as fuel, and (iii) the energetic efficiency of the technology is maximised. https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/uploads/sy stem/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/336038 /beac_report.pdf ,,,[/p][/quote],, A New Study on 88 Biomass Plants Here's a report on Climate Change and Wood Biomass I like... it's investigative and has a ring of truth about it.. STUDY: BIOMASS PLANTS MAY POLLUTE WORSE THAN COAL. Posted by Matt Power. Jul 15, 2014 1:10:21 PM. New scrutiny finds that large-scale biomass burners, often sold as a "clean" or "sustainable" source of renewable energy, are actually far more polluting than their claims. The reason, according to Mary Booth, PhD., author of Trees, Trash, and Toxics: How Biomass Energy Has Become the New Coal is that the EPA has drastically weakened regulation for biomass burners. BOOTH'S STUDY ANALYZED 88 BIOMASS PLANTS, AND FOUND THAT HALF OF THEM USE A LOOPHOLE TO AVOID REPORTING THEIR POLLUTION AT ALL, and many that do are releasing more than twice the pollutants of fossil fuel plants of similar energy output. But instead of being held accountable, biomass plants are given special treatment in the Clean Air Act. This makes no sense, Booth notes, because the pollutants being released by biomass are nearly identical to those produced by fossil fuels, including coal. Every biomass plant producing 8 MW or more can contribute 100,000 tons of CO2 pollution to the enviroment, and EPA loopholes allow them to burn waste wood and other construction debris. So their overall toxic footprint can be very large. The argument for biomass advocates has been that because they burn wood, and wood is a renewable resource that releases CO2 as it decays, they are a "greener" alternative than fossil fuels. BUT THE STUDY NOTES THAT BIOMASS BURNERS RELEASE THE CO2 MUCH MORE RAPIDLY THAN WOULD NATURALLY OCCUR, TIPPING THE BALANCE TOWARD CLIMATE CHANGE. "The EPA needs to put people first--not the bioenergy industry," she writes, " which has an inexhaustible appetite for contaminated fuels, particularly those that generate "tipping fees" for their disposal. The EPA should ensure that it does not create a loophole for unregulated incineration and that it protects public health by ensuring that all waste burners –including those that label themselves biomass units meet the protective standards that Congress enacted for waste burning." http://www.pfpi.net/ wp-content/uploads/2 014/04/PFPI-Biomass- is-the-New-Coal-Apri l-2-2014.pdf ,,,[/p][/quote]"a ring of truth?" well that's it sorted then! Until politics and emotion are removed from these arguments (climate change both political and emotive) I would not believe even the ink it is written with. forest hump
  • Score: -9

10:39am Tue 29 Jul 14

The Wickham Man says...

It seems to me Dan that if we don't make use of the "free" biomass that exists anyway that ALH is referring to we are just throwing away an opportunity. From what I read all this stuff just lays around and rots, so why not use it to make electricity? Your approach seems to be that if we don't use it then it ceases to exist, but if we do use it then we can burn a little less coal and import a little less gas and we create a few jobs to boot. . That has to be good for Britain. The truth is I don;t think anyone would be against biomass electricity if it wasn't for the possibility of building a power station in the docks. The two issues have become totally confused.
It seems to me Dan that if we don't make use of the "free" biomass that exists anyway that ALH is referring to we are just throwing away an opportunity. From what I read all this stuff just lays around and rots, so why not use it to make electricity? Your approach seems to be that if we don't use it then it ceases to exist, but if we do use it then we can burn a little less coal and import a little less gas and we create a few jobs to boot. . That has to be good for Britain. The truth is I don;t think anyone would be against biomass electricity if it wasn't for the possibility of building a power station in the docks. The two issues have become totally confused. The Wickham Man
  • Score: -10

11:06am Tue 29 Jul 14

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
Cyber__Fug wrote:
southy wrote:
Mr E wrote:
Can somebody please come up with a way of generating Electricity that NOBODY will object to before we run out.
I have done in the pass.
Really ? Come on then lets hear it !!.... now this should be entertaining.
What do we get loads off in this country, if you can answer that then your half way there
.. southy, you have been told many times that your rather stupid idea for 'a few hundred' water wheels will not produce the energy you say they will.
Andy from Locks Heath went into your calculations in considerable depth - they don't stack up by several orders of magnitude.
No its not stupid its more stupid not concider it, The figures that Andy uses is for centrifugal type wheels that needs drop to operate fully, they are not figures for wheels that uses the out side edge these figures are distances.
Like Andy figures do not explane why water mills works because the figures that Andy uses say they do not work, but hey we had these working for 100's of years and it kick started the Industral revolution off as the first factory was a Flax loom factory and its power came from the water wheel using the out side edge and to know it only had 3 inch drop.
There is also an added anvantage of having loads of power stations if we go to war its harder to knock power out.

The water wheel that uses the out side edge do not rely on drop of a river, its relys on disance the bends in the river and making a cut way for the water to run, water will try and take the shourt cut and this is how water mills work
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cyber__Fug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr E[/bold] wrote: Can somebody please come up with a way of generating Electricity that NOBODY will object to before we run out.[/p][/quote]I have done in the pass.[/p][/quote]Really ? Come on then lets hear it !!.... now this should be entertaining.[/p][/quote]What do we get loads off in this country, if you can answer that then your half way there[/p][/quote].. southy, you have been told many times that your rather stupid idea for 'a few hundred' water wheels will not produce the energy you say they will. Andy from Locks Heath went into your calculations in considerable depth - they don't stack up by several orders of magnitude.[/p][/quote]No its not stupid its more stupid not concider it, The figures that Andy uses is for centrifugal type wheels that needs drop to operate fully, they are not figures for wheels that uses the out side edge these figures are distances. Like Andy figures do not explane why water mills works because the figures that Andy uses say they do not work, but hey we had these working for 100's of years and it kick started the Industral revolution off as the first factory was a Flax loom factory and its power came from the water wheel using the out side edge and to know it only had 3 inch drop. There is also an added anvantage of having loads of power stations if we go to war its harder to knock power out. The water wheel that uses the out side edge do not rely on drop of a river, its relys on disance the bends in the river and making a cut way for the water to run, water will try and take the shourt cut and this is how water mills work southy
  • Score: 0

12:10pm Tue 29 Jul 14

southy says...

forest hump wrote:
AFrustratedCyclist wrote:
Mr E wrote:
Can somebody please come up with a way of generating Electricity that NOBODY will object to before we run out.
Never going to happen!

Everybody just wants cheap and NIMBY! You will never please everybody!
personally I'm for Biomass, Solar and Wind even Nuclear as long as they're well placed. Existing industrial sites\ports do fit in my book. Where else should we put it, middle of a national park?

Not keen on Fracking because of the pollution\water issues and general distrust of the large companies running them in not cutting corners to maximise profit and causing pollution which is possibly avoidable.

No biomass isn't perfect but if we don't start doing something our energy bills are just going to go up and up quicker and quicker! We as a country need to diversify and get away from Coal and Gas which we buy in.
Fracking is safe and has been used for over 50 years in the U.S. It is a fully developed technique so it is not revolutionary. Communities locally and nationally have benefitted from both local investment and jobs. You lot have been poisoned by the filth written against it. Trouble is, you want to keep your nice homes warm in the winter but refuse to allow the professionals develop areas safely. People need to open their eyes and ignore all of the compounded lies being bandied around. Unfortunately, there are people who are just simply against any kind of development. BANANAS. I sincerely hope they are made to eat their own words when the supply runs dry.
Do you close your eyes when the problems of fracking are told, just take a real look what is happening in America where they are fracking, Fracking is not safe they can not control how the rocks cracks, water tables in the USA are containated large areas now have to buy water for drinking, cooking and washing, Farms that have there own wells the water coming out of the tap will catch alight if you put a match to it, others the water comes out muddy and oilly.
Look at the profits that the bottle water industary are making and how a big increase in profits
[quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AFrustratedCyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr E[/bold] wrote: Can somebody please come up with a way of generating Electricity that NOBODY will object to before we run out.[/p][/quote]Never going to happen! Everybody just wants cheap and NIMBY! You will never please everybody! personally I'm for Biomass, Solar and Wind even Nuclear as long as they're well placed. Existing industrial sites\ports do fit in my book. Where else should we put it, middle of a national park? Not keen on Fracking because of the pollution\water issues and general distrust of the large companies running them in not cutting corners to maximise profit and causing pollution which is possibly avoidable. No biomass isn't perfect but if we don't start doing something our energy bills are just going to go up and up quicker and quicker! We as a country need to diversify and get away from Coal and Gas which we buy in.[/p][/quote]Fracking is safe and has been used for over 50 years in the U.S. It is a fully developed technique so it is not revolutionary. Communities locally and nationally have benefitted from both local investment and jobs. You lot have been poisoned by the filth written against it. Trouble is, you want to keep your nice homes warm in the winter but refuse to allow the professionals develop areas safely. People need to open their eyes and ignore all of the compounded lies being bandied around. Unfortunately, there are people who are just simply against any kind of development. BANANAS. I sincerely hope they are made to eat their own words when the supply runs dry.[/p][/quote]Do you close your eyes when the problems of fracking are told, just take a real look what is happening in America where they are fracking, Fracking is not safe they can not control how the rocks cracks, water tables in the USA are containated large areas now have to buy water for drinking, cooking and washing, Farms that have there own wells the water coming out of the tap will catch alight if you put a match to it, others the water comes out muddy and oilly. Look at the profits that the bottle water industary are making and how a big increase in profits southy
  • Score: 1

3:13pm Tue 29 Jul 14

loosehead says...

forest hump wrote:
loosehead wrote:
wilson castaway wrote:
Our house is powered by a biomass burner.Our fuel bill per month is around ten pound.Twenty in winter if you need the heating on.This is a large 3 bedroom house.When I lived in a 2 bed flat I was paying up to 15 pound a week for gas.That was 3 years ago so image how much I save now.
I have Solar panels I pay £30 electric & £20 Gas I receive about £95-£150 rebate on each one every 6 months at this moment I'm paying £12 gas £15 electric a month yet people say they don't produce enough energy?
If I had a detached house in a non smoke free zone I'd go for a wood burner under ground pipes plus solar panels for electric & hot water.
Now why aren't the protestors asking what happened to the Tory plan to pipe hot water from the incinerator to the Itchen side of the city the plan Labour promised to continue with?
What happened to the Geothermal plant to give heating to the Test side of the city? it was stopped by environmentalists saying it wasn't green?
They produce energy but not consistently. For a technical detailed explanation, Andy from Locks Heath will provide. In your own little world, the return might please. Open your eyes to the big picture and you would suffer many power cuts relying on solar and wind.
what about the trials of air batteries/motors? which can be used to store energy from Solar as well as wind devices?
It turns it into liquid air to release it later as air turning a generator producing energy.
[quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]wilson castaway[/bold] wrote: Our house is powered by a biomass burner.Our fuel bill per month is around ten pound.Twenty in winter if you need the heating on.This is a large 3 bedroom house.When I lived in a 2 bed flat I was paying up to 15 pound a week for gas.That was 3 years ago so image how much I save now.[/p][/quote]I have Solar panels I pay £30 electric & £20 Gas I receive about £95-£150 rebate on each one every 6 months at this moment I'm paying £12 gas £15 electric a month yet people say they don't produce enough energy? If I had a detached house in a non smoke free zone I'd go for a wood burner under ground pipes plus solar panels for electric & hot water. Now why aren't the protestors asking what happened to the Tory plan to pipe hot water from the incinerator to the Itchen side of the city the plan Labour promised to continue with? What happened to the Geothermal plant to give heating to the Test side of the city? it was stopped by environmentalists saying it wasn't green?[/p][/quote]They produce energy but not consistently. For a technical detailed explanation, Andy from Locks Heath will provide. In your own little world, the return might please. Open your eyes to the big picture and you would suffer many power cuts relying on solar and wind.[/p][/quote]what about the trials of air batteries/motors? which can be used to store energy from Solar as well as wind devices? It turns it into liquid air to release it later as air turning a generator producing energy. loosehead
  • Score: 1

3:22pm Tue 29 Jul 14

loosehead says...

Southy how many old disused coal pits have collapsed? how many deaths from slag heap slips have there been?
How much pollutants were put into the air & ground water from coal pits & coal slags?
With fracking we're burning up a greenhouse gas that will eventually escaped into the atmosphere. there are measures that can be taken to stop ground water pollution so why the complaints against it?
As for Bio Mass if you have definite proof it's from renewable forests what's the problem with it?
Personally I'd like a law where every house/block of flats had to have Solar Panels so cutting our carbon foot print but I can't see that happening.
Southy how many old disused coal pits have collapsed? how many deaths from slag heap slips have there been? How much pollutants were put into the air & ground water from coal pits & coal slags? With fracking we're burning up a greenhouse gas that will eventually escaped into the atmosphere. there are measures that can be taken to stop ground water pollution so why the complaints against it? As for Bio Mass if you have definite proof it's from renewable forests what's the problem with it? Personally I'd like a law where every house/block of flats had to have Solar Panels so cutting our carbon foot print but I can't see that happening. loosehead
  • Score: -3

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