Marchwood residents slam biomass plans (From Daily Echo)

They live next to a Army Barracks,Marchwood power station ( I think it's shut) & facing a working docks & they don't want their view ruined?
At the moment they can look out at a pile of scrap metal that's a great view isn't it?
they alongside other watersiders stopped the docks from using the land they'd reclaimed for the sole purpose of creating more dockland,
so losing many jobs now they're at it again with their NIMBY reasons trying to stop the creation of 450 jobs in Southampton?
Notice I sain IN SOUTHAMPTON.
Let's put it on the reclaimed land instead?

what about using the old Fawley Power Station site? is that too logical?

Condor Man wrote:
what about using the old Fawley Power Station site? is that too logical?

Condorman your suggesting putting a power station where a power station was/is situated?
Didn't they put in a Gas turbine Generator in there?
I would love to see the posts if they went ahead & done that ?

Condor Man wrote:
what about using the old Fawley Power Station site? is that too logical?

It does not have the material handling infrastructure CM, and the existing station would have to be demolished anyway.

I say go ahead with it.

These people objecting are probably settled in their jobs or retiremennt - and it's not exactly a picture perfect view at the moment, is it?

To the thousands of people not in employment and looking for work, I assume this would be extremely beneficial.

As always, not all viewpoints are covered...

Good to hear some objections from the other side of the water too.
As the Marchwood residents have said, there's already too much industrial development in the area. Surely 1 incinerator (the Marchwood one) is enough.
Jobs can be created in other ways that don't ruin the local environment and future health of ourselves and people's children and grandchildren.
I thought Southampton council had already said no to this biomass plant so why can't they say no and mean it and stop all the wasted time and money of more plans, appeals, etc. We need a policy that includes our local environment and what we want for the future of this area.
And if the old Fawley power station isn't currently being used for anything, at least demolish it so that we don't continue to have that blot on an already ugly (Fawley refinery and chemical plant) landscape. Then put some concealed-by-trees housing on the site and stop using up our green fields!
If the area's made more attractive visually, we'll get more tourists which will mean more jobs and opportunites for setting up bed and breakfast businesses, restaurants, etc, not these massive industrial polluting industries that are already around and being proposed.
Wake up and smell the pollution, people, and do something about it!

loosehead wrote:
They live next to a Army Barracks,Marchwood power station ( I think it's shut) & facing a working docks & they don't want their view ruined?
At the moment they can look out at a pile of scrap metal that's a great view isn't it?
they alongside other watersiders stopped the docks from using the land they'd reclaimed for the sole purpose of creating more dockland,
so losing many jobs now they're at it again with their NIMBY reasons trying to stop the creation of 450 jobs in Southampton?
Notice I sain IN SOUTHAMPTON.
Let's put it on the reclaimed land instead?

There will not be 450 jobs created in Southampton with this.
.
This number is a pure guess and nothing more.
.
Of course there will be a number of builders on site and emplyees of the building itself, but the job numbers are a guess which takes into consideration the "supply chain"

Icklelady wrote:
I say go ahead with it.

These people objecting are probably settled in their jobs or retiremennt - and it's not exactly a picture perfect view at the moment, is it?

To the thousands of people not in employment and looking for work, I assume this would be extremely beneficial.

As always, not all viewpoints are covered...

suggest you do some research and find out how 'green' these projects are!

I have not found one resident, either side of the water who is in favour of it - only 1 or 2 flamers on here who like stirring the pot but are mostly irrelevant.

The City Council are against it, residents are against it, The Green Party and Friends of the Earth are against it, all political parties in Southampton are against it - that enough people for you???

freemantlegirl2 - I can't quote on my IE, but...

No, I haven't done much research into it and I'm not trying to stir, was just make an observation from the viewpoint of the unemployed. I'm employed, so was just considering what people who aren't may think about it, and the possibility of a lot more jobs being created. Yes, there are other ways to create jobs that a lot of us would prefer. But instead of complaining on a newspaper forum about it, why not actively do something about it?

Maybe I'm wrong to say "go ahead with it," was just giving a different perspective. Apologies for getting a little ahead of myself there.

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

Icklelady wrote:
I say go ahead with it.

These people objecting are probably settled in their jobs or retiremennt - and it's not exactly a picture perfect view at the moment, is it?

To the thousands of people not in employment and looking for work, I assume this would be extremely beneficial.

As always, not all viewpoints are covered...

suggest you do some research and find out how 'green' these projects are!

I have not found one resident, either side of the water who is in favour of it - only 1 or 2 flamers on here who like stirring the pot but are mostly irrelevant.

The City Council are against it, residents are against it, The Green Party and Friends of the Earth are against it, all political parties in Southampton are against it - that enough people for you???

So were you against the Dibden Bay docks project?
You have stood your ground not listening to any other point of view even when AndyLocksheath puts forward scientific facts you don't want to listen nor do any of the NO campaign.
I wonder if the Green Party or Friends of the Earth were told a forest would be cleared for housing or a Nuclear Generator or could become a sustainable forest & used for wood chip for Bio Mass generation which option they'd choose then?
These Marchwood NIMBY's have cut their own throat already.
when or if the Army moves then this will become prime dockland.
Personally with Scrap Yards facing them what the hell are they complaining about?
Health? NO it's just their views being ruined? What view? rolling green fields? Forestry? No a scrap yard this is sheer NIMBYISM & why the hell your aligning yourself to them beats me unless I've been proven right & yours & the NO campaigns arguments are false & your all NIMBY's as well?

Icklelady wrote:
freemantlegirl2 - I can't quote on my IE, but...

No, I haven't done much research into it and I'm not trying to stir, was just make an observation from the viewpoint of the unemployed. I'm employed, so was just considering what people who aren't may think about it, and the possibility of a lot more jobs being created. Yes, there are other ways to create jobs that a lot of us would prefer. But instead of complaining on a newspaper forum about it, why not actively do something about it?

Maybe I'm wrong to say "go ahead with it," was just giving a different perspective. Apologies for getting a little ahead of myself there.

The NO campaign are all NIMBY's & for this reason alone they could be stopping the creation of jobs.
In the beginning they quoted all these health reasons only for a few scientists to knock this into touch & eventually they admitted they were NIMBY's as are Marchwood residents who'd rather see a scrap metal mountain than a Bio Mass Generator

Icklelady said:
"To the thousands of people not in employment and looking for work, I assume this would be extremely beneficial."
The article claims this scheme would create 450 short-term jobs and a maximum of 120 long-term jobs. How is that beneficial to the "thousands" out of work?

Icklelady said:
"To the thousands of people not in employment and looking for work, I assume this would be extremely beneficial."
The article claims this scheme would create 450 short-term jobs and a maximum of 120 long-term jobs. How is that beneficial to the "thousands" out of work?

I don't have a particular issue with the views from Marchwood being spoilt. The view of the water, with the cranes, container ships etc.., is interesting, but certainly not attractive. As others have already stated, it is spoilt by the very large pile of scrap that is there already, amongst other things.
However, just because a view may not be currently attractive does give licence to go ahead and make it worse, but that alone is not a very strong argument against these plans.
But I am also yet to hear a decent, sound and strong argument in favour of these plans. To get the go ahead for this, it should not be residents, council and so on proving that it is a bad idea - The onus should be on Helius to prove that it is a good, sound, solid project and will give benefit that is not just short lived. They are currently a long way from doing that and there are many holes in the project itself in terms of clear goals, governance, life expectancy, termination etc.. etc…

And just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons as it where - You would not get this being approved on Liverpool waterfront.

To the thousands of people not in employment and looking for work, I assume this would be extremely beneficial."
The article claims this scheme would create 450 short-term jobs and a maximum of 120 long-term jobs. How is that beneficial to the "thousands" out of work?”


...It's a start. There's not going to be 1 new amazing development that puts all these people into a job... 450 short term jobs is better than none, and 120 long term jobs is certainly a start.

loosehead wrote:

Icklelady wrote:
freemantlegirl2 - I can't quote on my IE, but...

No, I haven't done much research into it and I'm not trying to stir, was just make an observation from the viewpoint of the unemployed. I'm employed, so was just considering what people who aren't may think about it, and the possibility of a lot more jobs being created. Yes, there are other ways to create jobs that a lot of us would prefer. But instead of complaining on a newspaper forum about it, why not actively do something about it?

Maybe I'm wrong to say "go ahead with it," was just giving a different perspective. Apologies for getting a little ahead of myself there.

The NO campaign are all NIMBY's & for this reason alone they could be stopping the creation of jobs.
In the beginning they quoted all these health reasons only for a few scientists to knock this into touch & eventually they admitted they were NIMBY's as are Marchwood residents who'd rather see a scrap metal mountain than a Bio Mass Generator

"The City Council are against it, residents are against it, The Green Party and Friends of the Earth are against it, all political parties in Southampton are against it - that enough people for you???"

These are people who have studied the situation - are you saying all these people are wrong?
>
You have to question why ABP put the scrap where it is in the first place and why they are allowing this proposal against the wishes of those who represent us in Southampton, all our councillors?!
>
What is ABP's motive in all of this? Is this the first step of some sort of master plan??

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

Icklelady wrote:
I say go ahead with it.

These people objecting are probably settled in their jobs or retiremennt - and it's not exactly a picture perfect view at the moment, is it?

To the thousands of people not in employment and looking for work, I assume this would be extremely beneficial.

As always, not all viewpoints are covered...

suggest you do some research and find out how 'green' these projects are!

I have not found one resident, either side of the water who is in favour of it - only 1 or 2 flamers on here who like stirring the pot but are mostly irrelevant.

The City Council are against it, residents are against it, The Green Party and Friends of the Earth are against it, all political parties in Southampton are against it - that enough people for you???

THat is not even a worthwhile point FMG, because everyone needs utilities, and it is quite obvious that asked whether they want a power station or a sewage farm or a prison or whatever it is next to them they are going to say no. It's not a valid question. It's about as pointless as asking someone if they would "like" to pay tax. I challenge your assertion that it is only "one or two flamers" who don't recognise the necessity for thermal power, as evidenced on these forums for a start, and when you consider that Marchwood itself had a very large power station until 1970 (which incomers clearly won't remember) it is clear that this is a hypocritical protest from those who have little or no understanding of the issue. I have exposed your factual innacuracy and lack of understanding of power generation on many occasions and I'll keep doing it every time you present me the oportunity to do so. If you want to represent the entire so called "Green" policy even better, because it is a sham. As always I will let you choose the weapon of your own destruction. Fire away.

Marchwood don't want anything to happen that will affect their precious property prices. They didn't want Dibden Bay, despite the jobs it would create and they don't want this either. Why don't you all move to the Isle of Wight because they don't like any changes there either.

When questioned last evening, a representative said that the timber will come from Brazil?! How crazy is that?!
>
Apart from the building itself, a lot of the protest seems to be about the sourcing of material (where is it all coming from?) and the noise and pollution of the transport required to get it to the site.

Andy, Locks Heath - It is actually a very valid and worthwhile point. You may well have exposed factual inaccuracies but to say that the council not wanting it, the political parties not wanting it, the residents, the greens not wanting it etc... is not a valid point? The council are elected and are there to take a view on these matters on behalf of the community they serve. So that is a very valid point. A community does not have to be submissive to a business or it's plans, whether it is a good idea or not, it may not be the right time, the right place or the right solution, people effected, and the representavive bodies of those people effected have a right to raise these objections. In stating that these points don't matter, why then does it matter what you think about it and what your view is? I would rather go with the view of an elected body than the opinion of an unelected individual. Not saying I agree or disagree with your opinion, but you can't dismiss other opinions so flippantly. They have at least as much right to make their point as you do.

Hardly surprising the UK is in such a mess when everybody opposes everything. Get your arses out into the real world and see what Southampton could become if we gave investment and jobs a chance.

I agree, it doesn't matter what it is, it seems a lot of people are against developments of any sort.

If you don't like it, move to the country. Then again... there will probably be something going on there soon enough. How are we to move forward if people are always objecting? (From an energy and job viewpoint - I should probably add). Oh, energy we all use on a daily basis.

Icklelady wrote:
I agree, it doesn't matter what it is, it seems a lot of people are against developments of any sort.

If you don't like it, move to the country. Then again... there will probably be something going on there soon enough. How are we to move forward if people are always objecting? (From an energy and job viewpoint - I should probably add). Oh, energy we all use on a daily basis.

"The City Council are against it, residents are against it, The Green Party and Friends of the Earth are against it, all political parties in Southampton are against it - that enough people for you???"

These are people who have studied the situation - are you
saying all these people are wrong?
What is your knowledge on the subject? Please spell out the facts and the ACTUAL benefits.

George 4th, give it a rest.

As I said, I'm just giving another viewpoint - referring to energy and jobs.

Not everyone is against it. I'm not entirely against it, I think in the two ways I have mentioned it would be beneficial.

As I have already said, I haven't spent hours researching the facts so please stop banging on about me spelling out the facts, as I've already said I'm only giving a different viewpoint. I'm entitled to my own opintion... right?

George4th wrote:

Icklelady wrote:
I agree, it doesn't matter what it is, it seems a lot of people are against developments of any sort.

If you don't like it, move to the country. Then again... there will probably be something going on there soon enough. How are we to move forward if people are always objecting? (From an energy and job viewpoint - I should probably add). Oh, energy we all use on a daily basis.

"The City Council are against it, residents are against it, The Green Party and Friends of the Earth are against it, all political parties in Southampton are against it - that enough people for you???"

These are people who have studied the situation - are you
saying all these people are wrong?
What is your knowledge on the subject? Please spell out the facts and the ACTUAL benefits.

The council don't agree with it?
do you think Labour or the tories would have won seats in that area if they'd wanted it?
Why did Don Thomas say that Helius had ticked all the objectors boxes but Labour changed their manifesto before the local election?
This was a vote gaining policy & not common sense

lewissv wrote:
Andy, Locks Heath - It is actually a very valid and worthwhile point. You may well have exposed factual inaccuracies but to say that the council not wanting it, the political parties not wanting it, the residents, the greens not wanting it etc... is not a valid point? The council are elected and are there to take a view on these matters on behalf of the community they serve. So that is a very valid point. A community does not have to be submissive to a business or it's plans, whether it is a good idea or not, it may not be the right time, the right place or the right solution, people effected, and the representavive bodies of those people effected have a right to raise these objections. In stating that these points don't matter, why then does it matter what you think about it and what your view is? I would rather go with the view of an elected body than the opinion of an unelected individual. Not saying I agree or disagree with your opinion, but you can't dismiss other opinions so flippantly. They have at least as much right to make their point as you do.

The reason it is a fatuous statistic is seen when you consider the antipattern. You are inferring that we could go round the country and ask people "Would you like a power station/sewage farm/landfill site built near you?" and somewhere there are lots of people who are going to say "Yes please! Build it near me!" That is why it is the kind of silly non-point beloved by Nimby groups as though it somehow proves something. The only thing it proves is that the calibre and integrity of our current crop of councillors is at the same depths that has seen Southampton plunge ever further into a chaotic half planned risk averse mess that we see today. Not one single councillor has been brave enough to make the point that the infrastructure that provides our comfortable lifestyle has to be provided from somewhere.

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

Icklelady wrote:
I say go ahead with it.

These people objecting are probably settled in their jobs or retiremennt - and it's not exactly a picture perfect view at the moment, is it?

To the thousands of people not in employment and looking for work, I assume this would be extremely beneficial.

As always, not all viewpoints are covered...

suggest you do some research and find out how 'green' these projects are!

I have not found one resident, either side of the water who is in favour of it - only 1 or 2 flamers on here who like stirring the pot but are mostly irrelevant.

The City Council are against it, residents are against it, The Green Party and Friends of the Earth are against it, all political parties in Southampton are against it - that enough people for you???

Yes, they are against it, but why, what is the perceived threat?

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

Icklelady wrote:
I say go ahead with it.

These people objecting are probably settled in their jobs or retiremennt - and it's not exactly a picture perfect view at the moment, is it?

To the thousands of people not in employment and looking for work, I assume this would be extremely beneficial.

As always, not all viewpoints are covered...

suggest you do some research and find out how 'green' these projects are!

I have not found one resident, either side of the water who is in favour of it - only 1 or 2 flamers on here who like stirring the pot but are mostly irrelevant.

The City Council are against it, residents are against it, The Green Party and Friends of the Earth are against it, all political parties in Southampton are against it - that enough people for you???

Yes, they are against it, but why, what is the perceived threat?

Osprey they stated it was bad for health( the No Campaign) Andy ( the above poster) put out scientific fact to prove them wrong.
Many of the green's wouldn't be against it if Helius did from the start what they've promised to do once up & running & that's source the product locally.
All political parties are against it as they wouldn't stand a chance in hell of getting elected in that area.
The NO campaign has scared the residents with hell warning & fire warnings when all along they admit they're NIMBY'S

loosehead wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

Icklelady wrote:
I say go ahead with it.

These people objecting are probably settled in their jobs or retiremennt - and it's not exactly a picture perfect view at the moment, is it?

To the thousands of people not in employment and looking for work, I assume this would be extremely beneficial.

As always, not all viewpoints are covered...

suggest you do some research and find out how 'green' these projects are!

I have not found one resident, either side of the water who is in favour of it - only 1 or 2 flamers on here who like stirring the pot but are mostly irrelevant.

The City Council are against it, residents are against it, The Green Party and Friends of the Earth are against it, all political parties in Southampton are against it - that enough people for you???

Yes, they are against it, but why, what is the perceived threat?

Osprey they stated it was bad for health( the No Campaign) Andy ( the above poster) put out scientific fact to prove them wrong.
Many of the green's wouldn't be against it if Helius did from the start what they've promised to do once up & running & that's source the product locally.
All political parties are against it as they wouldn't stand a chance in hell of getting elected in that area.
The NO campaign has scared the residents with hell warning & fire warnings when all along they admit they're NIMBY'S

A majority of local residents have major concerns about Biomass, Helius, air quality, traffic and the possibility of fire.(because of what happened at the Tilbury plant).This is not that we are NIMBY's, that Loosehead keeps banging on about, but that we have concerns about our living enviroment .

skin2000 wrote:

loosehead wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

Icklelady wrote:
I say go ahead with it.

These people objecting are probably settled in their jobs or retiremennt - and it's not exactly a picture perfect view at the moment, is it?

To the thousands of people not in employment and looking for work, I assume this would be extremely beneficial.

As always, not all viewpoints are covered...

suggest you do some research and find out how 'green' these projects are!

I have not found one resident, either side of the water who is in favour of it - only 1 or 2 flamers on here who like stirring the pot but are mostly irrelevant.

The City Council are against it, residents are against it, The Green Party and Friends of the Earth are against it, all political parties in Southampton are against it - that enough people for you???

Yes, they are against it, but why, what is the perceived threat?

Osprey they stated it was bad for health( the No Campaign) Andy ( the above poster) put out scientific fact to prove them wrong.
Many of the green's wouldn't be against it if Helius did from the start what they've promised to do once up & running & that's source the product locally.
All political parties are against it as they wouldn't stand a chance in hell of getting elected in that area.
The NO campaign has scared the residents with hell warning & fire warnings when all along they admit they're NIMBY'S

A majority of local residents have major concerns about Biomass, Helius, air quality, traffic and the possibility of fire.(because of what happened at the Tilbury plant).This is not that we are NIMBY's, that Loosehead keeps banging on about, but that we have concerns about our living enviroment .

Those are all reasonable concerns Skin and people should be demanding reassurances in those areas but just saying "no" - or stating something as a risk without quantifying how great the risk actually is helps nobody. I get frustrated when so called "green" objectors like Freefinker and FMG will not quantify their concerns scientifically or statistically (and worst of all deliberately use contextomy to misrepresent information) because if they do they know someone can explicitly address their concerns one by one so all that is left is their underlying prejudice - which is a synonym for Nimbyism. Take thatTilbury fire just as an example. What actually caused it and how much of a risk is it here? Are the circumstances actually the same? - What steps would have to be taken to protect the feedstock? So why not seek assurance from Helius that such safety measures will be incorporated? This stupid so called "green" sophistry that woodchip is inherently dangerous is the sort of risk averse nonsense that would see us all remove our gas central heating and cooking appliances from inside our homes because it is actually a risk thousands of times greater than a mound of wood in the docks. And as for the objectors in Marchwood.... They've atually done the planners a favour by exposing nimbyism as little more than a comedic sideshow.

Andy
As you say, concerns about air quality, fire risk, noise etc are quite reasonable and have to be addressed.
However even if you look at the blogs of a number of people who live close by who have more reason to commentbthan those in Marchwood, there are comments about perceived loss of house value, restricted views (over an industrial area!!!) etc etc
Ultimately it will all come down to the Govts willingness to meet their renewable energy obligations.
If their Inspector rules for the scheme any local opposition will be by passed
Interestingly there is a similar scheme suggested for the Port of Blyth, which is more advanced than the one here, so this may ultimately be an indicator as to how the Govt wish to progress with permissions

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

skin2000 wrote:

loosehead wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

Icklelady wrote:
I say go ahead with it.

These people objecting are probably settled in their jobs or retiremennt - and it's not exactly a picture perfect view at the moment, is it?

To the thousands of people not in employment and looking for work, I assume this would be extremely beneficial.

As always, not all viewpoints are covered...

suggest you do some research and find out how 'green' these projects are!

I have not found one resident, either side of the water who is in favour of it - only 1 or 2 flamers on here who like stirring the pot but are mostly irrelevant.

The City Council are against it, residents are against it, The Green Party and Friends of the Earth are against it, all political parties in Southampton are against it - that enough people for you???

Yes, they are against it, but why, what is the perceived threat?

Osprey they stated it was bad for health( the No Campaign) Andy ( the above poster) put out scientific fact to prove them wrong.
Many of the green's wouldn't be against it if Helius did from the start what they've promised to do once up & running & that's source the product locally.
All political parties are against it as they wouldn't stand a chance in hell of getting elected in that area.
The NO campaign has scared the residents with hell warning & fire warnings when all along they admit they're NIMBY'S

A majority of local residents have major concerns about Biomass, Helius, air quality, traffic and the possibility of fire.(because of what happened at the Tilbury plant).This is not that we are NIMBY's, that Loosehead keeps banging on about, but that we have concerns about our living enviroment .

Those are all reasonable concerns Skin and people should be demanding reassurances in those areas but just saying "no" - or stating something as a risk without quantifying how great the risk actually is helps nobody. I get frustrated when so called "green" objectors like Freefinker and FMG will not quantify their concerns scientifically or statistically (and worst of all deliberately use contextomy to misrepresent information) because if they do they know someone can explicitly address their concerns one by one so all that is left is their underlying prejudice - which is a synonym for Nimbyism. Take thatTilbury fire just as an example. What actually caused it and how much of a risk is it here? Are the circumstances actually the same? - What steps would have to be taken to protect the feedstock? So why not seek assurance from Helius that such safety measures will be incorporated? This stupid so called "green" sophistry that woodchip is inherently dangerous is the sort of risk averse nonsense that would see us all remove our gas central heating and cooking appliances from inside our homes because it is actually a risk thousands of times greater than a mound of wood in the docks. And as for the objectors in Marchwood.... They've atually done the planners a favour by exposing nimbyism as little more than a comedic sideshow.

Andy what do you think of Helius Roadshow and what questions have you asked them?

skin2000 wrote:

loosehead wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

Icklelady wrote:
I say go ahead with it.

These people objecting are probably settled in their jobs or retiremennt - and it's not exactly a picture perfect view at the moment, is it?

To the thousands of people not in employment and looking for work, I assume this would be extremely beneficial.

As always, not all viewpoints are covered...

suggest you do some research and find out how 'green' these projects are!

I have not found one resident, either side of the water who is in favour of it - only 1 or 2 flamers on here who like stirring the pot but are mostly irrelevant.

The City Council are against it, residents are against it, The Green Party and Friends of the Earth are against it, all political parties in Southampton are against it - that enough people for you???

Yes, they are against it, but why, what is the perceived threat?

Osprey they stated it was bad for health( the No Campaign) Andy ( the above poster) put out scientific fact to prove them wrong.
Many of the green's wouldn't be against it if Helius did from the start what they've promised to do once up & running & that's source the product locally.
All political parties are against it as they wouldn't stand a chance in hell of getting elected in that area.
The NO campaign has scared the residents with hell warning & fire warnings when all along they admit they're NIMBY'S

A majority of local residents have major concerns about Biomass, Helius, air quality, traffic and the possibility of fire.(because of what happened at the Tilbury plant).This is not that we are NIMBY's, that Loosehead keeps banging on about, but that we have concerns about our living enviroment .

Skin in the beginning of this I listened to FM2 & backed her.
but then people like Andy put out answers to her worries but still she wouldn't listen so I looked into it myself & asked her to clarify the health risks.
After many posts on this subject what I had back from her & many others was how would I like to see my house drop in value?
Would I live near it?
I have said as in my above post YES I would be willing to live next to it.
How much do the properties go for in Fawley?
do they have problems selling them?
They have an oil refinery next to them.
you will have railway lines six lanes of traffic which if I'm right would act as a very good fire break so your not going to lose your homes are you?
As for air pollution? what about the Sewage works? should we shut it down?
All these type of buildings are monitored for air quality & if any hazardous pollutant is being pumped into the air it would be shut down.
Surely the Greens & political Parties have told you all this?
BAT had large chimneys & they were constantly being checked for air quality.
So why haven't the NO campaign told you local residents this? Why didn't they try to get the best deal for you all?
why not go for cheap/free hot water for heating or washing?
As FM2 has said to me it's all to do with property prices & the fact they just don't want it or NOT IN MY BACK YARD.
please read all previous posts from NO campaigners & you'll see the truth for yourself.
I love that area I was there from the age of 3 right up to my 45 year

Icklelady wrote:
George 4th, give it a rest.

As I said, I'm just giving another viewpoint - referring to energy and jobs.

Not everyone is against it. I'm not entirely against it, I think in the two ways I have mentioned it would be beneficial.

As I have already said, I haven't spent hours researching the facts so please stop banging on about me spelling out the facts, as I've already said I'm only giving a different viewpoint. I'm entitled to my own opintion... right?

Icklelady you are just winding people up now.......go & have a fag on the Porch you "Porch Monkey", lol & shut yo piehole for goodness sake :P

Nah, I completely agree with your point of view though & I so often get told....this is a democracy after all & we can say what the hell we like......right?

I reckon we should bulldoze the entire lot including the New forest & make it London's fourth airport & call it Stoney Cross too....oh no that has already been done hasn't it :D

loosehead wrote:

skin2000 wrote:

loosehead wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

Icklelady wrote:
I say go ahead with it.

These people objecting are probably settled in their jobs or retiremennt - and it's not exactly a picture perfect view at the moment, is it?

To the thousands of people not in employment and looking for work, I assume this would be extremely beneficial.

As always, not all viewpoints are covered...

suggest you do some research and find out how 'green' these projects are!

I have not found one resident, either side of the water who is in favour of it - only 1 or 2 flamers on here who like stirring the pot but are mostly irrelevant.

The City Council are against it, residents are against it, The Green Party and Friends of the Earth are against it, all political parties in Southampton are against it - that enough people for you???

Yes, they are against it, but why, what is the perceived threat?

Osprey they stated it was bad for health( the No Campaign) Andy ( the above poster) put out scientific fact to prove them wrong.
Many of the green's wouldn't be against it if Helius did from the start what they've promised to do once up & running & that's source the product locally.
All political parties are against it as they wouldn't stand a chance in hell of getting elected in that area.
The NO campaign has scared the residents with hell warning & fire warnings when all along they admit they're NIMBY'S

A majority of local residents have major concerns about Biomass, Helius, air quality, traffic and the possibility of fire.(because of what happened at the Tilbury plant).This is not that we are NIMBY's, that Loosehead keeps banging on about, but that we have concerns about our living enviroment .

Skin in the beginning of this I listened to FM2 & backed her.
but then people like Andy put out answers to her worries but still she wouldn't listen so I looked into it myself & asked her to clarify the health risks.
After many posts on this subject what I had back from her & many others was how would I like to see my house drop in value?
Would I live near it?
I have said as in my above post YES I would be willing to live next to it.
How much do the properties go for in Fawley?
do they have problems selling them?
They have an oil refinery next to them.
you will have railway lines six lanes of traffic which if I'm right would act as a very good fire break so your not going to lose your homes are you?
As for air pollution? what about the Sewage works? should we shut it down?
All these type of buildings are monitored for air quality & if any hazardous pollutant is being pumped into the air it would be shut down.
Surely the Greens & political Parties have told you all this?
BAT had large chimneys & they were constantly being checked for air quality.
So why haven't the NO campaign told you local residents this? Why didn't they try to get the best deal for you all?
why not go for cheap/free hot water for heating or washing?
As FM2 has said to me it's all to do with property prices & the fact they just don't want it or NOT IN MY BACK YARD.
please read all previous posts from NO campaigners & you'll see the truth for yourself.
I love that area I was there from the age of 3 right up to my 45 year

As you state,we have a lot of problems already, the last thing we need in this district is a biomass power station. Helius have stated that there is no cheap electricity for locals, so no plus sides at all.

skin2000 wrote:

loosehead wrote:

skin2000 wrote:

loosehead wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

Icklelady wrote:
I say go ahead with it.

These people objecting are probably settled in their jobs or retiremennt - and it's not exactly a picture perfect view at the moment, is it?

To the thousands of people not in employment and looking for work, I assume this would be extremely beneficial.

As always, not all viewpoints are covered...

suggest you do some research and find out how 'green' these projects are!

I have not found one resident, either side of the water who is in favour of it - only 1 or 2 flamers on here who like stirring the pot but are mostly irrelevant.

The City Council are against it, residents are against it, The Green Party and Friends of the Earth are against it, all political parties in Southampton are against it - that enough people for you???

Yes, they are against it, but why, what is the perceived threat?

Osprey they stated it was bad for health( the No Campaign) Andy ( the above poster) put out scientific fact to prove them wrong.
Many of the green's wouldn't be against it if Helius did from the start what they've promised to do once up & running & that's source the product locally.
All political parties are against it as they wouldn't stand a chance in hell of getting elected in that area.
The NO campaign has scared the residents with hell warning & fire warnings when all along they admit they're NIMBY'S

A majority of local residents have major concerns about Biomass, Helius, air quality, traffic and the possibility of fire.(because of what happened at the Tilbury plant).This is not that we are NIMBY's, that Loosehead keeps banging on about, but that we have concerns about our living enviroment .

Skin in the beginning of this I listened to FM2 & backed her.
but then people like Andy put out answers to her worries but still she wouldn't listen so I looked into it myself & asked her to clarify the health risks.
After many posts on this subject what I had back from her & many others was how would I like to see my house drop in value?
Would I live near it?
I have said as in my above post YES I would be willing to live next to it.
How much do the properties go for in Fawley?
do they have problems selling them?
They have an oil refinery next to them.
you will have railway lines six lanes of traffic which if I'm right would act as a very good fire break so your not going to lose your homes are you?
As for air pollution? what about the Sewage works? should we shut it down?
All these type of buildings are monitored for air quality & if any hazardous pollutant is being pumped into the air it would be shut down.
Surely the Greens & political Parties have told you all this?
BAT had large chimneys & they were constantly being checked for air quality.
So why haven't the NO campaign told you local residents this? Why didn't they try to get the best deal for you all?
why not go for cheap/free hot water for heating or washing?
As FM2 has said to me it's all to do with property prices & the fact they just don't want it or NOT IN MY BACK YARD.
please read all previous posts from NO campaigners & you'll see the truth for yourself.
I love that area I was there from the age of 3 right up to my 45 year

As you state,we have a lot of problems already, the last thing we need in this district is a biomass power station. Helius have stated that there is no cheap electricity for locals, so no plus sides at all.

That's an interesting idea - cheaper electricity for those close to a generating source! I like the thinking Skin, but sadly the national grid makes it impossible to enact because all our electricity comes from all generators working collectively.

skin2000 wrote:

loosehead wrote:

skin2000 wrote:

loosehead wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

Icklelady wrote:
I say go ahead with it.

These people objecting are probably settled in their jobs or retiremennt - and it's not exactly a picture perfect view at the moment, is it?

To the thousands of people not in employment and looking for work, I assume this would be extremely beneficial.

As always, not all viewpoints are covered...

suggest you do some research and find out how 'green' these projects are!

I have not found one resident, either side of the water who is in favour of it - only 1 or 2 flamers on here who like stirring the pot but are mostly irrelevant.

The City Council are against it, residents are against it, The Green Party and Friends of the Earth are against it, all political parties in Southampton are against it - that enough people for you???

Yes, they are against it, but why, what is the perceived threat?

Osprey they stated it was bad for health( the No Campaign) Andy ( the above poster) put out scientific fact to prove them wrong.
Many of the green's wouldn't be against it if Helius did from the start what they've promised to do once up & running & that's source the product locally.
All political parties are against it as they wouldn't stand a chance in hell of getting elected in that area.
The NO campaign has scared the residents with hell warning & fire warnings when all along they admit they're NIMBY'S

A majority of local residents have major concerns about Biomass, Helius, air quality, traffic and the possibility of fire.(because of what happened at the Tilbury plant).This is not that we are NIMBY's, that Loosehead keeps banging on about, but that we have concerns about our living enviroment .

Skin in the beginning of this I listened to FM2 & backed her.
but then people like Andy put out answers to her worries but still she wouldn't listen so I looked into it myself & asked her to clarify the health risks.
After many posts on this subject what I had back from her & many others was how would I like to see my house drop in value?
Would I live near it?
I have said as in my above post YES I would be willing to live next to it.
How much do the properties go for in Fawley?
do they have problems selling them?
They have an oil refinery next to them.
you will have railway lines six lanes of traffic which if I'm right would act as a very good fire break so your not going to lose your homes are you?
As for air pollution? what about the Sewage works? should we shut it down?
All these type of buildings are monitored for air quality & if any hazardous pollutant is being pumped into the air it would be shut down.
Surely the Greens & political Parties have told you all this?
BAT had large chimneys & they were constantly being checked for air quality.
So why haven't the NO campaign told you local residents this? Why didn't they try to get the best deal for you all?
why not go for cheap/free hot water for heating or washing?
As FM2 has said to me it's all to do with property prices & the fact they just don't want it or NOT IN MY BACK YARD.
please read all previous posts from NO campaigners & you'll see the truth for yourself.
I love that area I was there from the age of 3 right up to my 45 year

As you state,we have a lot of problems already, the last thing we need in this district is a biomass power station. Helius have stated that there is no cheap electricity for locals, so no plus sides at all.

I never said cheap electricity!
I said they produce waste hot water that if it meant getting planning permission then it could be a way of using that waste hot water to heat the local homes & to give you hot water for a low price.
this would be the same as the Geo Thermal plant in Town.
but you would have to put this to Helius & see what they say about it?
Your biggest problem in that area is the knocking down or conversion of family homes to build b**ody flats.Then allowing Flats to be built in peoples back gardens.the roads are packed solid & can't cope with the extra cars & the area needs family houses not flats.
Instead of fighting against a producer of future energy why not protest against the developers?

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

skin2000 wrote:

loosehead wrote:

skin2000 wrote:

loosehead wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

Icklelady wrote:
I say go ahead with it.

These people objecting are probably settled in their jobs or retiremennt - and it's not exactly a picture perfect view at the moment, is it?

To the thousands of people not in employment and looking for work, I assume this would be extremely beneficial.

As always, not all viewpoints are covered...

suggest you do some research and find out how 'green' these projects are!

I have not found one resident, either side of the water who is in favour of it - only 1 or 2 flamers on here who like stirring the pot but are mostly irrelevant.

The City Council are against it, residents are against it, The Green Party and Friends of the Earth are against it, all political parties in Southampton are against it - that enough people for you???

Yes, they are against it, but why, what is the perceived threat?

Osprey they stated it was bad for health( the No Campaign) Andy ( the above poster) put out scientific fact to prove them wrong.
Many of the green's wouldn't be against it if Helius did from the start what they've promised to do once up & running & that's source the product locally.
All political parties are against it as they wouldn't stand a chance in hell of getting elected in that area.
The NO campaign has scared the residents with hell warning & fire warnings when all along they admit they're NIMBY'S

A majority of local residents have major concerns about Biomass, Helius, air quality, traffic and the possibility of fire.(because of what happened at the Tilbury plant).This is not that we are NIMBY's, that Loosehead keeps banging on about, but that we have concerns about our living enviroment .

Skin in the beginning of this I listened to FM2 & backed her.
but then people like Andy put out answers to her worries but still she wouldn't listen so I looked into it myself & asked her to clarify the health risks.
After many posts on this subject what I had back from her & many others was how would I like to see my house drop in value?
Would I live near it?
I have said as in my above post YES I would be willing to live next to it.
How much do the properties go for in Fawley?
do they have problems selling them?
They have an oil refinery next to them.
you will have railway lines six lanes of traffic which if I'm right would act as a very good fire break so your not going to lose your homes are you?
As for air pollution? what about the Sewage works? should we shut it down?
All these type of buildings are monitored for air quality & if any hazardous pollutant is being pumped into the air it would be shut down.
Surely the Greens & political Parties have told you all this?
BAT had large chimneys & they were constantly being checked for air quality.
So why haven't the NO campaign told you local residents this? Why didn't they try to get the best deal for you all?
why not go for cheap/free hot water for heating or washing?
As FM2 has said to me it's all to do with property prices & the fact they just don't want it or NOT IN MY BACK YARD.
please read all previous posts from NO campaigners & you'll see the truth for yourself.
I love that area I was there from the age of 3 right up to my 45 year

As you state,we have a lot of problems already, the last thing we need in this district is a biomass power station. Helius have stated that there is no cheap electricity for locals, so no plus sides at all.

That's an interesting idea - cheaper electricity for those close to a generating source! I like the thinking Skin, but sadly the national grid makes it impossible to enact because all our electricity comes from all generators working collectively.

Andy what do you think of Helius roadshow and what do you think of Helius?

As someone has commented in item in 30th june paper . It's due to eu rules, that this is happening so quickly. It's destroying our industries. The scrap metal will increases because of costs of eu rules, because it goes abroad to dirtier countries and losses us industry in which we should be making semi finished and final products for export. This eu crap is killing us. Wrong time, wrong place, and wrong authority (eu should not exist anyway, certainly not for the UK).also look at the power producers, they are alll non UK firms, ie: French German etc. Why do we not wake up. It's similar to the cruise ship industry where they get to build all the ships for the UK market. Give me strength, and plenty of it.

Sticky keys on my type writer are to blame.

Avoid EU fines by committing fraud or Saying No To Helius's £300m money/wood incinerator.

-

According to all government figures Redbridge Road and Millbrook Road are UK pollution Hot Spots

-

http://tinyurl.com/b
o4x66e

-



Boris accused of pollution fraud by using dust-buster machines near monitoring stations to avoid EU fine

By DAMIEN GAYLE.

PUBLISHED: 16:57, 2 April 2012.

Boris Johnson has been accused of 'public health fraud' for ordering the use of dust suppressants to cut readings at pollution monitoring stations in London.

The London Mayor could be avoiding hundreds of millions in EU fines by ordering the use of sprays to cut the amount of dust in the air near pollution monitoring stations.

But the tactic could also be putting the public at risk by masking the true extent of pollution levels in the city and preventing smog warnings when pollution is severe.

Simon Birkett, director of Clean Air in London told MailOnline: 'This is deadly serious. We’re talking about dangerous particles, some of which are toxic or carcinogenic, not inert house dust.

http://tinyurl.com/c
x8lvm3

Dan Soton wrote:
Avoid EU fines by committing fraud or Saying No To Helius's £300m money/wood incinerator.

-

According to all government figures Redbridge Road and Millbrook Road are UK pollution Hot Spots

-

http://tinyurl.com/b

o4x66e

-



Boris accused of pollution fraud by using dust-buster machines near monitoring stations to avoid EU fine

By DAMIEN GAYLE.

PUBLISHED: 16:57, 2 April 2012.

Boris Johnson has been accused of 'public health fraud' for ordering the use of dust suppressants to cut readings at pollution monitoring stations in London.

The London Mayor could be avoiding hundreds of millions in EU fines by ordering the use of sprays to cut the amount of dust in the air near pollution monitoring stations.

But the tactic could also be putting the public at risk by masking the true extent of pollution levels in the city and preventing smog warnings when pollution is severe.

Simon Birkett, director of Clean Air in London told MailOnline: 'This is deadly serious. We’re talking about dangerous particles, some of which are toxic or carcinogenic, not inert house dust.

http://tinyurl.com/c

x8lvm3

Are you that stupid? do you forget the smog that use to hang over London?
Surely if the pollutants as you say are coming from that plant are being suppressed at source then none are going into the atmosphere are they?
I know from my old company that any detector has to be in the waste chimney's or extremely close so it's not like the pollutant detectors are miles away is it?

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:
Avoid EU fines by committing fraud or Saying No To Helius's £300m money/wood incinerator.

-

According to all government figures Redbridge Road and Millbrook Road are UK pollution Hot Spots

-

http://tinyurl.com/b


o4x66e

-



Boris accused of pollution fraud by using dust-buster machines near monitoring stations to avoid EU fine

By DAMIEN GAYLE.

PUBLISHED: 16:57, 2 April 2012.

Boris Johnson has been accused of 'public health fraud' for ordering the use of dust suppressants to cut readings at pollution monitoring stations in London.

The London Mayor could be avoiding hundreds of millions in EU fines by ordering the use of sprays to cut the amount of dust in the air near pollution monitoring stations.

But the tactic could also be putting the public at risk by masking the true extent of pollution levels in the city and preventing smog warnings when pollution is severe.

Simon Birkett, director of Clean Air in London told MailOnline: 'This is deadly serious. We’re talking about dangerous particles, some of which are toxic or carcinogenic, not inert house dust.

http://tinyurl.com/c


x8lvm3

Are you that stupid? do you forget the smog that use to hang over London?
Surely if the pollutants as you say are coming from that plant are being suppressed at source then none are going into the atmosphere are they?
I know from my old company that any detector has to be in the waste chimney's or extremely close so it's not like the pollutant detectors are miles away is it?

loosehead, this thread is about traffic pollution to and from the site..

-

do you want to talk about the chimney stack pollution ?

-

According to all government figures Redbridge Road and Millbrook Road are UK pollution Hot Spots

-

Quoting Helius

All going well.. Helius Energy intends to transport 200,000 tonnes of biomass per annum by road, i.e... counting on no dock/ship strikes from South/North Europe, Africa to the Americas

-

It is anticipated that a single HGV can carry 25 tonnes of biomass. The site can be expected to receive up to 27 HGVs per day (with no deliveries Saturday afternoon or Sundays) or approximately 3 per hour.

Dan Soton wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:
Avoid EU fines by committing fraud or Saying No To Helius's £300m money/wood incinerator.

-

According to all government figures Redbridge Road and Millbrook Road are UK pollution Hot Spots

-

http://tinyurl.com/b



o4x66e

-



Boris accused of pollution fraud by using dust-buster machines near monitoring stations to avoid EU fine

By DAMIEN GAYLE.

PUBLISHED: 16:57, 2 April 2012.

Boris Johnson has been accused of 'public health fraud' for ordering the use of dust suppressants to cut readings at pollution monitoring stations in London.

The London Mayor could be avoiding hundreds of millions in EU fines by ordering the use of sprays to cut the amount of dust in the air near pollution monitoring stations.

But the tactic could also be putting the public at risk by masking the true extent of pollution levels in the city and preventing smog warnings when pollution is severe.

Simon Birkett, director of Clean Air in London told MailOnline: 'This is deadly serious. We’re talking about dangerous particles, some of which are toxic or carcinogenic, not inert house dust.

http://tinyurl.com/c



x8lvm3

Are you that stupid? do you forget the smog that use to hang over London?
Surely if the pollutants as you say are coming from that plant are being suppressed at source then none are going into the atmosphere are they?
I know from my old company that any detector has to be in the waste chimney's or extremely close so it's not like the pollutant detectors are miles away is it?

loosehead, this thread is about traffic pollution to and from the site..

-

do you want to talk about the chimney stack pollution ?

-

According to all government figures Redbridge Road and Millbrook Road are UK pollution Hot Spots

-

Quoting Helius

All going well.. Helius Energy intends to transport 200,000 tonnes of biomass per annum by road, i.e... counting on no dock/ship strikes from South/North Europe, Africa to the Americas

-

It is anticipated that a single HGV can carry 25 tonnes of biomass. The site can be expected to receive up to 27 HGVs per day (with no deliveries Saturday afternoon or Sundays) or approximately 3 per hour.

Dan they have said they were shipping in (ship) the wood chip so what HGV transport?
If they source it in the UK why do they need lorries?
I'm sure there are plenty of rail tracks through the docks so train it in.
If not they are very close to Millbrook station & a main line so why not build a spur line into the plant?
But Dan exactly how did Montague LeMayers get there wood in?
Please don't use the traffic argument as Montagues was ( don't know if it's still there) a huge wood yard so please exactly how did they get their wood?

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:
Avoid EU fines by committing fraud or Saying No To Helius's £300m money/wood incinerator.

-

According to all government figures Redbridge Road and Millbrook Road are UK pollution Hot Spots

-

http://tinyurl.com/b




o4x66e

-



Boris accused of pollution fraud by using dust-buster machines near monitoring stations to avoid EU fine

By DAMIEN GAYLE.

PUBLISHED: 16:57, 2 April 2012.

Boris Johnson has been accused of 'public health fraud' for ordering the use of dust suppressants to cut readings at pollution monitoring stations in London.

The London Mayor could be avoiding hundreds of millions in EU fines by ordering the use of sprays to cut the amount of dust in the air near pollution monitoring stations.

But the tactic could also be putting the public at risk by masking the true extent of pollution levels in the city and preventing smog warnings when pollution is severe.

Simon Birkett, director of Clean Air in London told MailOnline: 'This is deadly serious. We’re talking about dangerous particles, some of which are toxic or carcinogenic, not inert house dust.

http://tinyurl.com/c




x8lvm3

Are you that stupid? do you forget the smog that use to hang over London?
Surely if the pollutants as you say are coming from that plant are being suppressed at source then none are going into the atmosphere are they?
I know from my old company that any detector has to be in the waste chimney's or extremely close so it's not like the pollutant detectors are miles away is it?

loosehead, this thread is about traffic pollution to and from the site..

-

do you want to talk about the chimney stack pollution ?

-

According to all government figures Redbridge Road and Millbrook Road are UK pollution Hot Spots

-

Quoting Helius

All going well.. Helius Energy intends to transport 200,000 tonnes of biomass per annum by road, i.e... counting on no dock/ship strikes from South/North Europe, Africa to the Americas

-

It is anticipated that a single HGV can carry 25 tonnes of biomass. The site can be expected to receive up to 27 HGVs per day (with no deliveries Saturday afternoon or Sundays) or approximately 3 per hour.

Dan they have said they were shipping in (ship) the wood chip so what HGV transport?
If they source it in the UK why do they need lorries?
I'm sure there are plenty of rail tracks through the docks so train it in.
If not they are very close to Millbrook station & a main line so why not build a spur line into the plant?
But Dan exactly how did Montague LeMayers get there wood in?
Please don't use the traffic argument as Montagues was ( don't know if it's still there) a huge wood yard so please exactly how did they get their wood?

loosehead, if you dont like Helius's numbers join the No campaign.

-

Not forgetting Millbrook Road is a UK pollution Hot Spot.. Under EU rules, Britain is allowed no more than 35 "bad air" days in a whole year, Southampton could face unlimited fines from Europe.


All going well.. Helius's best-case scenario is 33 heavy goods vehicles entering and leaving the site.

loosehead you tell me, a worst-case scenario senerio, Worldwide dock/ship strikes, 99 heavy goods vehicles entering and leaving the site?.


-


The plant will utilise up to 800,000 tonnes of biomass material per annum. A maximum of 200,000 tonnes could be delivered by road with the majority arriving by boat. It is understood that the promoter’s contract with ABP requires a minimum of 500,000 tonnes to be handled by the Port.

The promoter has the option, under the current quantities to up this to 600,000 tonnes should circumstances dictate this to be necessary.

The majority of the fuel required will be sourced from UK and international sources (including Southern Europe, North West Europe, Western Africa and the Americas) and delivered through the Port of Southampton’s Bulks Terminal. Fuel delivered by ship will be transferred from the quay to the biomass store via a purpose built conveyor.

The promoter has entered into a commercial contractual arrangement with ABP that guarantees the delivery of a minimum volume of 500,000 tonnes through the Port of Southampton’s Bulks Terminal per annum. Each container ship would have a capacity of between 30,000 and 45,000 tonnes. The commercial agreement provides flexibility to allow all or part the remaining volume of required feedstock to also be delivered through the Bulks Terminal, depending on the final fuel mix. Based on the above, it is anticipated that the frequency of deliveries through the Bulks Terminal will amount to approximately 2-3 deliveries per month.

Ongoing investigations have resulted in the reduction of locally sourced fuel from 300,000 tonnes per annum originally envisaged.

Therefore, under normal operating conditions, it is now anticipated that up to 200,000 tonnes of biomass fuel per annum may be sourced locally (Hampshire, Sussex, Wiltshire, Dorset, Berkshire, Surrey, Greater London are specified), if commercially available, and delivered to the site by road. It is anticipated that such material is likely to comprise predominately recycled wood.

200,000 tonnes equates to approximately 27 HGVs per working day (with no deliveries Saturday afternoon or Sundays) with an additional 6 HGV movements per day required to service the plant and remove the ash.

All trips, including staff movements, equate to approximately 122 per day

Dan Soton wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:
Avoid EU fines by committing fraud or Saying No To Helius's £300m money/wood incinerator.

-

According to all government figures Redbridge Road and Millbrook Road are UK pollution Hot Spots

-

http://tinyurl.com/b





o4x66e

-



Boris accused of pollution fraud by using dust-buster machines near monitoring stations to avoid EU fine

By DAMIEN GAYLE.

PUBLISHED: 16:57, 2 April 2012.

Boris Johnson has been accused of 'public health fraud' for ordering the use of dust suppressants to cut readings at pollution monitoring stations in London.

The London Mayor could be avoiding hundreds of millions in EU fines by ordering the use of sprays to cut the amount of dust in the air near pollution monitoring stations.

But the tactic could also be putting the public at risk by masking the true extent of pollution levels in the city and preventing smog warnings when pollution is severe.

Simon Birkett, director of Clean Air in London told MailOnline: 'This is deadly serious. We’re talking about dangerous particles, some of which are toxic or carcinogenic, not inert house dust.

http://tinyurl.com/c





x8lvm3

Are you that stupid? do you forget the smog that use to hang over London?
Surely if the pollutants as you say are coming from that plant are being suppressed at source then none are going into the atmosphere are they?
I know from my old company that any detector has to be in the waste chimney's or extremely close so it's not like the pollutant detectors are miles away is it?

loosehead, this thread is about traffic pollution to and from the site..

-

do you want to talk about the chimney stack pollution ?

-

According to all government figures Redbridge Road and Millbrook Road are UK pollution Hot Spots

-

Quoting Helius

All going well.. Helius Energy intends to transport 200,000 tonnes of biomass per annum by road, i.e... counting on no dock/ship strikes from South/North Europe, Africa to the Americas

-

It is anticipated that a single HGV can carry 25 tonnes of biomass. The site can be expected to receive up to 27 HGVs per day (with no deliveries Saturday afternoon or Sundays) or approximately 3 per hour.

Dan they have said they were shipping in (ship) the wood chip so what HGV transport?
If they source it in the UK why do they need lorries?
I'm sure there are plenty of rail tracks through the docks so train it in.
If not they are very close to Millbrook station & a main line so why not build a spur line into the plant?
But Dan exactly how did Montague LeMayers get there wood in?
Please don't use the traffic argument as Montagues was ( don't know if it's still there) a huge wood yard so please exactly how did they get their wood?

loosehead, if you dont like Helius's numbers join the No campaign.

-

Not forgetting Millbrook Road is a UK pollution Hot Spot.. Under EU rules, Britain is allowed no more than 35 "bad air" days in a whole year, Southampton could face unlimited fines from Europe.


All going well.. Helius's best-case scenario is 33 heavy goods vehicles entering and leaving the site.

loosehead you tell me, a worst-case scenario senerio, Worldwide dock/ship strikes, 99 heavy goods vehicles entering and leaving the site?.


-


The plant will utilise up to 800,000 tonnes of biomass material per annum. A maximum of 200,000 tonnes could be delivered by road with the majority arriving by boat. It is understood that the promoter’s contract with ABP requires a minimum of 500,000 tonnes to be handled by the Port.

The promoter has the option, under the current quantities to up this to 600,000 tonnes should circumstances dictate this to be necessary.

The majority of the fuel required will be sourced from UK and international sources (including Southern Europe, North West Europe, Western Africa and the Americas) and delivered through the Port of Southampton’s Bulks Terminal. Fuel delivered by ship will be transferred from the quay to the biomass store via a purpose built conveyor.

The promoter has entered into a commercial contractual arrangement with ABP that guarantees the delivery of a minimum volume of 500,000 tonnes through the Port of Southampton’s Bulks Terminal per annum. Each container ship would have a capacity of between 30,000 and 45,000 tonnes. The commercial agreement provides flexibility to allow all or part the remaining volume of required feedstock to also be delivered through the Bulks Terminal, depending on the final fuel mix. Based on the above, it is anticipated that the frequency of deliveries through the Bulks Terminal will amount to approximately 2-3 deliveries per month.

Ongoing investigations have resulted in the reduction of locally sourced fuel from 300,000 tonnes per annum originally envisaged.

Therefore, under normal operating conditions, it is now anticipated that up to 200,000 tonnes of biomass fuel per annum may be sourced locally (Hampshire, Sussex, Wiltshire, Dorset, Berkshire, Surrey, Greater London are specified), if commercially available, and delivered to the site by road. It is anticipated that such material is likely to comprise predominately recycled wood.

200,000 tonnes equates to approximately 27 HGVs per working day (with no deliveries Saturday afternoon or Sundays) with an additional 6 HGV movements per day required to service the plant and remove the ash.

All trips, including staff movements, equate to approximately 122 per day

I'm for the Bio Mass