New designs for biomass plant revealed (From Daily Echo)

Torchie1 wrote:
Analysts are projecting a rise of 28% in energy prices this winter as Japan buys in LNG from the middle east to make up the power shortfall after closing down nuclear reactors following the tsunami. All the disparate groups of pro/anti wind-farms, bio-mass, water power, nuclear etc are so busy arguing their own cases that it will be a catastrophic event like the lights going out before they realise their own little agenda has to be sacrificed. Someone, somewhere has to take the hit before everyone, everywhere suffers.

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
There is no 'agenda' here - no Green groups support biomass on this scale, something which it's supporters choose to ignore.

Yes, the designs are more attractive - but just because something looks prettier it doesn't make it right!

Biomass on this huge scale, isn't sustainable in the long-term - as someone's already said the only people to benefit out of this are the shareholders.

What a bloody shame that Helius again have not shared this with residents first but we have to read about it in the local newspapers! :/ another own goal that won't win people over.

It does state this time that electricity will be generated for local homes, we would need to know what the 'cost' would be to the environment, i.e. how many trees have to be sacrificed to generate that amout of electricity. Even if it's cheaper and helps out it's immediate neighbours it doesn't solve the issues around sustainability and what will they be burning in there in a few years time when trees become scarce. If these plants are put into more places how many trees and environments will that destroy?

also what is the pollution factor, something we were all greatly concerned about.

I will wait until we have more information and these questions have been answered before giving final verdict in fairness but I don't see how they will get round that burning trees and destroying environments (in other countries as they've already admitted that the wood would have to be imported) will be addressed........

This needs much more thought before governments go chucking money at these projects, people make a quick buck and then it closes a few years down the line.

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
There is no 'agenda' here - no Green groups support biomass on this scale, something which it's supporters choose to ignore.

Yes, the designs are more attractive - but just because something looks prettier it doesn't make it right!

Biomass on this huge scale, isn't sustainable in the long-term - as someone's already said the only people to benefit out of this are the shareholders.

What a bloody shame that Helius again have not shared this with residents first but we have to read about it in the local newspapers! :/ another own goal that won't win people over.

It does state this time that electricity will be generated for local homes, we would need to know what the 'cost' would be to the environment, i.e. how many trees have to be sacrificed to generate that amout of electricity. Even if it's cheaper and helps out it's immediate neighbours it doesn't solve the issues around sustainability and what will they be burning in there in a few years time when trees become scarce. If these plants are put into more places how many trees and environments will that destroy?

also what is the pollution factor, something we were all greatly concerned about.

I will wait until we have more information and these questions have been answered before giving final verdict in fairness but I don't see how they will get round that burning trees and destroying environments (in other countries as they've already admitted that the wood would have to be imported) will be addressed........

This needs much more thought before governments go chucking money at these projects, people make a quick buck and then it closes a few years down the line.

MGRA wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
There is no 'agenda' here - no Green groups support biomass on this scale, something which it's supporters choose to ignore.

Yes, the designs are more attractive - but just because something looks prettier it doesn't make it right!

Biomass on this huge scale, isn't sustainable in the long-term - as someone's already said the only people to benefit out of this are the shareholders.

What a bloody shame that Helius again have not shared this with residents first but we have to read about it in the local newspapers! :/ another own goal that won't win people over.

It does state this time that electricity will be generated for local homes, we would need to know what the 'cost' would be to the environment, i.e. how many trees have to be sacrificed to generate that amout of electricity. Even if it's cheaper and helps out it's immediate neighbours it doesn't solve the issues around sustainability and what will they be burning in there in a few years time when trees become scarce. If these plants are put into more places how many trees and environments will that destroy?

also what is the pollution factor, something we were all greatly concerned about.

I will wait until we have more information and these questions have been answered before giving final verdict in fairness but I don't see how they will get round that burning trees and destroying environments (in other countries as they've already admitted that the wood would have to be imported) will be addressed........

This needs much more thought before governments go chucking money at these projects, people make a quick buck and then it closes a few years down the line.

biomass in ONLY sustainable on this scale.... and obviously they only use material that is from a sustainable source. Also, they can use material from grasslands and cereal type sources which when they grow pull much more co2 out of the air... so these can be a win-win-win ...

MGRA wrote:

Torchie1 wrote: Analysts are projecting a rise of 28% in energy prices this winter as Japan buys in LNG from the middle east to make up the power shortfall after closing down nuclear reactors following the tsunami. All the disparate groups of pro/anti wind-farms, bio-mass, water power, nuclear etc are so busy arguing their own cases that it will be a catastrophic event like the lights going out before they realise their own little agenda has to be sacrificed. Someone, somewhere has to take the hit before everyone, everywhere suffers.

spot on. We as a nation are strategically weak with regards our energy. We should be building power stations like there is no tomorrow, we need a basket of energy creation, we need nuclear, bio-mass, wind, solar, coal, gas, oil, wave, tide generation schemes. We should also consider national investments in african solar schemes ( particularly libya and eqypt ) to then sell that electricity to southern Europe... of course we are doing none of this fast enough...

sass wrote:

MGRA wrote:

Torchie1 wrote: Analysts are projecting a rise of 28% in energy prices this winter as Japan buys in LNG from the middle east to make up the power shortfall after closing down nuclear reactors following the tsunami. All the disparate groups of pro/anti wind-farms, bio-mass, water power, nuclear etc are so busy arguing their own cases that it will be a catastrophic event like the lights going out before they realise their own little agenda has to be sacrificed. Someone, somewhere has to take the hit before everyone, everywhere suffers.

spot on. We as a nation are strategically weak with regards our energy. We should be building power stations like there is no tomorrow, we need a basket of energy creation, we need nuclear, bio-mass, wind, solar, coal, gas, oil, wave, tide generation schemes. We should also consider national investments in african solar schemes ( particularly libya and eqypt ) to then sell that electricity to southern Europe... of course we are doing none of this fast enough...

Calm down! Worldwide crude oil reserves will last for hundreds of years. Exorbitant government taxation of petrol is designed to deter personal use of cars on this overcrowded island of ours.

bigfella777 wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
There is no 'agenda' here - no Green groups support biomass on this scale, something which it's supporters choose to ignore.

Yes, the designs are more attractive - but just because something looks prettier it doesn't make it right!

Biomass on this huge scale, isn't sustainable in the long-term - as someone's already said the only people to benefit out of this are the shareholders.

What a bloody shame that Helius again have not shared this with residents first but we have to read about it in the local newspapers! :/ another own goal that won't win people over.

It does state this time that electricity will be generated for local homes, we would need to know what the 'cost' would be to the environment, i.e. how many trees have to be sacrificed to generate that amout of electricity. Even if it's cheaper and helps out it's immediate neighbours it doesn't solve the issues around sustainability and what will they be burning in there in a few years time when trees become scarce. If these plants are put into more places how many trees and environments will that destroy?

also what is the pollution factor, something we were all greatly concerned about.

I will wait until we have more information and these questions have been answered before giving final verdict in fairness but I don't see how they will get round that burning trees and destroying environments (in other countries as they've already admitted that the wood would have to be imported) will be addressed........

This needs much more thought before governments go chucking money at these projects, people make a quick buck and then it closes a few years down the line.

You talk like you are trying to protect some great wilderness area of outstanding natural beauty and the animals and plants that inhabit it.
The truth is we are talking about the docks,the industrial heart of our city and a little shanty town full of chavs called Freemantle.
Don't pretend to be some sort of environmental evangelist when people have got the intelligence to see straight through your invalid points.
You shouldn't have moved there in the first place,tough luck love.

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

bigfella777 wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote: There is no 'agenda' here - no Green groups support biomass on this scale, something which it's supporters choose to ignore. Yes, the designs are more attractive - but just because something looks prettier it doesn't make it right! Biomass on this huge scale, isn't sustainable in the long-term - as someone's already said the only people to benefit out of this are the shareholders. What a bloody shame that Helius again have not shared this with residents first but we have to read about it in the local newspapers! :/ another own goal that won't win people over. It does state this time that electricity will be generated for local homes, we would need to know what the 'cost' would be to the environment, i.e. how many trees have to be sacrificed to generate that amout of electricity. Even if it's cheaper and helps out it's immediate neighbours it doesn't solve the issues around sustainability and what will they be burning in there in a few years time when trees become scarce. If these plants are put into more places how many trees and environments will that destroy? also what is the pollution factor, something we were all greatly concerned about. I will wait until we have more information and these questions have been answered before giving final verdict in fairness but I don't see how they will get round that burning trees and destroying environments (in other countries as they've already admitted that the wood would have to be imported) will be addressed........ This needs much more thought before governments go chucking money at these projects, people make a quick buck and then it closes a few years down the line.

You talk like you are trying to protect some great wilderness area of outstanding natural beauty and the animals and plants that inhabit it. The truth is we are talking about the docks,the industrial heart of our city and a little shanty town full of chavs called Freemantle. Don't pretend to be some sort of environmental evangelist when people have got the intelligence to see straight through your invalid points. You shouldn't have moved there in the first place,tough luck love.

Ahhh right, so you know me do you?? you know what my house looks like, my background, thoughts, feelings, what my views are on green issues just through a few lines in a newspaper column. I'm glad I live here, I like it and thank god I'm not your next door neighbour lol. Hmmmm - is your alter-ego Mystic Meg? isn't it strange how you and other posters on here can never 'discuss' only post silly diatribe to try and undermine those you happen to disagree with but you never put forward any reasoned answer. You only show yourself up by doing so, so be my guest it speaks volumes to most sensible people. Fieldbean yes I know which is why I want to reserve judgement until I see their full proposals. Part of the city council's objectionns last time was that it provided no power to local homes. I suspect this is a ruse to try and get round that but can't comment until we've had the proper consultation and information.

pushamara wrote:
Just ignore fatfella 777, he is probably a spotty teenager sat on mummy's computer insulting people as he doesn't have the balls to say things to people's face. He sits tapping insults on his computer calling people chavs for where they live. Only 1 person behaving like a Chav here........

sottondave wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

bigfella777 wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote: There is no 'agenda' here - no Green groups support biomass on this scale, something which it's supporters choose to ignore. Yes, the designs are more attractive - but just because something looks prettier it doesn't make it right! Biomass on this huge scale, isn't sustainable in the long-term - as someone's already said the only people to benefit out of this are the shareholders. What a bloody shame that Helius again have not shared this with residents first but we have to read about it in the local newspapers! :/ another own goal that won't win people over. It does state this time that electricity will be generated for local homes, we would need to know what the 'cost' would be to the environment, i.e. how many trees have to be sacrificed to generate that amout of electricity. Even if it's cheaper and helps out it's immediate neighbours it doesn't solve the issues around sustainability and what will they be burning in there in a few years time when trees become scarce. If these plants are put into more places how many trees and environments will that destroy? also what is the pollution factor, something we were all greatly concerned about. I will wait until we have more information and these questions have been answered before giving final verdict in fairness but I don't see how they will get round that burning trees and destroying environments (in other countries as they've already admitted that the wood would have to be imported) will be addressed........ This needs much more thought before governments go chucking money at these projects, people make a quick buck and then it closes a few years down the line.

You talk like you are trying to protect some great wilderness area of outstanding natural beauty and the animals and plants that inhabit it. The truth is we are talking about the docks,the industrial heart of our city and a little shanty town full of chavs called Freemantle. Don't pretend to be some sort of environmental evangelist when people have got the intelligence to see straight through your invalid points. You shouldn't have moved there in the first place,tough luck love.

Ahhh right, so you know me do you?? you know what my house looks like, my background, thoughts, feelings, what my views are on green issues just through a few lines in a newspaper column. I'm glad I live here, I like it and thank god I'm not your next door neighbour lol. Hmmmm - is your alter-ego Mystic Meg? isn't it strange how you and other posters on here can never 'discuss' only post silly diatribe to try and undermine those you happen to disagree with but you never put forward any reasoned answer. You only show yourself up by doing so, so be my guest it speaks volumes to most sensible people. Fieldbean yes I know which is why I want to reserve judgement until I see their full proposals. Part of the city council's objectionns last time was that it provided no power to local homes. I suspect this is a ruse to try and get round that but can't comment until we've had the proper consultation and information.

freemantlegirl2
You are so right about the posts on the Daily Echo website. What should be an interesting forum where we can discuss local issues is unfortunately dominated by a small number of people whose way of dealing with any disagreement is a diatribe of abuse and name calling.
I am one of the Labour councillors in Millbrook and would like to discuss with my constituents my oppostition to the Biomass project but this is the wrong forum to have that debate. I don't think I will use the Echo website again as it is a complete waste of time.
Remember empty heads make most noise.

MGRA wrote:

pushamara wrote: Just ignore fatfella 777, he is probably a spotty teenager sat on mummy's computer insulting people as he doesn't have the balls to say things to people's face. He sits tapping insults on his computer calling people chavs for where they live. Only 1 person behaving like a Chav here........

ooooh you seem very bigotted against teenagers with acne !! How unpleasant !! , insulting even !! just typical of this great forum, hypocrytical brilliance within a single sentence... regarding chavs, there are loads of sink areas of southampton and conurbation where there are more than average everlast-clad jaws-on-legs-staffy owners making other peoples life a misery... but I do not really see what that has to do with the biomass plant.

MGRA wrote:

sass wrote:

MGRA wrote:

Torchie1 wrote: Analysts are projecting a rise of 28% in energy prices this winter as Japan buys in LNG from the middle east to make up the power shortfall after closing down nuclear reactors following the tsunami. All the disparate groups of pro/anti wind-farms, bio-mass, water power, nuclear etc are so busy arguing their own cases that it will be a catastrophic event like the lights going out before they realise their own little agenda has to be sacrificed. Someone, somewhere has to take the hit before everyone, everywhere suffers.

spot on. We as a nation are strategically weak with regards our energy. We should be building power stations like there is no tomorrow, we need a basket of energy creation, we need nuclear, bio-mass, wind, solar, coal, gas, oil, wave, tide generation schemes. We should also consider national investments in african solar schemes ( particularly libya and eqypt ) to then sell that electricity to southern Europe... of course we are doing none of this fast enough...

Calm down! Worldwide crude oil reserves will last for hundreds of years. Exorbitant government taxation of petrol is designed to deter personal use of cars on this overcrowded island of ours.

except we are not sitting on any newly discovered crude reserves... we are depending on other nations , many potentially hostile in the future for our energy. We need to get self sufficient asap. Energy prices will double over the next 4-5 years. its a certainty.

freefinker wrote:

MGRA wrote:

sass wrote:

MGRA wrote:

Torchie1 wrote: Analysts are projecting a rise of 28% in energy prices this winter as Japan buys in LNG from the middle east to make up the power shortfall after closing down nuclear reactors following the tsunami. All the disparate groups of pro/anti wind-farms, bio-mass, water power, nuclear etc are so busy arguing their own cases that it will be a catastrophic event like the lights going out before they realise their own little agenda has to be sacrificed. Someone, somewhere has to take the hit before everyone, everywhere suffers.

spot on. We as a nation are strategically weak with regards our energy. We should be building power stations like there is no tomorrow, we need a basket of energy creation, we need nuclear, bio-mass, wind, solar, coal, gas, oil, wave, tide generation schemes. We should also consider national investments in african solar schemes ( particularly libya and eqypt ) to then sell that electricity to southern Europe... of course we are doing none of this fast enough...

Calm down! Worldwide crude oil reserves will last for hundreds of years. Exorbitant government taxation of petrol is designed to deter personal use of cars on this overcrowded island of ours.

except we are not sitting on any newly discovered crude reserves... we are depending on other nations , many potentially hostile in the future for our energy. We need to get self sufficient asap. Energy prices will double over the next 4-5 years. its a certainty.

.. and where do you think the the wood chips for this plant are going to come from?

I actually agree 'we need to get self sufficient asap' but this proposal will take us further away from this goal.

southy wrote:
And I still say its in the wrong place and should be located down by Fawley

pushamara wrote:

MGRA wrote:

pushamara wrote: Just ignore fatfella 777, he is probably a spotty teenager sat on mummy's computer insulting people as he doesn't have the balls to say things to people's face. He sits tapping insults on his computer calling people chavs for where they live. Only 1 person behaving like a Chav here........

ooooh you seem very bigotted against teenagers with acne !! How unpleasant !! , insulting even !! just typical of this great forum, hypocrytical brilliance within a single sentence... regarding chavs, there are loads of sink areas of southampton and conurbation where there are more than average everlast-clad jaws-on-legs-staffy owners making other peoples life a misery... but I do not really see what that has to do with the biomass plant.

So obviously agree with fatfella slagging off a girl he has never met?

southy wrote:
And I still say its in the wrong place and should be located down by Fawley

sottondave wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

bigfella777 wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote: There is no 'agenda' here - no Green groups support biomass on this scale, something which it's supporters choose to ignore. Yes, the designs are more attractive - but just because something looks prettier it doesn't make it right! Biomass on this huge scale, isn't sustainable in the long-term - as someone's already said the only people to benefit out of this are the shareholders. What a bloody shame that Helius again have not shared this with residents first but we have to read about it in the local newspapers! :/ another own goal that won't win people over. It does state this time that electricity will be generated for local homes, we would need to know what the 'cost' would be to the environment, i.e. how many trees have to be sacrificed to generate that amout of electricity. Even if it's cheaper and helps out it's immediate neighbours it doesn't solve the issues around sustainability and what will they be burning in there in a few years time when trees become scarce. If these plants are put into more places how many trees and environments will that destroy? also what is the pollution factor, something we were all greatly concerned about. I will wait until we have more information and these questions have been answered before giving final verdict in fairness but I don't see how they will get round that burning trees and destroying environments (in other countries as they've already admitted that the wood would have to be imported) will be addressed........ This needs much more thought before governments go chucking money at these projects, people make a quick buck and then it closes a few years down the line.

You talk like you are trying to protect some great wilderness area of outstanding natural beauty and the animals and plants that inhabit it. The truth is we are talking about the docks,the industrial heart of our city and a little shanty town full of chavs called Freemantle. Don't pretend to be some sort of environmental evangelist when people have got the intelligence to see straight through your invalid points. You shouldn't have moved there in the first place,tough luck love.

Ahhh right, so you know me do you?? you know what my house looks like, my background, thoughts, feelings, what my views are on green issues just through a few lines in a newspaper column. I'm glad I live here, I like it and thank god I'm not your next door neighbour lol. Hmmmm - is your alter-ego Mystic Meg? isn't it strange how you and other posters on here can never 'discuss' only post silly diatribe to try and undermine those you happen to disagree with but you never put forward any reasoned answer. You only show yourself up by doing so, so be my guest it speaks volumes to most sensible people. Fieldbean yes I know which is why I want to reserve judgement until I see their full proposals. Part of the city council's objectionns last time was that it provided no power to local homes. I suspect this is a ruse to try and get round that but can't comment until we've had the proper consultation and information.

freemantlegirl2 You are so right about the posts on the Daily Echo website. What should be an interesting forum where we can discuss local issues is unfortunately dominated by a small number of people whose way of dealing with any disagreement is a diatribe of abuse and name calling. I am one of the Labour councillors in Millbrook and would like to discuss with my constituents my oppostition to the Biomass project but this is the wrong forum to have that debate. I don't think I will use the Echo website again as it is a complete waste of time. Remember empty heads make most noise.

southy wrote:
So Councillor Thorpe is sottondave

Bagamn wrote:
Just because someone gets an idea how to make money, why should everyone fall down and support them. We already have a huge power station at Fawley that is doing the job, so why do we need this one within the city. The only people to gain is Helius and their shareholders. Why can't they take No for an answer.

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
There is no 'agenda' here - no Green groups support biomass on this scale, something which it's supporters choose to ignore. Yes, the designs are more attractive - but just because something looks prettier it doesn't make it right! Biomass on this huge scale, isn't sustainable in the long-term - as someone's already said the only people to benefit out of this are the shareholders. What a bloody shame that Helius again have not shared this with residents first but we have to read about it in the local newspapers! :/ another own goal that won't win people over. It does state this time that electricity will be generated for local homes, we would need to know what the 'cost' would be to the environment, i.e. how many trees have to be sacrificed to generate that amout of electricity. Even if it's cheaper and helps out it's immediate neighbours it doesn't solve the issues around sustainability and what will they be burning in there in a few years time when trees become scarce. If these plants are put into more places how many trees and environments will that destroy? also what is the pollution factor, something we were all greatly concerned about. I will wait until we have more information and these questions have been answered before giving final verdict in fairness but I don't see how they will get round that burning trees and destroying environments (in other countries as they've already admitted that the wood would have to be imported) will be addressed........ This needs much more thought before governments go chucking money at these projects, people make a quick buck and then it closes a few years down the line.

sottondave wrote:

southy wrote:
So Councillor Thorpe is sottondave

No

sottondave wrote:

southy wrote:
So Councillor Thorpe is sottondave

No

Stillness wrote:

southy wrote:
And I still say its in the wrong place and should be located down by Fawley

This is a real life story. What do your thoughts have to do with it? And it's not correct to begin a sentence with "And". I know I just did but I have taken a leaf from your book so what I say and what I do are two totally different things.

The Wickham Man wrote:

Bagamn wrote:
Just because someone gets an idea how to make money, why should everyone fall down and support them. We already have a huge power station at Fawley that is doing the job, so why do we need this one within the city. The only people to gain is Helius and their shareholders. Why can't they take No for an answer.

Irrlevant and innacurate. Fawley very rarely generates power these days - its main function is engineering training. It is cold for 95% of the time and perhaps once a month fires up a single boiler. Power generation location is decided by economic technical and geographic considerations, not some sort of strange quota basis

phil maccavity wrote:
So how is the Biomass going to come ashore at Fawley?
By pipeline?

phil maccavity wrote:
So how is the Biomass going to come ashore at Fawley?
By pipeline?

Sir Ad E Noid wrote:

phil maccavity wrote:
So how is the Biomass going to come ashore at Fawley?
By pipeline?

Fawley Power Station has a dock capable of taking small bulk carriers.

southy wrote:

sottondave wrote:

southy wrote:
So Councillor Thorpe is sottondave

No

Then you must be the newly elected lady Councillor Georgina then, the other Councillor is a Tory

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

bigfella777 wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
There is no 'agenda' here - no Green groups support biomass on this scale, something which it's supporters choose to ignore.

Yes, the designs are more attractive - but just because something looks prettier it doesn't make it right!

Biomass on this huge scale, isn't sustainable in the long-term - as someone's already said the only people to benefit out of this are the shareholders.

What a bloody shame that Helius again have not shared this with residents first but we have to read about it in the local newspapers! :/ another own goal that won't win people over.

It does state this time that electricity will be generated for local homes, we would need to know what the 'cost' would be to the environment, i.e. how many trees have to be sacrificed to generate that amout of electricity. Even if it's cheaper and helps out it's immediate neighbours it doesn't solve the issues around sustainability and what will they be burning in there in a few years time when trees become scarce. If these plants are put into more places how many trees and environments will that destroy?

also what is the pollution factor, something we were all greatly concerned about.

I will wait until we have more information and these questions have been answered before giving final verdict in fairness but I don't see how they will get round that burning trees and destroying environments (in other countries as they've already admitted that the wood would have to be imported) will be addressed........

This needs much more thought before governments go chucking money at these projects, people make a quick buck and then it closes a few years down the line.

You talk like you are trying to protect some great wilderness area of outstanding natural beauty and the animals and plants that inhabit it.
The truth is we are talking about the docks,the industrial heart of our city and a little shanty town full of chavs called Freemantle.
Don't pretend to be some sort of environmental evangelist when people have got the intelligence to see straight through your invalid points.
You shouldn't have moved there in the first place,tough luck love.

Ahhh right, so you know me do you?? you know what my house looks like, my background, thoughts, feelings, what my views are on green issues just through a few lines in a newspaper column. I'm glad I live here, I like it and thank god I'm not your next door neighbour lol.

Hmmmm - is your alter-ego Mystic Meg?

isn't it strange how you and other posters on here can never 'discuss' only post silly diatribe to try and undermine those you happen to disagree with but you never put forward any reasoned answer. You only show yourself up by doing so, so be my guest it speaks volumes to most sensible people.

Fieldbean yes I know which is why I want to reserve judgement until I see their full proposals. Part of the city council's objectionns last time was that it provided no power to local homes. I suspect this is a ruse to try and get round that but can't comment until we've had the proper consultation and information.

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

bigfella777 wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
There is no 'agenda' here - no Green groups support biomass on this scale, something which it's supporters choose to ignore.

Yes, the designs are more attractive - but just because something looks prettier it doesn't make it right!

Biomass on this huge scale, isn't sustainable in the long-term - as someone's already said the only people to benefit out of this are the shareholders.

What a bloody shame that Helius again have not shared this with residents first but we have to read about it in the local newspapers! :/ another own goal that won't win people over.

It does state this time that electricity will be generated for local homes, we would need to know what the 'cost' would be to the environment, i.e. how many trees have to be sacrificed to generate that amout of electricity. Even if it's cheaper and helps out it's immediate neighbours it doesn't solve the issues around sustainability and what will they be burning in there in a few years time when trees become scarce. If these plants are put into more places how many trees and environments will that destroy?

also what is the pollution factor, something we were all greatly concerned about.

I will wait until we have more information and these questions have been answered before giving final verdict in fairness but I don't see how they will get round that burning trees and destroying environments (in other countries as they've already admitted that the wood would have to be imported) will be addressed........

This needs much more thought before governments go chucking money at these projects, people make a quick buck and then it closes a few years down the line.

You talk like you are trying to protect some great wilderness area of outstanding natural beauty and the animals and plants that inhabit it.
The truth is we are talking about the docks,the industrial heart of our city and a little shanty town full of chavs called Freemantle.
Don't pretend to be some sort of environmental evangelist when people have got the intelligence to see straight through your invalid points.
You shouldn't have moved there in the first place,tough luck love.

Ahhh right, so you know me do you?? you know what my house looks like, my background, thoughts, feelings, what my views are on green issues just through a few lines in a newspaper column. I'm glad I live here, I like it and thank god I'm not your next door neighbour lol.

Hmmmm - is your alter-ego Mystic Meg?

isn't it strange how you and other posters on here can never 'discuss' only post silly diatribe to try and undermine those you happen to disagree with but you never put forward any reasoned answer. You only show yourself up by doing so, so be my guest it speaks volumes to most sensible people.

Fieldbean yes I know which is why I want to reserve judgement until I see their full proposals. Part of the city council's objectionns last time was that it provided no power to local homes. I suspect this is a ruse to try and get round that but can't comment until we've had the proper consultation and information.

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:

southy wrote:
And I still say its in the wrong place and should be located down by Fawley

This is a real life story. What do your thoughts have to do with it? And it's not correct to begin a sentence with "And". I know I just did but I have taken a leaf from your book so what I say and what I do are two totally different things.

And still remains the same if it gets the go head, its location in Southampton is thr wrong place and would be better suited down by Fawley.

southy wrote:
And I still say its in the wrong place and should be located down by Fawley

freefinker wrote:

MGRA wrote:

sass wrote:

MGRA wrote:

Torchie1 wrote: Analysts are projecting a rise of 28% in energy prices this winter as Japan buys in LNG from the middle east to make up the power shortfall after closing down nuclear reactors following the tsunami. All the disparate groups of pro/anti wind-farms, bio-mass, water power, nuclear etc are so busy arguing their own cases that it will be a catastrophic event like the lights going out before they realise their own little agenda has to be sacrificed. Someone, somewhere has to take the hit before everyone, everywhere suffers.

spot on. We as a nation are strategically weak with regards our energy. We should be building power stations like there is no tomorrow, we need a basket of energy creation, we need nuclear, bio-mass, wind, solar, coal, gas, oil, wave, tide generation schemes. We should also consider national investments in african solar schemes ( particularly libya and eqypt ) to then sell that electricity to southern Europe... of course we are doing none of this fast enough...

Calm down! Worldwide crude oil reserves will last for hundreds of years. Exorbitant government taxation of petrol is designed to deter personal use of cars on this overcrowded island of ours.

except we are not sitting on any newly discovered crude reserves... we are depending on other nations , many potentially hostile in the future for our energy. We need to get self sufficient asap. Energy prices will double over the next 4-5 years. its a certainty.

.. and where do you think the the wood chips for this plant are going to come from?

I actually agree 'we need to get self sufficient asap' but this proposal will take us further away from this goal.

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

freefinker wrote:

MGRA wrote:

sass wrote:

MGRA wrote:

Torchie1 wrote: Analysts are projecting a rise of 28% in energy prices this winter as Japan buys in LNG from the middle east to make up the power shortfall after closing down nuclear reactors following the tsunami. All the disparate groups of pro/anti wind-farms, bio-mass, water power, nuclear etc are so busy arguing their own cases that it will be a catastrophic event like the lights going out before they realise their own little agenda has to be sacrificed. Someone, somewhere has to take the hit before everyone, everywhere suffers.

spot on. We as a nation are strategically weak with regards our energy. We should be building power stations like there is no tomorrow, we need a basket of energy creation, we need nuclear, bio-mass, wind, solar, coal, gas, oil, wave, tide generation schemes. We should also consider national investments in african solar schemes ( particularly libya and eqypt ) to then sell that electricity to southern Europe... of course we are doing none of this fast enough...

Calm down! Worldwide crude oil reserves will last for hundreds of years. Exorbitant government taxation of petrol is designed to deter personal use of cars on this overcrowded island of ours.

except we are not sitting on any newly discovered crude reserves... we are depending on other nations , many potentially hostile in the future for our energy. We need to get self sufficient asap. Energy prices will double over the next 4-5 years. its a certainty.

.. and where do you think the the wood chips for this plant are going to come from?

I actually agree 'we need to get self sufficient asap' but this proposal will take us further away from this goal.

Initially the timber will be imported as there is no domestic market to supply this demand. THis is why the port location is so important. However I suspect consumption will grow slowly and what supply there is can grow gradually with it. It may lag by a few years but UK-based supply will definitely grow if the demand is there.

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:

southy wrote:
And I still say its in the wrong place and should be located down by Fawley

This is a real life story. What do your thoughts have to do with it? And it's not correct to begin a sentence with "And". I know I just did but I have taken a leaf from your book so what I say and what I do are two totally different things.

And still remains the same if it gets the go head, its location in Southampton is thr wrong place and would be better suited down by Fawley.

Come on Peter - if there was already a deepwater quayside at Fawley I might agree with you but there isn't and it would cost a lot to dredge and pile a new quay for offloading timber - plus over time more feedstock might arrive from local markets by road and rail and Fawley is not as convenient for these traffics - so the logical place is where it is proposed.

Linesman wrote:

southy wrote:
And I still say its in the wrong place and should be located down by Fawley

I never thought that I would ever call you a NIMBY southy, but that is what you appear to be.

Why Fawley? Have they not got enough on their doorstep without this?

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:

southy wrote:
And I still say its in the wrong place and should be located down by Fawley

This is a real life story. What do your thoughts have to do with it? And it's not correct to begin a sentence with "And". I know I just did but I have taken a leaf from your book so what I say and what I do are two totally different things.

And still remains the same if it gets the go head, its location in Southampton is thr wrong place and would be better suited down by Fawley.

Come on Peter - if there was already a deepwater quayside at Fawley I might agree with you but there isn't and it would cost a lot to dredge and pile a new quay for offloading timber - plus over time more feedstock might arrive from local markets by road and rail and Fawley is not as convenient for these traffics - so the logical place is where it is proposed.

phil maccavity wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:

southy wrote:
And I still say its in the wrong place and should be located down by Fawley

This is a real life story. What do your thoughts have to do with it? And it's not correct to begin a sentence with "And". I know I just did but I have taken a leaf from your book so what I say and what I do are two totally different things.

And still remains the same if it gets the go head, its location in Southampton is thr wrong place and would be better suited down by Fawley.

Come on Peter - if there was already a deepwater quayside at Fawley I might agree with you but there isn't and it would cost a lot to dredge and pile a new quay for offloading timber - plus over time more feedstock might arrive from local markets by road and rail and Fawley is not as convenient for these traffics - so the logical place is where it is proposed.

Andy
Spot on, as usual.
To make the Biomass operation cost effective in shipping terms, the base producy will have to come in large bulk vessels, possibly 30-40,000 tonnes at a time.
There are absolutely no suitable facilities currently available at Fawley to discharge anything bar liquid bulks and the cost to provide, pre supposing Exxon were agreeable, would be excessive. Probably north of £50m so not a runner
The western docks has a ready made quay, high capacity cranes
and available land and that is why Helius have decided this is the place to be

Stillness wrote:
I would imagine that Helius must be most disappointed if they are monitoring this story. After all they have spent thousands of hours and millions of pounds on working out the best, most profitable location for the plant and it turns out that they got it all wrong. If only they had asked southy in the first place it would have been built and operational by now. Trust me Peter, your arrogance is only outshone by your ignorance.

southy wrote:

southy wrote:

sottondave wrote:

southy wrote:
So Councillor Thorpe is sottondave

No

Then you must be the newly elected lady Councillor Georgina then, the other Councillor is a Tory

any way please carry on posting in here don't let those empty heads drive you away, because thats just what they want. they like people debating over matters it starts to give people ideas.

sottondave wrote:

southy wrote:

southy wrote:

sottondave wrote:

southy wrote:
So Councillor Thorpe is sottondave

No

Then you must be the newly elected lady Councillor Georgina then, the other Councillor is a Tory

any way please carry on posting in here don't let those empty heads drive you away, because thats just what they want. they like people debating over matters it starts to give people ideas.

Wrong again. All three councillors in Millbrook are now Labour. I won in 2010

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:
I would imagine that Helius must be most disappointed if they are monitoring this story. After all they have spent thousands of hours and millions of pounds on working out the best, most profitable location for the plant and it turns out that they got it all wrong. If only they had asked southy in the first place it would have been built and operational by now. Trust me Peter, your arrogance is only outshone by your ignorance.

Your showing your lack of knowledge of the area, Helius would not off come here if they had not been promise a cash insentive.
Poole Harbour was there first choice next to that power station but there was no cash insentive.
Read what Sir Ad E Noid posted or is he arrogant and ignorant also, he seems to know this area also or at lest part of it, which you lack in very much.

Stillness wrote:

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:
I would imagine that Helius must be most disappointed if they are monitoring this story. After all they have spent thousands of hours and millions of pounds on working out the best, most profitable location for the plant and it turns out that they got it all wrong. If only they had asked southy in the first place it would have been built and operational by now. Trust me Peter, your arrogance is only outshone by your ignorance.

Your showing your lack of knowledge of the area, Helius would not off come here if they had not been promise a cash insentive.
Poole Harbour was there first choice next to that power station but there was no cash insentive.
Read what Sir Ad E Noid posted or is he arrogant and ignorant also, he seems to know this area also or at lest part of it, which you lack in very much.

No he isn't but that doesn't change the fact that you are. Why should they not take a "cash incentive" in to account when deciding on the location? Or are you implying that someone at Helius was given a backhander?
I would have thought people would welcome employment opportunities in Southampton. Unless of course they are worried that they may have to get off their backsides and go back to working for a living again.

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:
I would imagine that Helius must be most disappointed if they are monitoring this story. After all they have spent thousands of hours and millions of pounds on working out the best, most profitable location for the plant and it turns out that they got it all wrong. If only they had asked southy in the first place it would have been built and operational by now. Trust me Peter, your arrogance is only outshone by your ignorance.

Your showing your lack of knowledge of the area, Helius would not off come here if they had not been promise a cash insentive.
Poole Harbour was there first choice next to that power station but there was no cash insentive.
Read what Sir Ad E Noid posted or is he arrogant and ignorant also, he seems to know this area also or at lest part of it, which you lack in very much.

No he isn't but that doesn't change the fact that you are. Why should they not take a "cash incentive" in to account when deciding on the location? Or are you implying that someone at Helius was given a backhander?
I would have thought people would welcome employment opportunities in Southampton. Unless of course they are worried that they may have to get off their backsides and go back to working for a living again.

Stillness use your brain will you, companys like Helius go where there is a cash incentive, your the one implying a back hander I am not.
Which councillor is or was on the Docks quango, and who do you think pays for this cash incentive.
And how many job opportunities you think theres going to be, very few, any quay side work will be done by the steveadores, and will be the bulk of the work, while building it will be done by a contractor who majority of its work force will be traveling men who travel with the company.
And its that cash incentive that makes them decide on a location and not weather if its the right or wrong location, Helius only interested in one thing how much tax payers money they can get.
and your more arrogant and ignorant than I will ever be.

Stillness wrote:

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:
I would imagine that Helius must be most disappointed if they are monitoring this story. After all they have spent thousands of hours and millions of pounds on working out the best, most profitable location for the plant and it turns out that they got it all wrong. If only they had asked southy in the first place it would have been built and operational by now. Trust me Peter, your arrogance is only outshone by your ignorance.

Your showing your lack of knowledge of the area, Helius would not off come here if they had not been promise a cash insentive.
Poole Harbour was there first choice next to that power station but there was no cash insentive.
Read what Sir Ad E Noid posted or is he arrogant and ignorant also, he seems to know this area also or at lest part of it, which you lack in very much.

No he isn't but that doesn't change the fact that you are. Why should they not take a "cash incentive" in to account when deciding on the location? Or are you implying that someone at Helius was given a backhander?
I would have thought people would welcome employment opportunities in Southampton. Unless of course they are worried that they may have to get off their backsides and go back to working for a living again.

Stillness use your brain will you, companys like Helius go where there is a cash incentive, your the one implying a back hander I am not.
Which councillor is or was on the Docks quango, and who do you think pays for this cash incentive.
And how many job opportunities you think theres going to be, very few, any quay side work will be done by the steveadores, and will be the bulk of the work, while building it will be done by a contractor who majority of its work force will be traveling men who travel with the company.
And its that cash incentive that makes them decide on a location and not weather if its the right or wrong location, Helius only interested in one thing how much tax payers money they can get.
and your more arrogant and ignorant than I will ever be.

Helius only interested in one thing how much tax payers money they can get. and your more arrogant and ignorant than I will ever be.
What have I told you about starting a sentence with "and"? Do you never listen? Oh sorry, stupid question. As an aside can you explain why you should have any say on what happens to tax payers money? It's not like you pay any.

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:
I would imagine that Helius must be most disappointed if they are monitoring this story. After all they have spent thousands of hours and millions of pounds on working out the best, most profitable location for the plant and it turns out that they got it all wrong. If only they had asked southy in the first place it would have been built and operational by now. Trust me Peter, your arrogance is only outshone by your ignorance.

Your showing your lack of knowledge of the area, Helius would not off come here if they had not been promise a cash insentive.
Poole Harbour was there first choice next to that power station but there was no cash insentive.
Read what Sir Ad E Noid posted or is he arrogant and ignorant also, he seems to know this area also or at lest part of it, which you lack in very much.

No he isn't but that doesn't change the fact that you are. Why should they not take a "cash incentive" in to account when deciding on the location? Or are you implying that someone at Helius was given a backhander?
I would have thought people would welcome employment opportunities in Southampton. Unless of course they are worried that they may have to get off their backsides and go back to working for a living again.

Stillness use your brain will you, companys like Helius go where there is a cash incentive, your the one implying a back hander I am not.
Which councillor is or was on the Docks quango, and who do you think pays for this cash incentive.
And how many job opportunities you think theres going to be, very few, any quay side work will be done by the steveadores, and will be the bulk of the work, while building it will be done by a contractor who majority of its work force will be traveling men who travel with the company.
And its that cash incentive that makes them decide on a location and not weather if its the right or wrong location, Helius only interested in one thing how much tax payers money they can get.
and your more arrogant and ignorant than I will ever be.

Helius only interested in one thing how much tax payers money they can get. and your more arrogant and ignorant than I will ever be.
What have I told you about starting a sentence with "and"? Do you never listen? Oh sorry, stupid question. As an aside can you explain why you should have any say on what happens to tax payers money? It's not like you pay any.

Who don't pay tax, I pay my Council Tax, I pay tax on my intrest that my money makes in the bank, and I have paid an awful lot in income tax, I also pay tax on things that I buy, Every one pays tax theres no getting away from it, and every one should have a say.
And just because some one do not work, do not mean they should not have a say, its not there fault they are not working thats down to the politicial and economics system that is used that creates high unemployment plus technology avancement and increasing population.
And it do not matter if some one begins there sentence with "and" its only nic-pickers that will pick up on such things and/or people who only think in one way.

southy wrote:

phil maccavity wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:

southy wrote:
And I still say its in the wrong place and should be located down by Fawley

This is a real life story. What do your thoughts have to do with it? And it's not correct to begin a sentence with "And". I know I just did but I have taken a leaf from your book so what I say and what I do are two totally different things.

And still remains the same if it gets the go head, its location in Southampton is thr wrong place and would be better suited down by Fawley.

Come on Peter - if there was already a deepwater quayside at Fawley I might agree with you but there isn't and it would cost a lot to dredge and pile a new quay for offloading timber - plus over time more feedstock might arrive from local markets by road and rail and Fawley is not as convenient for these traffics - so the logical place is where it is proposed.

Andy
Spot on, as usual.
To make the Biomass operation cost effective in shipping terms, the base producy will have to come in large bulk vessels, possibly 30-40,000 tonnes at a time.
There are absolutely no suitable facilities currently available at Fawley to discharge anything bar liquid bulks and the cost to provide, pre supposing Exxon were agreeable, would be excessive. Probably north of £50m so not a runner
The western docks has a ready made quay, high capacity cranes
and available land and that is why Helius have decided this is the place to be

And what about the cooling intake and the discharge tunnels, that would mean digging up the docks at a very high price and that to would cost well over the £50 million to do.
The intake at fawley power station is all ready deep enough to take a 40,000 tons bulk vessel they had one laying up there years ago.
The cranes in the docks quay side are only 1 to 5 tonners.
And your thinking the Refinery jetty and not the Power station intake channel which was design to take bulk carriers vessels when the power station was built.

Poppy22 wrote:
Fawley and the Marchwood Incinerator, plus all the ships - and the often stationery motorway traffic - spew out enough pollution into our area. Enough is enough. Everyone in the County should be fighting this, not just people living adjacent to the proposed site. One waste burning plant is enough in this area! We already get "fallout" from Fawley and Marchwood a few miles across the Solent from the plants (and no doubt in the New Forest - our supposed "national park" - when the winds blowing that way). No-one should be supporting any more major polluting industry that ruins the quality of life in this area. Perhaps Soton Universities should be doing more to test the impact of all this pollution on us, including the locally grown veg, strawberries, etc (including the so-called "organic" veg from between Fawley and Marchwood!).

phil maccavity wrote:

southy wrote:

phil maccavity wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:

southy wrote:
And I still say its in the wrong place and should be located down by Fawley

This is a real life story. What do your thoughts have to do with it? And it's not correct to begin a sentence with "And". I know I just did but I have taken a leaf from your book so what I say and what I do are two totally different things.

And still remains the same if it gets the go head, its location in Southampton is thr wrong place and would be better suited down by Fawley.

Come on Peter - if there was already a deepwater quayside at Fawley I might agree with you but there isn't and it would cost a lot to dredge and pile a new quay for offloading timber - plus over time more feedstock might arrive from local markets by road and rail and Fawley is not as convenient for these traffics - so the logical place is where it is proposed.

Andy
Spot on, as usual.
To make the Biomass operation cost effective in shipping terms, the base producy will have to come in large bulk vessels, possibly 30-40,000 tonnes at a time.
There are absolutely no suitable facilities currently available at Fawley to discharge anything bar liquid bulks and the cost to provide, pre supposing Exxon were agreeable, would be excessive. Probably north of £50m so not a runner
The western docks has a ready made quay, high capacity cranes
and available land and that is why Helius have decided this is the place to be

And what about the cooling intake and the discharge tunnels, that would mean digging up the docks at a very high price and that to would cost well over the £50 million to do.
The intake at fawley power station is all ready deep enough to take a 40,000 tons bulk vessel they had one laying up there years ago.
The cranes in the docks quay side are only 1 to 5 tonners.
And your thinking the Refinery jetty and not the Power station intake channel which was design to take bulk carriers vessels when the power station was built.

These sort factual errors really underline your lack of knowledge.
First of all the Stothert & Pitt quayside cranes in the docks have capacities of either 6 and 10 tonnes.
Also if you look on the Docks website you will see that the newest (non container) cranes have capacities between 60 and 100 tonnes. With large grabs attached these are the most suitable cranes for quick discharge of biomass..
Secondly I have looked at the available info on the Helius scheme and nowhere can I see anything about digging tunnels.
Perhaps you can enlighten me

Stillness wrote:

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:
I would imagine that Helius must be most disappointed if they are monitoring this story. After all they have spent thousands of hours and millions of pounds on working out the best, most profitable location for the plant and it turns out that they got it all wrong. If only they had asked southy in the first place it would have been built and operational by now. Trust me Peter, your arrogance is only outshone by your ignorance.

Your showing your lack of knowledge of the area, Helius would not off come here if they had not been promise a cash insentive.
Poole Harbour was there first choice next to that power station but there was no cash insentive.
Read what Sir Ad E Noid posted or is he arrogant and ignorant also, he seems to know this area also or at lest part of it, which you lack in very much.

No he isn't but that doesn't change the fact that you are. Why should they not take a "cash incentive" in to account when deciding on the location? Or are you implying that someone at Helius was given a backhander?
I would have thought people would welcome employment opportunities in Southampton. Unless of course they are worried that they may have to get off their backsides and go back to working for a living again.

Stillness use your brain will you, companys like Helius go where there is a cash incentive, your the one implying a back hander I am not.
Which councillor is or was on the Docks quango, and who do you think pays for this cash incentive.
And how many job opportunities you think theres going to be, very few, any quay side work will be done by the steveadores, and will be the bulk of the work, while building it will be done by a contractor who majority of its work force will be traveling men who travel with the company.
And its that cash incentive that makes them decide on a location and not weather if its the right or wrong location, Helius only interested in one thing how much tax payers money they can get.
and your more arrogant and ignorant than I will ever be.

Helius only interested in one thing how much tax payers money they can get. and your more arrogant and ignorant than I will ever be.
What have I told you about starting a sentence with "and"? Do you never listen? Oh sorry, stupid question. As an aside can you explain why you should have any say on what happens to tax payers money? It's not like you pay any.

Who don't pay tax, I pay my Council Tax, I pay tax on my intrest that my money makes in the bank, and I have paid an awful lot in income tax, I also pay tax on things that I buy, Every one pays tax theres no getting away from it, and every one should have a say.
And just because some one do not work, do not mean they should not have a say, its not there fault they are not working thats down to the politicial and economics system that is used that creates high unemployment plus technology avancement and increasing population.
And it do not matter if some one begins there sentence with "and" its only nic-pickers that will pick up on such things and/or people who only think in one way.

I think you'll find the expression is nitpicking rather than nic-picking. But then only a nitpicker would point that out.
PS. I like the way you always manage to make your situation everybody's fault bar your own. You obviously had a good socialist upbringing.

bigfella777 wrote:
How can any government/council preach about reducing our carbon footprint and dependence on fossil fuels,then oppose an installation that pledges to make use of renewable energy sources its just ridiculous and totally contradictory to policy.
Not in my back yard thats all this hoo ha is about.
Biomass is part of our futures if we want to continue leading our normal lives.

freefinker wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

freefinker wrote:

MGRA wrote:

sass wrote:

MGRA wrote:

Torchie1 wrote: Analysts are projecting a rise of 28% in energy prices this winter as Japan buys in LNG from the middle east to make up the power shortfall after closing down nuclear reactors following the tsunami. All the disparate groups of pro/anti wind-farms, bio-mass, water power, nuclear etc are so busy arguing their own cases that it will be a catastrophic event like the lights going out before they realise their own little agenda has to be sacrificed. Someone, somewhere has to take the hit before everyone, everywhere suffers.

spot on. We as a nation are strategically weak with regards our energy. We should be building power stations like there is no tomorrow, we need a basket of energy creation, we need nuclear, bio-mass, wind, solar, coal, gas, oil, wave, tide generation schemes. We should also consider national investments in african solar schemes ( particularly libya and eqypt ) to then sell that electricity to southern Europe... of course we are doing none of this fast enough...

Calm down! Worldwide crude oil reserves will last for hundreds of years. Exorbitant government taxation of petrol is designed to deter personal use of cars on this overcrowded island of ours.

except we are not sitting on any newly discovered crude reserves... we are depending on other nations , many potentially hostile in the future for our energy. We need to get self sufficient asap. Energy prices will double over the next 4-5 years. its a certainty.

.. and where do you think the the wood chips for this plant are going to come from? I actually agree 'we need to get self sufficient asap' but this proposal will take us further away from this goal.

Initially the timber will be imported as there is no domestic market to supply this demand. THis is why the port location is so important. However I suspect consumption will grow slowly and what supply there is can grow gradually with it. It may lag by a few years but UK-based supply will definitely grow if the demand is there.

.. in our last exchange on this issue I quoted you official UK timber production and consumption totals. We are still a HUGE importer of timber products and have been for decades if not over a century. It would seem there is an obvious flaw in your argument, in that this internal demand for timber over all these many years has NOT induced the necessary increased production to make us self-sufficient, despite the market for the product being obviously there. This plant, and the many others of similar size that are being proposed, make economic sense to the operator only because of a rigged market place. They will represent a very considerable increase in UK timber use and this can only be provided by imports. Even if a small percentage does eventually come from UK sources that will only mean increased imports to offset all our other demands for timber.

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:
I would imagine that Helius must be most disappointed if they are monitoring this story. After all they have spent thousands of hours and millions of pounds on working out the best, most profitable location for the plant and it turns out that they got it all wrong. If only they had asked southy in the first place it would have been built and operational by now. Trust me Peter, your arrogance is only outshone by your ignorance.

Your showing your lack of knowledge of the area, Helius would not off come here if they had not been promise a cash insentive.
Poole Harbour was there first choice next to that power station but there was no cash insentive.
Read what Sir Ad E Noid posted or is he arrogant and ignorant also, he seems to know this area also or at lest part of it, which you lack in very much.

No he isn't but that doesn't change the fact that you are. Why should they not take a "cash incentive" in to account when deciding on the location? Or are you implying that someone at Helius was given a backhander?
I would have thought people would welcome employment opportunities in Southampton. Unless of course they are worried that they may have to get off their backsides and go back to working for a living again.

Stillness use your brain will you, companys like Helius go where there is a cash incentive, your the one implying a back hander I am not.
Which councillor is or was on the Docks quango, and who do you think pays for this cash incentive.
And how many job opportunities you think theres going to be, very few, any quay side work will be done by the steveadores, and will be the bulk of the work, while building it will be done by a contractor who majority of its work force will be traveling men who travel with the company.
And its that cash incentive that makes them decide on a location and not weather if its the right or wrong location, Helius only interested in one thing how much tax payers money they can get.
and your more arrogant and ignorant than I will ever be.

Helius only interested in one thing how much tax payers money they can get. and your more arrogant and ignorant than I will ever be.
What have I told you about starting a sentence with "and"? Do you never listen? Oh sorry, stupid question. As an aside can you explain why you should have any say on what happens to tax payers money? It's not like you pay any.

Who don't pay tax, I pay my Council Tax, I pay tax on my intrest that my money makes in the bank, and I have paid an awful lot in income tax, I also pay tax on things that I buy, Every one pays tax theres no getting away from it, and every one should have a say.
And just because some one do not work, do not mean they should not have a say, its not there fault they are not working thats down to the politicial and economics system that is used that creates high unemployment plus technology avancement and increasing population.
And it do not matter if some one begins there sentence with "and" its only nic-pickers that will pick up on such things and/or people who only think in one way.

I think you'll find the expression is nitpicking rather than nic-picking. But then only a nitpicker would point that out.
PS. I like the way you always manage to make your situation everybody's fault bar your own. You obviously had a good socialist upbringing.

Stillness for any Economic and Political policy to work, then it owes every one job at reasonable wage and hours and working conditions, it also owns every body good health care and free education.
Fail in any off these and that system is not working, the system we have today is and as failed to work it just makes more and more people unemployed.

southy wrote:
Its your kind that is taking the p*ss out it by supporting an economic and a political system that do and will not work in a modern world it is out dated, and unwilling to change, it lets people suffer, it makes them unemployed, it make them homeless, puts them in poverity.
The system that is in use will will take off the less well off and give it to the well off who don't need it, its a system of greed where every 1 that do make they had to trample on 1000 others to get there.

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:

southy wrote:

Stillness wrote:
I would imagine that Helius must be most disappointed if they are monitoring this story. After all they have spent thousands of hours and millions of pounds on working out the best, most profitable location for the plant and it turns out that they got it all wrong. If only they had asked southy in the first place it would have been built and operational by now. Trust me Peter, your arrogance is only outshone by your ignorance.

Your showing your lack of knowledge of the area, Helius would not off come here if they had not been promise a cash insentive.
Poole Harbour was there first choice next to that power station but there was no cash insentive.
Read what Sir Ad E Noid posted or is he arrogant and ignorant also, he seems to know this area also or at lest part of it, which you lack in very much.

No he isn't but that doesn't change the fact that you are. Why should they not take a "cash incentive" in to account when deciding on the location? Or are you implying that someone at Helius was given a backhander?
I would have thought people would welcome employment opportunities in Southampton. Unless of course they are worried that they may have to get off their backsides and go back to working for a living again.

Stillness use your brain will you, companys like Helius go where there is a cash incentive, your the one implying a back hander I am not.
Which councillor is or was on the Docks quango, and who do you think pays for this cash incentive.
And how many job opportunities you think theres going to be, very few, any quay side work will be done by the steveadores, and will be the bulk of the work, while building it will be done by a contractor who majority of its work force will be traveling men who travel with the company.
And its that cash incentive that makes them decide on a location and not weather if its the right or wrong location, Helius only interested in one thing how much tax payers money they can get.
and your more arrogant and ignorant than I will ever be.

Helius only interested in one thing how much tax payers money they can get. and your more arrogant and ignorant than I will ever be.
What have I told you about starting a sentence with "and"? Do you never listen? Oh sorry, stupid question. As an aside can you explain why you should have any say on what happens to tax payers money? It's not like you pay any.

Who don't pay tax, I pay my Council Tax, I pay tax on my intrest that my money makes in the bank, and I have paid an awful lot in income tax, I also pay tax on things that I buy, Every one pays tax theres no getting away from it, and every one should have a say.
And just because some one do not work, do not mean they should not have a say, its not there fault they are not working thats down to the politicial and economics system that is used that creates high unemployment plus technology avancement and increasing population.
And it do not matter if some one begins there sentence with "and" its only nic-pickers that will pick up on such things and/or people who only think in one way.