City residents to get vote on biomass plant (From Daily Echo)

The dont wont Biomass but are quite happy with having Nuclear Reactors bobbing up and down Southampton Water.
.
At least there getting energy from this, the nuclear reactors from the Submarines provide nothing to the City by being here other than an extremely high hazard.

They dont want the Biomass but are quite happy with having Nuclear Reactors bobbing up and down Southampton Water.
.
At least their getting energy from this, the nuclear reactors from the Submarines provide nothing to the City by being here other than an extremely high hazard.”

The Salv wrote:
They dont want the Biomass but are quite happy with having Nuclear Reactors bobbing up and down Southampton Water.
.
At least their getting energy from this, the nuclear reactors from the Submarines provide nothing to the City by being here other than an extremely high hazard.”

That is just nonsense and has no bearing on the subject. What will be important in the vote is asking the right questions, a simple "yes" we want it or "no" we don't, isn't going to be good enough.

Really fail to see how building the power station, importing the fuel and burning it(am I right there) is going to be either cost effective or greener than existing options. Presumably large grants from somewhere are available to pay costs to ensure profitability. It depends on who they ask in the city and what questions they ask but why waste money on a referendum. Put the question in the Cityview magazine, people to vote online or in writing and an advert in Echo and should cost a lot less.

You are always in danger of excluding residents if the referendum does not include ALL in the city, if I can see the 'chimney' from my house does that mean it affects me ? If I am stuck behind one of the lorries delivering to the dock does that mean it affects me ? If I subscribe to the 'green' issue and live in Bassett but can not see, hear, smell etc the Biomass operation am I still affected by the decision ? Helius have spent a fortune on these consultations and would suggest they have been given the nod much further up the tree, they are a small company who are yet to 'run' such an operation, they are probably banking on getting the go ahead and selling the scheme or part of to a much larger operator, however, the real question is the validity of the operation, forget the NIMBY's as that argument is, in my opinion not valid, a stack of containers could be considered an eyesore, yes or no based upon the merits of how or if this plant can improve , mitigate, sustain impact on our environment.

Quote:- "Helius argues the plant will cut carbon emissions and help tackle climate change while creating 450 construction jobs, and 100 more once operating. " Those are positive points but I would like to see more detail.

“When you do petitions you don’t get everybody to comment.

Think Williams got that wrong, Petitions when done rightly you do get every ones comments that you see and you do get to talk to them, but you do not get every one in one area, unless your willing spend a few days just doing 50 houses and do a door to door petitions.
With a vote you get every one but you do not get to talk them or get there comments you have to communcate in some form to get that.

The Salv wrote:
The dont wont Biomass but are quite happy with having Nuclear Reactors bobbing up and down Southampton Water.
.
At least there getting energy from this, the nuclear reactors from the Submarines provide nothing to the City by being here other than an extremely high hazard.

How are the reactors hazardous, again?

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Quote:- "Helius argues the plant will cut carbon emissions and help tackle climate change while creating 450 construction jobs, and 100 more once operating. " Those are positive points but I would like to see more detail.

Osprey yes jobs are good, but they are not telling you all. It will not be 450 jobs from start to finish, that never happens on a contruction site, they come in as teams to do one sected job and when they finish they go and anouther teams comes in to do there job some time there is an overlap in jobs.
When its all finished and up and running you have these 100 jobs, the bulk of these jobs will be when a ship is in to discharge, and will be if and when needed jobs and will be done by a steveadore company, the few remaining jobs will be those that will be inside the building to monitor the running which will be the max of 4 to 6 people no more than that will be needed to make the place run, plus you have a few admin jobs on top say about 3 and that is if the admin is done there and not at some other location.

Its a myth that this bio-mass burner is green and reduces CO2 emissions, its just a plain old Bio-mass to burn waste.
A tree takes in Co2 from the air while growing we all should know that, but what a lot of people do not know or do not realise is this.
While a tree is growing any thing that breaks of the tree like leaves and twigs and branches, once the process of decay as started it will release all that captured Co2 back into the air, also when burning all that wood being burned will again release all that captured Co2 in the wood and release back in to the air, plus there is added Co2 cause though the burning, burning the air also don't forget and thats need to be added on top.

Here, There wrote:
You are always in danger of excluding residents if the referendum does not include ALL in the city, if I can see the 'chimney' from my house does that mean it affects me ? If I am stuck behind one of the lorries delivering to the dock does that mean it affects me ? If I subscribe to the 'green' issue and live in Bassett but can not see, hear, smell etc the Biomass operation am I still affected by the decision ? Helius have spent a fortune on these consultations and would suggest they have been given the nod much further up the tree, they are a small company who are yet to 'run' such an operation, they are probably banking on getting the go ahead and selling the scheme or part of to a much larger operator, however, the real question is the validity of the operation, forget the NIMBY's as that argument is, in my opinion not valid, a stack of containers could be considered an eyesore, yes or no based upon the merits of how or if this plant can improve , mitigate, sustain impact on our environment.

You bring out some good points. I'm glad to see that local people will be given more opportunity to get involved in the debate and really hope that the 'referendum' asks the 'right' questions. My concern is that people will see a no vote as meaning it won't happen. This is not the case. The result of the vote will just be one of many considerations the people making the decision will have to take account of, after all, they work within a legal framework and no amount of opposition to something can alter that. A good test for the Tories notion of 'localism' v issues governed by national law/statute.

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote: The dont wont Biomass but are quite happy with having Nuclear Reactors bobbing up and down Southampton Water. . At least there getting energy from this, the nuclear reactors from the Submarines provide nothing to the City by being here other than an extremely high hazard.

How are the reactors hazardous, again?

Please see archived stories on this subject through the Daily Echo website.

southy wrote:
Its a myth that this bio-mass burner is green and reduces CO2 emissions, its just a plain old Bio-mass to burn waste.
A tree takes in Co2 from the air while growing we all should know that, but what a lot of people do not know or do not realise is this.
While a tree is growing any thing that breaks of the tree like leaves and twigs and branches, once the process of decay as started it will release all that captured Co2 back into the air, also when burning all that wood being burned will again release all that captured Co2 in the wood and release back in to the air, plus there is added Co2 cause though the burning, burning the air also don't forget and thats need to be added on top.

"Burning the Air"? If you keep up your production of hot air, then Millbrook will become self-sufficient.

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote: The dont wont Biomass but are quite happy with having Nuclear Reactors bobbing up and down Southampton Water. . At least there getting energy from this, the nuclear reactors from the Submarines provide nothing to the City by being here other than an extremely high hazard.

How are the reactors hazardous, again?

Please see archived stories on this subject through the Daily Echo website.

This is a thread about Biomass and its effect on the local populace, the Nuclear debate has been well chewed over on other threads, please stop clouding the issue.

If, as you say that it is going to happen whether the vote is yes or no, then the question must be flawed. In which case the referendum should accurately map out the options with the ability to select the best option. Preferably on practical advice, not Political dogma.

The Salv wrote:
The dont wont Biomass but are quite happy with having Nuclear Reactors bobbing up and down Southampton Water.
.
At least there getting energy from this, the nuclear reactors from the Submarines provide nothing to the City by being here other than an extremely high hazard.

You loon, the threat of any fallout from a nuclear sub is 1/100,000 years! and then the fallout would be so minor emergency service teams would be more than prepared to handle it.

The fact that nuclear subs have more safeguards than a nuclear power station proves that safety was a key component for design.

Then again i suppose you would prefer we have no defence against threats and just pelt them with stones and arrows!

Taskforce 141 wrote:

The Salv wrote:
The dont wont Biomass but are quite happy with having Nuclear Reactors bobbing up and down Southampton Water.
.
At least there getting energy from this, the nuclear reactors from the Submarines provide nothing to the City by being here other than an extremely high hazard.

You loon, the threat of any fallout from a nuclear sub is 1/100,000 years! and then the fallout would be so minor emergency service teams would be more than prepared to handle it.

The fact that nuclear subs have more safeguards than a nuclear power station proves that safety was a key component for design.

Then again i suppose you would prefer we have no defence against threats and just pelt them with stones and arrows!

Not many Biomass submarines about though.

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote:
The dont wont Biomass but are quite happy with having Nuclear Reactors bobbing up and down Southampton Water.
.
At least there getting energy from this, the nuclear reactors from the Submarines provide nothing to the City by being here other than an extremely high hazard.

How are the reactors hazardous, again?

Please don't feed the Troll. Biomass is the thread, not nuclear.

Any chance of some of my constituents commenting on here as this is the list of the usual suspects with their own agendas

sottondave wrote:
Any chance of some of my constituents commenting on here as this is the list of the usual suspects with their own agendas

What is your own opinion as things stand?

The Salv wrote:
The dont wont Biomass but are quite happy with having Nuclear Reactors bobbing up and down Southampton Water.
.
At least there getting energy from this, the nuclear reactors from the Submarines provide nothing to the City by being here other than an extremely high hazard.

What do you mean "Extremely High Hazard"? They are not. You trot out this uninformed garbage without thinking or understanding. There are hundreds of thousands of everyday things that represent more "hazard" to you - do you lose sleep over any of them?

southy wrote:
Its a myth that this bio-mass burner is green and reduces CO2 emissions, its just a plain old Bio-mass to burn waste.
A tree takes in Co2 from the air while growing we all should know that, but what a lot of people do not know or do not realise is this.
While a tree is growing any thing that breaks of the tree like leaves and twigs and branches, once the process of decay as started it will release all that captured Co2 back into the air, also when burning all that wood being burned will again release all that captured Co2 in the wood and release back in to the air, plus there is added Co2 cause though the burning, burning the air also don't forget and thats need to be added on top.

Hi Southy good point - you are quite right, and this is one of the key points about the overall value proposition. To make this plant "green" as much wood as possible must be scrap wood or by product from another process - ie wood that will decay anyway if not put to good use. I do agree with campaigners who make the point that importing wood which has been chipped purely to burn is not good sense - however what they overlook is that a lot of this wood is a by- product from things like timber production - especially from Scandinavia but also from the UK and burning scrap wood is in a sense zero net carbon loss. So called "Green" campaigners on these pages have continually misrepresented this point and obfuscated the data (possibly because they don't understand it).

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

sottondave wrote: Any chance of some of my constituents commenting on here as this is the list of the usual suspects with their own agendas

What is your own opinion as things stand?

Ospreysaint
Thanks for sticking to the point of this thread.
I have always been a keen enviromentalist and I sincerely believe we need to decarbonise our economy and switch to greener solutions. The existing power system is geared towards large plants such as gas, coal and nuclear and this biomass plant adheres to this. I believe we need a combination of locally based power systems based on renewable energy. There is a place for biomass in the mix but not large scale power plants based on transporting wood from thousands of miles away. This plant is not environmentally friendly and should be ditched. I could also go on about the potential problems of traffic, pollution and dangers from nearness of the plant to houses.
My constituents are massively opposed to this scheme not for NIMBY reasons but because this is wrong on so many levels. I will be proposing the motion next wednesday to put more pressure on Helius.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

The Salv wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote: The dont wont Biomass but are quite happy with having Nuclear Reactors bobbing up and down Southampton Water. . At least there getting energy from this, the nuclear reactors from the Submarines provide nothing to the City by being here other than an extremely high hazard.

How are the reactors hazardous, again?

Please see archived stories on this subject through the Daily Echo website.

This is a thread about Biomass and its effect on the local populace, the Nuclear debate has been well chewed over on other threads, please stop clouding the issue.

Um yeeaahhhh....
.
Hence why I suggested looking in the archive - keep your hair on!

Taskforce 141 wrote:

The Salv wrote: The dont wont Biomass but are quite happy with having Nuclear Reactors bobbing up and down Southampton Water. . At least there getting energy from this, the nuclear reactors from the Submarines provide nothing to the City by being here other than an extremely high hazard.

You loon, the threat of any fallout from a nuclear sub is 1/100,000 years! and then the fallout would be so minor emergency service teams would be more than prepared to handle it. The fact that nuclear subs have more safeguards than a nuclear power station proves that safety was a key component for design. Then again i suppose you would prefer we have no defence against threats and just pelt them with stones and arrows!

You are of course incorrect - please read archived comments on why you are so incredibly ignorant.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote: The dont wont Biomass but are quite happy with having Nuclear Reactors bobbing up and down Southampton Water. . At least there getting energy from this, the nuclear reactors from the Submarines provide nothing to the City by being here other than an extremely high hazard.

How are the reactors hazardous, again?

Please don't feed the Troll. Biomass is the thread, not nuclear.

Another sheep that fails to have any understanding of what a troll is.
.
"oh I disagree with this comment, therefore he must be a uhh ermm, whats that popular word they have been using on the news recentley that I dont quite actually understand but may make me sound cultural and wise... troll"
.
Your really going to have to review your ad hominen logic.

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

southy wrote:
Its a myth that this bio-mass burner is green and reduces CO2 emissions, its just a plain old Bio-mass to burn waste.
A tree takes in Co2 from the air while growing we all should know that, but what a lot of people do not know or do not realise is this.
While a tree is growing any thing that breaks of the tree like leaves and twigs and branches, once the process of decay as started it will release all that captured Co2 back into the air, also when burning all that wood being burned will again release all that captured Co2 in the wood and release back in to the air, plus there is added Co2 cause though the burning, burning the air also don't forget and thats need to be added on top.

Hi Southy good point - you are quite right, and this is one of the key points about the overall value proposition. To make this plant "green" as much wood as possible must be scrap wood or by product from another process - ie wood that will decay anyway if not put to good use. I do agree with campaigners who make the point that importing wood which has been chipped purely to burn is not good sense - however what they overlook is that a lot of this wood is a by- product from things like timber production - especially from Scandinavia but also from the UK and burning scrap wood is in a sense zero net carbon loss. So called "Green" campaigners on these pages have continually misrepresented this point and obfuscated the data (possibly because they don't understand it).

that is really arrogant Andy - you always say people don't 'understand' things when they have a different viewpoint to yourself. There is no evidence that there is anywhere like enough by-product produced in this country to sustain large scale biomass stations. As evidenced by the one in Scotland which is placed well away from residential areas and has an additional source from local trees but STILL has to import unchipped virgin wood from abroad!

David Furnell sums it up quite well in his last post. We all have a responsibility individually to use less energy, save energy, where possible use solar power and wind sources for those that can do that like farms etc. Biomass on this scale is not green or sustainable...

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

The Salv wrote: The dont wont Biomass but are quite happy with having Nuclear Reactors bobbing up and down Southampton Water. . At least there getting energy from this, the nuclear reactors from the Submarines provide nothing to the City by being here other than an extremely high hazard.

What do you mean "Extremely High Hazard"? They are not. You trot out this uninformed garbage without thinking or understanding. There are hundreds of thousands of everyday things that represent more "hazard" to you - do you lose sleep over any of them?

Hundreds of thousands of higher hazard activities in our city than a nuclear sub being docked up needlessly in our port by a Navy with a track record of causing incidents as proven on previous threads on this subject, really?
.
Go on then name 10...
.
And please research risk assesments before ignorantly spounting your low understanding on the subject.

freemantlegirl2 wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

southy wrote: Its a myth that this bio-mass burner is green and reduces CO2 emissions, its just a plain old Bio-mass to burn waste. A tree takes in Co2 from the air while growing we all should know that, but what a lot of people do not know or do not realise is this. While a tree is growing any thing that breaks of the tree like leaves and twigs and branches, once the process of decay as started it will release all that captured Co2 back into the air, also when burning all that wood being burned will again release all that captured Co2 in the wood and release back in to the air, plus there is added Co2 cause though the burning, burning the air also don't forget and thats need to be added on top.

Hi Southy good point - you are quite right, and this is one of the key points about the overall value proposition. To make this plant "green" as much wood as possible must be scrap wood or by product from another process - ie wood that will decay anyway if not put to good use. I do agree with campaigners who make the point that importing wood which has been chipped purely to burn is not good sense - however what they overlook is that a lot of this wood is a by- product from things like timber production - especially from Scandinavia but also from the UK and burning scrap wood is in a sense zero net carbon loss. So called "Green" campaigners on these pages have continually misrepresented this point and obfuscated the data (possibly because they don't understand it).

that is really arrogant Andy - you always say people don't 'understand' things when they have a different viewpoint to yourself. There is no evidence that there is anywhere like enough by-product produced in this country to sustain large scale biomass stations. As evidenced by the one in Scotland which is placed well away from residential areas and has an additional source from local trees but STILL has to import unchipped virgin wood from abroad! David Furnell sums it up quite well in his last post. We all have a responsibility individually to use less energy, save energy, where possible use solar power and wind sources for those that can do that like farms etc. Biomass on this scale is not green or sustainable...

But you have an ulterior motive to having the biomass rejected though dont you...
.
We all know it

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

southy wrote:
Its a myth that this bio-mass burner is green and reduces CO2 emissions, its just a plain old Bio-mass to burn waste.
A tree takes in Co2 from the air while growing we all should know that, but what a lot of people do not know or do not realise is this.
While a tree is growing any thing that breaks of the tree like leaves and twigs and branches, once the process of decay as started it will release all that captured Co2 back into the air, also when burning all that wood being burned will again release all that captured Co2 in the wood and release back in to the air, plus there is added Co2 cause though the burning, burning the air also don't forget and thats need to be added on top.

Hi Southy good point - you are quite right, and this is one of the key points about the overall value proposition. To make this plant "green" as much wood as possible must be scrap wood or by product from another process - ie wood that will decay anyway if not put to good use. I do agree with campaigners who make the point that importing wood which has been chipped purely to burn is not good sense - however what they overlook is that a lot of this wood is a by- product from things like timber production - especially from Scandinavia but also from the UK and burning scrap wood is in a sense zero net carbon loss. So called "Green" campaigners on these pages have continually misrepresented this point and obfuscated the data (possibly because they don't understand it).

Andy if you want to get rid of waste wood and keep it clean as posible, then theres only one way in doing it.
Its what they are doing in a coppice wood in sussex, its the closes way to the way nature do it, nature just takes longer. the way they are dealing with waste wood, is the charcoal it (burning with out oxygen) and then bury it, deeper in the ground the better, this way you can lock in a lot more carbon into the charcoal so it not release (its just shame doing it this way there is not enough heat to produce any real useful power), after it is buried nature will take over and totally lock all that carbon into the charcoal and slowly turn it into coal over 100's of thousands of years. A coal base for the far future.

sottondave wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

sottondave wrote: Any chance of some of my constituents commenting on here as this is the list of the usual suspects with their own agendas

What is your own opinion as things stand?

Ospreysaint
Thanks for sticking to the point of this thread.
I have always been a keen enviromentalist and I sincerely believe we need to decarbonise our economy and switch to greener solutions. The existing power system is geared towards large plants such as gas, coal and nuclear and this biomass plant adheres to this. I believe we need a combination of locally based power systems based on renewable energy. There is a place for biomass in the mix but not large scale power plants based on transporting wood from thousands of miles away. This plant is not environmentally friendly and should be ditched. I could also go on about the potential problems of traffic, pollution and dangers from nearness of the plant to houses.
My constituents are massively opposed to this scheme not for NIMBY reasons but because this is wrong on so many levels. I will be proposing the motion next wednesday to put more pressure on Helius.

Evey time you and others have attempted to quantify the "many levels" on which this proposal is wrong I have found numerous basic errors of fact and misunderstanding of data and I have pointed them out in some detail. If you lack the courage to listen and learn then your opinions are devalued as a result and I'll take you to task on a more public platform instead. If you are a councillor do not imply that my views are based on some personal agenda simply because I call out the detailed errors and inconsistencies in yours and others' submissions.
Regarding your meaningless phrase "environmental friendliness" do you want to accept a maths challenge on this point?

sottondave wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

sottondave wrote: Any chance of some of my constituents commenting on here as this is the list of the usual suspects with their own agendas

What is your own opinion as things stand?

Ospreysaint
Thanks for sticking to the point of this thread.
I have always been a keen enviromentalist and I sincerely believe we need to decarbonise our economy and switch to greener solutions. The existing power system is geared towards large plants such as gas, coal and nuclear and this biomass plant adheres to this. I believe we need a combination of locally based power systems based on renewable energy. There is a place for biomass in the mix but not large scale power plants based on transporting wood from thousands of miles away. This plant is not environmentally friendly and should be ditched. I could also go on about the potential problems of traffic, pollution and dangers from nearness of the plant to houses.
My constituents are massively opposed to this scheme not for NIMBY reasons but because this is wrong on so many levels. I will be proposing the motion next wednesday to put more pressure on Helius.

So you want to decarbonise our economy, that is not possible unless you want to return back before the use of fire and start again. to many things rely on a carbon base to produce products.
Like your plastics, nylon rubber, all we can do is reduce it and that is all. we could help like bottles and some containers being made of glass again and putting a deposit on the return, but this will not work for Capitalist because it would mean having to employ more people to collet and wash the bottles and jars alike for reuse, you could legalise hemp again, so we can use the fibres once more for use, and extract the oil to make a type of derv, and make medicines again on mass, but again the capitalist will not like this also, because it will hurt the oil and drug industary big time in there profits.
No they way your thinking will not work, you need to get rid of Capitalism from your mind totally first, and work from there how things can be done for the benefit of all and not the few.

sottondave wrote:
Any chance of some of my constituents commenting on here as this is the list of the usual suspects with their own agendas

I don't agree with it just being done in an area where the NO campaign/NIMBY's are strong.
I feel it should be put to the people of the city then if we vote against it I for one will accept it.
A way you could convince me to support a NO vote would be in this council ( wouldn't care what party) signed up to have the free Solar panels on offer put onto every council home.
Also at looking into talking the sewage plant to use the waste Methane & convert it into Electricity ( been done up North)
If you can get wind & wave Turbines in the Test & Itchen plus Southampton Water I would congratulate you.
All these would be Green energies & would be the best renewable energy sources.
Will you & your Council look into the feasibility of this?
If not sorry it should be the cities vote as it would power the whole city not just Millbrook

sottondave wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

sottondave wrote: Any chance of some of my constituents commenting on here as this is the list of the usual suspects with their own agendas

What is your own opinion as things stand?

Ospreysaint
Thanks for sticking to the point of this thread.
I have always been a keen enviromentalist and I sincerely believe we need to decarbonise our economy and switch to greener solutions. The existing power system is geared towards large plants such as gas, coal and nuclear and this biomass plant adheres to this. I believe we need a combination of locally based power systems based on renewable energy. There is a place for biomass in the mix but not large scale power plants based on transporting wood from thousands of miles away. This plant is not environmentally friendly and should be ditched. I could also go on about the potential problems of traffic, pollution and dangers from nearness of the plant to houses.
My constituents are massively opposed to this scheme not for NIMBY reasons but because this is wrong on so many levels. I will be proposing the motion next wednesday to put more pressure on Helius.

Just read this one after I'd posted my previous post.
You're having a laugh aren't you?
FM2 was spouting on about health being the reason she was objecting.
Andy put forward an argument totally dismissing those fears.
Then the truth came out from NO campaigners they didn't want it in their back yard so the reasons then given were NIMBY.
one person won't even be facing it as his house faces the Park yet he didn't want it because of it looking ugly?
A fire Hazard? (six lanes of traffic & 4lanes of rail+ waste land).
I have been told the Tory Party supports the NO campaign but I will fight for what I believe in not just follow the party I support.
Sorry Dave the whole campaign is a NIMBY campaign & this vote should be for the whole city.
Exactly how much will it cost? £2.3million?

loosehead wrote:

sottondave wrote: Any chance of some of my constituents commenting on here as this is the list of the usual suspects with their own agendas

I don't agree with it just being done in an area where the NO campaign/NIMBY's are strong. I feel it should be put to the people of the city then if we vote against it I for one will accept it. A way you could convince me to support a NO vote would be in this council ( wouldn't care what party) signed up to have the free Solar panels on offer put onto every council home. Also at looking into talking the sewage plant to use the waste Methane & convert it into Electricity ( been done up North) If you can get wind & wave Turbines in the Test & Itchen plus Southampton Water I would congratulate you. All these would be Green energies & would be the best renewable energy sources. Will you & your Council look into the feasibility of this? If not sorry it should be the cities vote as it would power the whole city not just Millbrook

Loosehead
Glad to accomodate you. Yes we as a council are looking to put photovoltaic on council roofs as this will generate money which can be put into improving peoples lives. We have also been putting pressure on Helius to put CHP on the biomass if it is built. They have refused to do this unless it is financially viable. As a council we would have no power to install wind or wave in the Solent as we do not have these powers or ability.
I look forward to your change of view.

southy wrote:

sottondave wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

sottondave wrote: Any chance of some of my constituents commenting on here as this is the list of the usual suspects with their own agendas

What is your own opinion as things stand?

Ospreysaint
Thanks for sticking to the point of this thread.
I have always been a keen enviromentalist and I sincerely believe we need to decarbonise our economy and switch to greener solutions. The existing power system is geared towards large plants such as gas, coal and nuclear and this biomass plant adheres to this. I believe we need a combination of locally based power systems based on renewable energy. There is a place for biomass in the mix but not large scale power plants based on transporting wood from thousands of miles away. This plant is not environmentally friendly and should be ditched. I could also go on about the potential problems of traffic, pollution and dangers from nearness of the plant to houses.
My constituents are massively opposed to this scheme not for NIMBY reasons but because this is wrong on so many levels. I will be proposing the motion next wednesday to put more pressure on Helius.

So you want to decarbonise our economy, that is not possible unless you want to return back before the use of fire and start again. to many things rely on a carbon base to produce products.
Like your plastics, nylon rubber, all we can do is reduce it and that is all. we could help like bottles and some containers being made of glass again and putting a deposit on the return, but this will not work for Capitalist because it would mean having to employ more people to collet and wash the bottles and jars alike for reuse, you could legalise hemp again, so we can use the fibres once more for use, and extract the oil to make a type of derv, and make medicines again on mass, but again the capitalist will not like this also, because it will hurt the oil and drug industary big time in there profits.
No they way your thinking will not work, you need to get rid of Capitalism from your mind totally first, and work from there how things can be done for the benefit of all and not the few.

'all and not the few'.

Translation of 'all' = those who voted for us.

loosehead wrote:

sottondave wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

sottondave wrote: Any chance of some of my constituents commenting on here as this is the list of the usual suspects with their own agendas

What is your own opinion as things stand?

Ospreysaint Thanks for sticking to the point of this thread. I have always been a keen enviromentalist and I sincerely believe we need to decarbonise our economy and switch to greener solutions. The existing power system is geared towards large plants such as gas, coal and nuclear and this biomass plant adheres to this. I believe we need a combination of locally based power systems based on renewable energy. There is a place for biomass in the mix but not large scale power plants based on transporting wood from thousands of miles away. This plant is not environmentally friendly and should be ditched. I could also go on about the potential problems of traffic, pollution and dangers from nearness of the plant to houses. My constituents are massively opposed to this scheme not for NIMBY reasons but because this is wrong on so many levels. I will be proposing the motion next wednesday to put more pressure on Helius.

Just read this one after I'd posted my previous post. You're having a laugh aren't you? FM2 was spouting on about health being the reason she was objecting. Andy put forward an argument totally dismissing those fears. Then the truth came out from NO campaigners they didn't want it in their back yard so the reasons then given were NIMBY. one person won't even be facing it as his house faces the Park yet he didn't want it because of it looking ugly? A fire Hazard? (six lanes of traffic & 4lanes of rail+ waste land). I have been told the Tory Party supports the NO campaign but I will fight for what I believe in not just follow the party I support. Sorry Dave the whole campaign is a NIMBY campaign & this vote should be for the whole city. Exactly how much will it cost? £2.3million?

Loosehead again
There is currently an enormous pile of scrap metal in front of the proposed site. There was a fire there recently if you remember which left choking smoke across the city.
The cost will be minimal as the ballot will be the same day as the Police Commissioner elections.

Shoong wrote:

southy wrote:

sottondave wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

sottondave wrote: Any chance of some of my constituents commenting on here as this is the list of the usual suspects with their own agendas

What is your own opinion as things stand?

Ospreysaint
Thanks for sticking to the point of this thread.
I have always been a keen enviromentalist and I sincerely believe we need to decarbonise our economy and switch to greener solutions. The existing power system is geared towards large plants such as gas, coal and nuclear and this biomass plant adheres to this. I believe we need a combination of locally based power systems based on renewable energy. There is a place for biomass in the mix but not large scale power plants based on transporting wood from thousands of miles away. This plant is not environmentally friendly and should be ditched. I could also go on about the potential problems of traffic, pollution and dangers from nearness of the plant to houses.
My constituents are massively opposed to this scheme not for NIMBY reasons but because this is wrong on so many levels. I will be proposing the motion next wednesday to put more pressure on Helius.

So you want to decarbonise our economy, that is not possible unless you want to return back before the use of fire and start again. to many things rely on a carbon base to produce products.
Like your plastics, nylon rubber, all we can do is reduce it and that is all. we could help like bottles and some containers being made of glass again and putting a deposit on the return, but this will not work for Capitalist because it would mean having to employ more people to collet and wash the bottles and jars alike for reuse, you could legalise hemp again, so we can use the fibres once more for use, and extract the oil to make a type of derv, and make medicines again on mass, but again the capitalist will not like this also, because it will hurt the oil and drug industary big time in there profits.
No they way your thinking will not work, you need to get rid of Capitalism from your mind totally first, and work from there how things can be done for the benefit of all and not the few.

'all and not the few'.

Translation of 'all' = those who voted for us.

as normal translated wrong

How about we get a vote on nuclear subs aswell seeing we are going down that road.

Soton Dave, some questions:- 1) you cannot guarantee to deliver any quantity of PV power at any given time from your PV installation so tell everyone here how National Grid should guard against a possible shortfall of supply. 2) What will be the cost per KwH including transforming low voltage DC up to a minimum 240V AC? 3) How much power will your PV installation contribute at the time of greatest demand ie during very cold dull still winter anticyclones? 4) Where are the PV cells manufactured? 5) What is the environmental cost of their manufacture given the distance to ship and the rare metals used in the cells?
We look forward to your response.

loosehead wrote:

sottondave wrote:
Any chance of some of my constituents commenting on here as this is the list of the usual suspects with their own agendas

I don't agree with it just being done in an area where the NO campaign/NIMBY's are strong.
I feel it should be put to the people of the city then if we vote against it I for one will accept it.
A way you could convince me to support a NO vote would be in this council ( wouldn't care what party) signed up to have the free Solar panels on offer put onto every council home.
Also at looking into talking the sewage plant to use the waste Methane & convert it into Electricity ( been done up North)
If you can get wind & wave Turbines in the Test & Itchen plus Southampton Water I would congratulate you.
All these would be Green energies & would be the best renewable energy sources.
Will you & your Council look into the feasibility of this?
If not sorry it should be the cities vote as it would power the whole city not just Millbrook

Millbrook WasteWater Treatment Works does have a biogas CHP that does exactly as you suggest. The CHP element is currently not used though as it is not commercially viable for them so despite having a CHP plant they only use the gas for electricity generation. One of the reasons I feel all talk of CHP for Helius and commercial uptake is just that "all talk". It has been proven before there is not a financially viable option for the heat...

Living in your ward Dave happy to say completely against the Helius plans ;-)

Try living in MILLBROOK !! The stench of methane gas from the sewer plant completely dominates many peoples lives. But we are the few and nobody listens or cares about our air being poisoned . Now you want to smoke us out and next poison us more with fluoride in the water system. This plant will go ahead. No body will stop this plant being built, as usual everyone will just argue about it. Dont forget your dose of methane when stuck in traffic coming out of town today, enjoy, NOT.

southy wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

southy wrote:
Its a myth that this bio-mass burner is green and reduces CO2 emissions, its just a plain old Bio-mass to burn waste.
A tree takes in Co2 from the air while growing we all should know that, but what a lot of people do not know or do not realise is this.
While a tree is growing any thing that breaks of the tree like leaves and twigs and branches, once the process of decay as started it will release all that captured Co2 back into the air, also when burning all that wood being burned will again release all that captured Co2 in the wood and release back in to the air, plus there is added Co2 cause though the burning, burning the air also don't forget and thats need to be added on top.

Hi Southy good point - you are quite right, and this is one of the key points about the overall value proposition. To make this plant "green" as much wood as possible must be scrap wood or by product from another process - ie wood that will decay anyway if not put to good use. I do agree with campaigners who make the point that importing wood which has been chipped purely to burn is not good sense - however what they overlook is that a lot of this wood is a by- product from things like timber production - especially from Scandinavia but also from the UK and burning scrap wood is in a sense zero net carbon loss. So called "Green" campaigners on these pages have continually misrepresented this point and obfuscated the data (possibly because they don't understand it).

Andy if you want to get rid of waste wood and keep it clean as posible, then theres only one way in doing it.
Its what they are doing in a coppice wood in sussex, its the closes way to the way nature do it, nature just takes longer. the way they are dealing with waste wood, is the charcoal it (burning with out oxygen) and then bury it, deeper in the ground the better, this way you can lock in a lot more carbon into the charcoal so it not release (its just shame doing it this way there is not enough heat to produce any real useful power), after it is buried nature will take over and totally lock all that carbon into the charcoal and slowly turn it into coal over 100's of thousands of years. A coal base for the far future.

Burning air was pretty revolutionary but "(burning with out oxygen) " is way beyond that. Groundbreaking stuff coming out today.

jazzi wrote:
Try living in MILLBROOK !! The stench of methane gas from the sewer plant completely dominates many peoples lives. But we are the few and nobody listens or cares about our air being poisoned . Now you want to smoke us out and next poison us more with fluoride in the water system. This plant will go ahead. No body will stop this plant being built, as usual everyone will just argue about it. Dont forget your dose of methane when stuck in traffic coming out of town today, enjoy, NOT.

Interesting point jazzi. I would favour enclosing the sludge tanks and capturing the sewer gas for electricity generation. Councillor SotonDave however has indicated that because of his "environmental" concerns he should be against this process because it produces a greenhouse gas (CO2) as byproduct so he will be in a bit of a quandary with his constituents. So I guess you and the rest of Dave's constituents must continue to enjoy the smell and think how much good you are doing for the Millbrook "environment" by not burning it.

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

jazzi wrote:
Try living in MILLBROOK !! The stench of methane gas from the sewer plant completely dominates many peoples lives. But we are the few and nobody listens or cares about our air being poisoned . Now you want to smoke us out and next poison us more with fluoride in the water system. This plant will go ahead. No body will stop this plant being built, as usual everyone will just argue about it. Dont forget your dose of methane when stuck in traffic coming out of town today, enjoy, NOT.

Interesting point jazzi. I would favour enclosing the sludge tanks and capturing the sewer gas for electricity generation. Councillor SotonDave however has indicated that because of his "environmental" concerns he should be against this process because it produces a greenhouse gas (CO2) as byproduct so he will be in a bit of a quandary with his constituents. So I guess you and the rest of Dave's constituents must continue to enjoy the smell and think how much good you are doing for the Millbrook "environment" by not burning it.

Stinks EH !!

It sounds a sensible idea but begs the question, will there be a public vote on fluoride also?

engage and enthuse councillor williams.is that what you decided to do when announcing the closure of oaklands swimming pool.you are a utter waster along with the rest of the muppets that run this council.SAVE OAKLANDS SWIMMING POOL

Oi SotonDave answer those questions eh? Are you a man or a mouse? Spell it out for us what us taxpayers get from these solar panels and what we're paying.

save oaklands swimming pool.i ask all my fellow sotonians to join this campaign.many thanks

A referendum should be City-wide to have any credibility at all with the Planning Inspectorate.
Have a look at the ipetitions/nosoutham
ptonbiomass petition as it puts the case 'against' rather well.

sottondave wrote:

loosehead wrote:

sottondave wrote: Any chance of some of my constituents commenting on here as this is the list of the usual suspects with their own agendas

I don't agree with it just being done in an area where the NO campaign/NIMBY's are strong. I feel it should be put to the people of the city then if we vote against it I for one will accept it. A way you could convince me to support a NO vote would be in this council ( wouldn't care what party) signed up to have the free Solar panels on offer put onto every council home. Also at looking into talking the sewage plant to use the waste Methane & convert it into Electricity ( been done up North) If you can get wind & wave Turbines in the Test & Itchen plus Southampton Water I would congratulate you. All these would be Green energies & would be the best renewable energy sources. Will you & your Council look into the feasibility of this? If not sorry it should be the cities vote as it would power the whole city not just Millbrook

Loosehead
Glad to accomodate you. Yes we as a council are looking to put photovoltaic on council roofs as this will generate money which can be put into improving peoples lives. We have also been putting pressure on Helius to put CHP on the biomass if it is built. They have refused to do this unless it is financially viable. As a council we would have no power to install wind or wave in the Solent as we do not have these powers or ability.
I look forward to your change of view.

Dave at a Channel Islands residents meeting three of your colleagues said the council wouldn't let their tenants sign up to the lease the roof space & get free solar panels as many residents(council) wanted to do.
On the Methane question up in I think it's Lancashire they have a facility ( drum) which extracts Methane from sewage this is extracted & burnt to produce electricity.
the remaining sewage bricks are either burnt to power the drum or are broken up for use as fertiliser. why can't we do something similar here?
surely there are green companies(energy) who would be willing to at least look into the viability of wave & tidal energy in our two rivers?
I put this to a councillor 5years ago & nothing was done can you prove to me yo're different? Nothing ventured nothing gained as they say

Steven Galton wrote:

loosehead wrote:

sottondave wrote:
Any chance of some of my constituents commenting on here as this is the list of the usual suspects with their own agendas

I don't agree with it just being done in an area where the NO campaign/NIMBY's are strong.
I feel it should be put to the people of the city then if we vote against it I for one will accept it.
A way you could convince me to support a NO vote would be in this council ( wouldn't care what party) signed up to have the free Solar panels on offer put onto every council home.
Also at looking into talking the sewage plant to use the waste Methane & convert it into Electricity ( been done up North)
If you can get wind & wave Turbines in the Test & Itchen plus Southampton Water I would congratulate you.
All these would be Green energies & would be the best renewable energy sources.
Will you & your Council look into the feasibility of this?
If not sorry it should be the cities vote as it would power the whole city not just Millbrook

Millbrook WasteWater Treatment Works does have a biogas CHP that does exactly as you suggest. The CHP element is currently not used though as it is not commercially viable for them so despite having a CHP plant they only use the gas for electricity generation. One of the reasons I feel all talk of CHP for Helius and commercial uptake is just that "all talk". It has been proven before there is not a financially viable option for the heat...

Living in your ward Dave happy to say completely against the Helius plans ;-)

Steve I have been asked to back out of this debate but.
Terrence Mathews had a plan to pump hot water from the incinerator under Southampton Water to the Itchen side of the city what happened to that?
if you read my last post to Sotondave you'll see this sewage plant isn't producing the type of green energy they could.
Tell me something if they put up a massive Windfarm would the residents not complain it was to noisy?
This is energy for the whole city so why don't we all get a vote?
How are we going to pay for a PR stunt for the NO brigade?Living in your ward Dave?
Born & bred in that ward but I don't have to agree with either of you

The biomass plant will burn timber from Canada. Some of this contains contaminants so during incineration, will release dioxins into the atmosphere. There is evidence from similar biomass plants. Will air pollution levels be monitored properly if this scheme goes ahead? There needs to be independent analysis of emissions - this is vital as the health of the population must be the primary concern. Southampton already has higher than average levels of asthma - and there is growing awareness of the link between air pollution and health problems. The scheme is totally wrong for a dense urban area such as Southampton - we should be seeking to protect our city from this type of scheme which masquerades as a green alternative. It is a horrendous proposal and I feel sorry for people living nearby as the quality of their lives will be affected - it is vital their opinions are listened to.

OceansofRed wrote:
It sounds a sensible idea but begs the question, will there be a public vote on fluoride also?

The fluoride is already a done deal x they will put it in the water as soon as we start to rebel against shoddy twitty with an a not an i politics x we are the supressed masses an will do what we r told, check out when the nazis used fluoride and why

The Salv wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:

Georgem wrote:

The Salv wrote: The dont wont Biomass but are quite happy with having Nuclear Reactors bobbing up and down Southampton Water. . At least there getting energy from this, the nuclear reactors from the Submarines provide nothing to the City by being here other than an extremely high hazard.

How are the reactors hazardous, again?

Please don't feed the Troll. Biomass is the thread, not nuclear.

Another sheep that fails to have any understanding of what a troll is.
.
"oh I disagree with this comment, therefore he must be a uhh ermm, whats that popular word they have been using on the news recentley that I dont quite actually understand but may make me sound cultural and wise... troll"
.
Your really going to have to review your ad hominen logic.

Give it a rest, say something sensible for once about the subject of the thread and maybe someone will take notice of your attention seeking, otherwise butt out.

Belshine wrote:
The biomass plant will burn timber from Canada. Some of this contains contaminants so during incineration, will release dioxins into the atmosphere. There is evidence from similar biomass plants. Will air pollution levels be monitored properly if this scheme goes ahead? There needs to be independent analysis of emissions - this is vital as the health of the population must be the primary concern. Southampton already has higher than average levels of asthma - and there is growing awareness of the link between air pollution and health problems. The scheme is totally wrong for a dense urban area such as Southampton - we should be seeking to protect our city from this type of scheme which masquerades as a green alternative. It is a horrendous proposal and I feel sorry for people living nearby as the quality of their lives will be affected - it is vital their opinions are listened to.

If in fact there is reasonable doubt about the emissions, people downwind of the project should have full abilty to be involved in any decisions.

Steven Galton wrote:

loosehead wrote:

sottondave wrote:
Any chance of some of my constituents commenting on here as this is the list of the usual suspects with their own agendas

I don't agree with it just being done in an area where the NO campaign/NIMBY's are strong.
I feel it should be put to the people of the city then if we vote against it I for one will accept it.
A way you could convince me to support a NO vote would be in this council ( wouldn't care what party) signed up to have the free Solar panels on offer put onto every council home.
Also at looking into talking the sewage plant to use the waste Methane & convert it into Electricity ( been done up North)
If you can get wind & wave Turbines in the Test & Itchen plus Southampton Water I would congratulate you.
All these would be Green energies & would be the best renewable energy sources.
Will you & your Council look into the feasibility of this?
If not sorry it should be the cities vote as it would power the whole city not just Millbrook

Millbrook WasteWater Treatment Works does have a biogas CHP that does exactly as you suggest. The CHP element is currently not used though as it is not commercially viable for them so despite having a CHP plant they only use the gas for electricity generation. One of the reasons I feel all talk of CHP for Helius and commercial uptake is just that "all talk". It has been proven before there is not a financially viable option for the heat...

Living in your ward Dave happy to say completely against the Helius plans ;-)

Steven Galton As part of the Constuction team that help build that recycle gas extractor plant, The gas is use to generate heat to dry out the soilds to be for use as fertilizer.

Torchie1 wrote:

southy wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

southy wrote:
Its a myth that this bio-mass burner is green and reduces CO2 emissions, its just a plain old Bio-mass to burn waste.
A tree takes in Co2 from the air while growing we all should know that, but what a lot of people do not know or do not realise is this.
While a tree is growing any thing that breaks of the tree like leaves and twigs and branches, once the process of decay as started it will release all that captured Co2 back into the air, also when burning all that wood being burned will again release all that captured Co2 in the wood and release back in to the air, plus there is added Co2 cause though the burning, burning the air also don't forget and thats need to be added on top.

Hi Southy good point - you are quite right, and this is one of the key points about the overall value proposition. To make this plant "green" as much wood as possible must be scrap wood or by product from another process - ie wood that will decay anyway if not put to good use. I do agree with campaigners who make the point that importing wood which has been chipped purely to burn is not good sense - however what they overlook is that a lot of this wood is a by- product from things like timber production - especially from Scandinavia but also from the UK and burning scrap wood is in a sense zero net carbon loss. So called "Green" campaigners on these pages have continually misrepresented this point and obfuscated the data (possibly because they don't understand it).

Andy if you want to get rid of waste wood and keep it clean as posible, then theres only one way in doing it.
Its what they are doing in a coppice wood in sussex, its the closes way to the way nature do it, nature just takes longer. the way they are dealing with waste wood, is the charcoal it (burning with out oxygen) and then bury it, deeper in the ground the better, this way you can lock in a lot more carbon into the charcoal so it not release (its just shame doing it this way there is not enough heat to produce any real useful power), after it is buried nature will take over and totally lock all that carbon into the charcoal and slowly turn it into coal over 100's of thousands of years. A coal base for the far future.

Burning air was pretty revolutionary but "(burning with out oxygen) " is way beyond that. Groundbreaking stuff coming out today.

I take that back what I said yesterday when you said you must be thick and I said your not thick you just don't know and that you good at what you.
You are Thick, its some thing you should of learned at the age of 11 in basic Science lessons. nothing as change here the same applys.
To have a Fire with a Flame, you must have oxygen, the oxygen when burned changes to Co2, the 3 point rule for fire provention to have a fire you need fuel, oxygen and ignition take any one of those away and you dont have a fire.
But to make and produce Charcoal you take away the oxygen, and you smoulder the heat though. it will lock in any Co2 in the wood, and will not release it till you put a flame to it. Have you not ever seen how they make charcoal, theres a place alongside Marchwood By-pass that makes charcoal, take a drive and go and look.

jazzi wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

jazzi wrote:
Try living in MILLBROOK !! The stench of methane gas from the sewer plant completely dominates many peoples lives. But we are the few and nobody listens or cares about our air being poisoned . Now you want to smoke us out and next poison us more with fluoride in the water system. This plant will go ahead. No body will stop this plant being built, as usual everyone will just argue about it. Dont forget your dose of methane when stuck in traffic coming out of town today, enjoy, NOT.

Interesting point jazzi. I would favour enclosing the sludge tanks and capturing the sewer gas for electricity generation. Councillor SotonDave however has indicated that because of his "environmental" concerns he should be against this process because it produces a greenhouse gas (CO2) as byproduct so he will be in a bit of a quandary with his constituents. So I guess you and the rest of Dave's constituents must continue to enjoy the smell and think how much good you are doing for the Millbrook "environment" by not burning it.

Stinks EH !!

Andy I work on that site, when it was upgraded Harbour and General from Gateshead had the contract to build the new plant and at the same time work on the Marchwood plant and renew the two sewage pipes that ran under the River Test that connected up Marchwood and Millbrook plants that the pump dredger broke, on the Millbrook side new concrete drums was built wider and a lot taller, each one is totally sealed, with a vis/plastic membrain and totally surrounded with concrete roof also, air can not get in or out, all gasses are pump out and burned to produce heat to dry out the soilds, which is bag up and sold the the middle east for fertilizer, the drums on Marchwood side they all so was sealed up in the same way as Millbrook and the gas is pump to Millbrook to burn.
There is no Methane gas coming up off Millbrook plant, well not since the late 90's.
now and again a sluge road tanker makes a delivery over the Marchwood side, that get used for portaloos and homes that still have cesspitts tanks.

southy wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

southy wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

southy wrote:
Its a myth that this bio-mass burner is green and reduces CO2 emissions, its just a plain old Bio-mass to burn waste.
A tree takes in Co2 from the air while growing we all should know that, but what a lot of people do not know or do not realise is this.
While a tree is growing any thing that breaks of the tree like leaves and twigs and branches, once the process of decay as started it will release all that captured Co2 back into the air, also when burning all that wood being burned will again release all that captured Co2 in the wood and release back in to the air, plus there is added Co2 cause though the burning, burning the air also don't forget and thats need to be added on top.

Hi Southy good point - you are quite right, and this is one of the key points about the overall value proposition. To make this plant "green" as much wood as possible must be scrap wood or by product from another process - ie wood that will decay anyway if not put to good use. I do agree with campaigners who make the point that importing wood which has been chipped purely to burn is not good sense - however what they overlook is that a lot of this wood is a by- product from things like timber production - especially from Scandinavia but also from the UK and burning scrap wood is in a sense zero net carbon loss. So called "Green" campaigners on these pages have continually misrepresented this point and obfuscated the data (possibly because they don't understand it).

Andy if you want to get rid of waste wood and keep it clean as posible, then theres only one way in doing it.
Its what they are doing in a coppice wood in sussex, its the closes way to the way nature do it, nature just takes longer. the way they are dealing with waste wood, is the charcoal it (burning with out oxygen) and then bury it, deeper in the ground the better, this way you can lock in a lot more carbon into the charcoal so it not release (its just shame doing it this way there is not enough heat to produce any real useful power), after it is buried nature will take over and totally lock all that carbon into the charcoal and slowly turn it into coal over 100's of thousands of years. A coal base for the far future.

Burning air was pretty revolutionary but "(burning with out oxygen) " is way beyond that. Groundbreaking stuff coming out today.

I take that back what I said yesterday when you said you must be thick and I said your not thick you just don't know and that you good at what you.
You are Thick, its some thing you should of learned at the age of 11 in basic Science lessons. nothing as change here the same applys.
To have a Fire with a Flame, you must have oxygen, the oxygen when burned changes to Co2, the 3 point rule for fire provention to have a fire you need fuel, oxygen and ignition take any one of those away and you dont have a fire.
But to make and produce Charcoal you take away the oxygen, and you smoulder the heat though. it will lock in any Co2 in the wood, and will not release it till you put a flame to it. Have you not ever seen how they make charcoal, theres a place alongside Marchwood By-pass that makes charcoal, take a drive and go and look.

Is there any point trying to explain that any type of combustion requires oxygen? In your case, I think it would be a wasted effort so I'll keep on being thick and highlighting your buffoonery.

Please explain to me how in a city that's shutting down a community swimming pool to & making 30 people redundant/redeployed to save 2-3million pounds how can we afford this.
it's nothing more than a PR stunt for the NO campaign.
Save the money & use it to keep a service going.
Surely if the NO campaign has such a strong argument they don't need to mount a PR stunt at the expense of the city do they?
Or are they going to pay for it?
If we are why aren't we all getting a vote?

Speaking as someone living in the affected ward. I on balance support the plant. I have been to presentations given by both sides and find the opponents ill educated and definitely motivated by a NIMBY agenda

Southy, this is the latest info I have directly from Southern Water:

"The CHP at Millbrook has an installed capacity of 1,100Kw and last year it produced 6.5GWh. Overall Southern Water has thirteen CHP plants installed and last year they produced over 44GWh of renewable energy meeting 10% of the company's electricity demand. The sludge drying at Millbrook is no longer economic and the plant has been mothballed. Heat is recovered from the CHP and used in the sludge treatment process, any additional heat requirements are provided by hot water boilers. The CHP output is not currently fully utilised due to an ongoing refurbishment of the digester storage tanks which has resulted in a reduced throughput to the works which impacts on biogas production, once this work is complete we envisage the CHP will be fully utilised. We are currently reviewing the opportunities of injecting biogas into the national grid to take advantage of the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) but this is unlikely to be economic at Millbrook where we have made the investment in CHP and are receiving the full 1 ROC/MWh. In terms of support levels for investment in biogas fuelled renewable energy we believe that the ROC banding will restrict investment in the future. RHI incentive appears to work on paper but this is a new technology for the industry which brings with it an increased risk premium."

ps: I am having a drop in surgery with the Freemantle Conservative Councillors today from 10am at Freemantle Community centre in Randolph street - would love anyone interested to come and talk with us about this and/or any other local issues.

Torchie1 wrote:

southy wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

southy wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

southy wrote:
Its a myth that this bio-mass burner is green and reduces CO2 emissions, its just a plain old Bio-mass to burn waste.
A tree takes in Co2 from the air while growing we all should know that, but what a lot of people do not know or do not realise is this.
While a tree is growing any thing that breaks of the tree like leaves and twigs and branches, once the process of decay as started it will release all that captured Co2 back into the air, also when burning all that wood being burned will again release all that captured Co2 in the wood and release back in to the air, plus there is added Co2 cause though the burning, burning the air also don't forget and thats need to be added on top.

Hi Southy good point - you are quite right, and this is one of the key points about the overall value proposition. To make this plant "green" as much wood as possible must be scrap wood or by product from another process - ie wood that will decay anyway if not put to good use. I do agree with campaigners who make the point that importing wood which has been chipped purely to burn is not good sense - however what they overlook is that a lot of this wood is a by- product from things like timber production - especially from Scandinavia but also from the UK and burning scrap wood is in a sense zero net carbon loss. So called "Green" campaigners on these pages have continually misrepresented this point and obfuscated the data (possibly because they don't understand it).

Andy if you want to get rid of waste wood and keep it clean as posible, then theres only one way in doing it.
Its what they are doing in a coppice wood in sussex, its the closes way to the way nature do it, nature just takes longer. the way they are dealing with waste wood, is the charcoal it (burning with out oxygen) and then bury it, deeper in the ground the better, this way you can lock in a lot more carbon into the charcoal so it not release (its just shame doing it this way there is not enough heat to produce any real useful power), after it is buried nature will take over and totally lock all that carbon into the charcoal and slowly turn it into coal over 100's of thousands of years. A coal base for the far future.

Burning air was pretty revolutionary but "(burning with out oxygen) " is way beyond that. Groundbreaking stuff coming out today.

I take that back what I said yesterday when you said you must be thick and I said your not thick you just don't know and that you good at what you.
You are Thick, its some thing you should of learned at the age of 11 in basic Science lessons. nothing as change here the same applys.
To have a Fire with a Flame, you must have oxygen, the oxygen when burned changes to Co2, the 3 point rule for fire provention to have a fire you need fuel, oxygen and ignition take any one of those away and you dont have a fire.
But to make and produce Charcoal you take away the oxygen, and you smoulder the heat though. it will lock in any Co2 in the wood, and will not release it till you put a flame to it. Have you not ever seen how they make charcoal, theres a place alongside Marchwood By-pass that makes charcoal, take a drive and go and look.

Is there any point trying to explain that any type of combustion requires oxygen? In your case, I think it would be a wasted effort so I'll keep on being thick and highlighting your buffoonery.

I suggest before you post again, not all combustions requires oxygen there are other gas that can act like oxygen, plus when making Charcoal you do not want any oxygen or a gas that can act like oxygen, mix oxygen when making charcoal you have nothing left but ash. And your wrong again you can get combustion with out oxygen, how do you think a pile of saw dust can burn in the middle where if theres any oxygen would be quickly spent.
This is what working in a office do to you it dumbs you down, stops you learning about things. you should get out and work with contruction you might start learning a few things.

Steven Galton wrote:
Southy, this is the latest info I have directly from Southern Water:

"The CHP at Millbrook has an installed capacity of 1,100Kw and last year it produced 6.5GWh. Overall Southern Water has thirteen CHP plants installed and last year they produced over 44GWh of renewable energy meeting 10% of the company's electricity demand. The sludge drying at Millbrook is no longer economic and the plant has been mothballed. Heat is recovered from the CHP and used in the sludge treatment process, any additional heat requirements are provided by hot water boilers. The CHP output is not currently fully utilised due to an ongoing refurbishment of the digester storage tanks which has resulted in a reduced throughput to the works which impacts on biogas production, once this work is complete we envisage the CHP will be fully utilised. We are currently reviewing the opportunities of injecting biogas into the national grid to take advantage of the Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) but this is unlikely to be economic at Millbrook where we have made the investment in CHP and are receiving the full 1 ROC/MWh. In terms of support levels for investment in biogas fuelled renewable energy we believe that the ROC banding will restrict investment in the future. RHI incentive appears to work on paper but this is a new technology for the industry which brings with it an increased risk premium."

ps: I am having a drop in surgery with the Freemantle Conservative Councillors today from 10am at Freemantle Community centre in Randolph street - would love anyone interested to come and talk with us about this and/or any other local issues.

I don't know who you got you your information but its wrong, take a look on the River the sewage barge dock as not been used in a very long time, even the pump gantry is not there any more, if they stop the drying out process, then those sewage barges would be in the sewage dock every day like they use to.
There 13 chp plants in England and 16 in the UK, the one in Millbrook was the 6th one to be built to be built in the UK.

southy wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

southy wrote:

Torchie1 wrote:

southy wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

southy wrote:
Its a myth that this bio-mass burner is green and reduces CO2 emissions, its just a plain old Bio-mass to burn waste.
A tree takes in Co2 from the air while growing we all should know that, but what a lot of people do not know or do not realise is this.
While a tree is growing any thing that breaks of the tree like leaves and twigs and branches, once the process of decay as started it will release all that captured Co2 back into the air, also when burning all that wood being burned will again release all that captured Co2 in the wood and release back in to the air, plus there is added Co2 cause though the burning, burning the air also don't forget and thats need to be added on top.

Hi Southy good point - you are quite right, and this is one of the key points about the overall value proposition. To make this plant "green" as much wood as possible must be scrap wood or by product from another process - ie wood that will decay anyway if not put to good use. I do agree with campaigners who make the point that importing wood which has been chipped purely to burn is not good sense - however what they overlook is that a lot of this wood is a by- product from things like timber production - especially from Scandinavia but also from the UK and burning scrap wood is in a sense zero net carbon loss. So called "Green" campaigners on these pages have continually misrepresented this point and obfuscated the data (possibly because they don't understand it).

Andy if you want to get rid of waste wood and keep it clean as posible, then theres only one way in doing it.
Its what they are doing in a coppice wood in sussex, its the closes way to the way nature do it, nature just takes longer. the way they are dealing with waste wood, is the charcoal it (burning with out oxygen) and then bury it, deeper in the ground the better, this way you can lock in a lot more carbon into the charcoal so it not release (its just shame doing it this way there is not enough heat to produce any real useful power), after it is buried nature will take over and totally lock all that carbon into the charcoal and slowly turn it into coal over 100's of thousands of years. A coal base for the far future.

Burning air was pretty revolutionary but "(burning with out oxygen) " is way beyond that. Groundbreaking stuff coming out today.

I take that back what I said yesterday when you said you must be thick and I said your not thick you just don't know and that you good at what you.
You are Thick, its some thing you should of learned at the age of 11 in basic Science lessons. nothing as change here the same applys.
To have a Fire with a Flame, you must have oxygen, the oxygen when burned changes to Co2, the 3 point rule for fire provention to have a fire you need fuel, oxygen and ignition take any one of those away and you dont have a fire.
But to make and produce Charcoal you take away the oxygen, and you smoulder the heat though. it will lock in any Co2 in the wood, and will not release it till you put a flame to it. Have you not ever seen how they make charcoal, theres a place alongside Marchwood By-pass that makes charcoal, take a drive and go and look.

Is there any point trying to explain that any type of combustion requires oxygen? In your case, I think it would be a wasted effort so I'll keep on being thick and highlighting your buffoonery.

I suggest before you post again, not all combustions requires oxygen there are other gas that can act like oxygen, plus when making Charcoal you do not want any oxygen or a gas that can act like oxygen, mix oxygen when making charcoal you have nothing left but ash. And your wrong again you can get combustion with out oxygen, how do you think a pile of saw dust can burn in the middle where if theres any oxygen would be quickly spent.
This is what working in a office do to you it dumbs you down, stops you learning about things. you should get out and work with contruction you might start learning a few things.

Even more buffoonery. Try running your theories past a fireman when you next try to impress them with your knowledge...... or lack of.

I was taught that a fire requires three elements: heat, fuel, and an oxidizing agent (usually oxygen). How does this relate to Biomass, and what is the result in the way of emissions. Are they safe or not.

Trying to find positives is proving a bit tricky, i.e. "Using biomass as a fuel produces air pollution in the form of carbon monoxide, NOx (nitrogen oxides), VOCs (volatile organic compounds), particulates and other pollutants, in some cases at levels above those from traditional fuel sources such as coal or natural gas". Is there any way to reduce Carbon Monoxide into a less damaging emission? How can you call Biomass Green when it it worse than what has gone before if this is to be believed?

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
I was taught that a fire requires three elements: heat, fuel, and an oxidizing agent (usually oxygen). How does this relate to Biomass, and what is the result in the way of emissions. Are they safe or not.

Just trying to explane to Torchie when you make charcoal you do not use Oxygen, If Oxygen comes in the mix when making Charcoal you will get flames and what you get as an end result is a pile of ash and not charcoal.
Fire with a flame require oxygen, but a smouldering fire do not, it will burn away with out oxygen.
Have you ever seen how they make charcoal, Now days they use a steel drum, they use to use turf, but how they do it is they pack tightly as they can wood cuttings so there is little air as posible inside the drum they leave a small tunnel where they put glowing embers in the bottom and in the middle then it is seal up totally, they can afford any air to get in or it burns with a flame and the lot is not good, any oxygen that is still left in the drum soon gets spent, and the fire is left to happly to smoulder away.
Wood chip will do the same when in a pile, you get a hot spot in the middle some where and you got a fire on your hands.
That pile of scrap metal that was on fire the other week if i got told right started that way, eroded metal dropping down the pile and building up on the bottom started to generate heat and started to burn.

I fail to see what Charcoal has to do with Biomass, if there are no emissions when creating charcoal there are certainly emissions when you use it on Barbecues as some people have found to their expense.

The scrap metal fire was down to poor management and not an unknown phenomena, it should never have happened.

Reading the article through again I get the impression that there is less concern about the emissions, more worry about the appearance of the actual instalation which they consider will be a blot on the landscape and the rhetoric about the "Greeness" is just an additional "bullet in the chamber" for the Anti brigade. My own worry is about being downwind of the site and what is likely to come out of it! Any comments from those affected by either theory could be helpful.

failing to move the pile of scrap or noticing what is happening is poor management, or failing to know what can happen.
Its not as if it was not known that things like that could happen, a few years ago an iron ore carrier ship was force to call in to southampton because the iron ore was on fire, (was no flames what was happening was the same thing when you make charcoal)

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Reading the article through again I get the impression that there is less concern about the emissions, more worry about the appearance of the actual instalation which they consider will be a blot on the landscape and the rhetoric about the "Greeness" is just an additional "bullet in the chamber" for the Anti brigade. My own worry is about being downwind of the site and what is likely to come out of it! Any comments from those affected by either theory could be helpful.

damp wood chips can catch on fire, it will generate enough heat to be able to smoulder, you will not get flames but what you will get is smoke.

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Reading the article through again I get the impression that there is less concern about the emissions, more worry about the appearance of the actual instalation which they consider will be a blot on the landscape and the rhetoric about the "Greeness" is just an additional "bullet in the chamber" for the Anti brigade. My own worry is about being downwind of the site and what is likely to come out of it! Any comments from those affected by either theory could be helpful.

Osprey I hope I'm right on this but there is a system where they can catch/stop harmful emissions from being released into the atmosphere.
The Carbon that will be released in theory will be not as much as the carbon eaten by the new young trees planted to replace the ones cut down.
Until I read this & then heard it on a scientific program I would have been against wood burning.
So as long as Helius can prove this wood chip comes from a sustainable forest & if they can find a local source (UK) once up & running this will be a green energy source.
If you've heard the news today the national parks won't be sold off but they will have to grow many more tree plantations to cover the costs of running them so a new source is being planted.

southy wrote:

jazzi wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

jazzi wrote:
Try living in MILLBROOK !! The stench of methane gas from the sewer plant completely dominates many peoples lives. But we are the few and nobody listens or cares about our air being poisoned . Now you want to smoke us out and next poison us more with fluoride in the water system. This plant will go ahead. No body will stop this plant being built, as usual everyone will just argue about it. Dont forget your dose of methane when stuck in traffic coming out of town today, enjoy, NOT.

Interesting point jazzi. I would favour enclosing the sludge tanks and capturing the sewer gas for electricity generation. Councillor SotonDave however has indicated that because of his "environmental" concerns he should be against this process because it produces a greenhouse gas (CO2) as byproduct so he will be in a bit of a quandary with his constituents. So I guess you and the rest of Dave's constituents must continue to enjoy the smell and think how much good you are doing for the Millbrook "environment" by not burning it.

Stinks EH !!

Andy I work on that site, when it was upgraded Harbour and General from Gateshead had the contract to build the new plant and at the same time work on the Marchwood plant and renew the two sewage pipes that ran under the River Test that connected up Marchwood and Millbrook plants that the pump dredger broke, on the Millbrook side new concrete drums was built wider and a lot taller, each one is totally sealed, with a vis/plastic membrain and totally surrounded with concrete roof also, air can not get in or out, all gasses are pump out and burned to produce heat to dry out the soilds, which is bag up and sold the the middle east for fertilizer, the drums on Marchwood side they all so was sealed up in the same way as Millbrook and the gas is pump to Millbrook to burn.
There is no Methane gas coming up off Millbrook plant, well not since the late 90's.
now and again a sluge road tanker makes a delivery over the Marchwood side, that get used for portaloos and homes that still have cesspitts tanks.

So whats the smell sherlock ????
Have u actually seen the new plant and know how it works, NOPE I thought not, you tosh gets so boring at times, step away from your keyboard an GAL.

loosehead wrote:

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Reading the article through again I get the impression that there is less concern about the emissions, more worry about the appearance of the actual instalation which they consider will be a blot on the landscape and the rhetoric about the "Greeness" is just an additional "bullet in the chamber" for the Anti brigade. My own worry is about being downwind of the site and what is likely to come out of it! Any comments from those affected by either theory could be helpful.

Osprey I hope I'm right on this but there is a system where they can catch/stop harmful emissions from being released into the atmosphere.
The Carbon that will be released in theory will be not as much as the carbon eaten by the new young trees planted to replace the ones cut down.
Until I read this & then heard it on a scientific program I would have been against wood burning.
So as long as Helius can prove this wood chip comes from a sustainable forest & if they can find a local source (UK) once up & running this will be a green energy source.
If you've heard the news today the national parks won't be sold off but they will have to grow many more tree plantations to cover the costs of running them so a new source is being planted.

There is loose you can add a cataliss to stacks gernerally called scubber units, but companys will not fit them because it forces them to have 5 year maintence turnround.

jazzi wrote:

southy wrote:

jazzi wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

jazzi wrote:
Try living in MILLBROOK !! The stench of methane gas from the sewer plant completely dominates many peoples lives. But we are the few and nobody listens or cares about our air being poisoned . Now you want to smoke us out and next poison us more with fluoride in the water system. This plant will go ahead. No body will stop this plant being built, as usual everyone will just argue about it. Dont forget your dose of methane when stuck in traffic coming out of town today, enjoy, NOT.

Interesting point jazzi. I would favour enclosing the sludge tanks and capturing the sewer gas for electricity generation. Councillor SotonDave however has indicated that because of his "environmental" concerns he should be against this process because it produces a greenhouse gas (CO2) as byproduct so he will be in a bit of a quandary with his constituents. So I guess you and the rest of Dave's constituents must continue to enjoy the smell and think how much good you are doing for the Millbrook "environment" by not burning it.

Stinks EH !!

Andy I work on that site, when it was upgraded Harbour and General from Gateshead had the contract to build the new plant and at the same time work on the Marchwood plant and renew the two sewage pipes that ran under the River Test that connected up Marchwood and Millbrook plants that the pump dredger broke, on the Millbrook side new concrete drums was built wider and a lot taller, each one is totally sealed, with a vis/plastic membrain and totally surrounded with concrete roof also, air can not get in or out, all gasses are pump out and burned to produce heat to dry out the soilds, which is bag up and sold the the middle east for fertilizer, the drums on Marchwood side they all so was sealed up in the same way as Millbrook and the gas is pump to Millbrook to burn.
There is no Methane gas coming up off Millbrook plant, well not since the late 90's.
now and again a sluge road tanker makes a delivery over the Marchwood side, that get used for portaloos and homes that still have cesspitts tanks.

So whats the smell sherlock ????
Have u actually seen the new plant and know how it works, NOPE I thought not, you tosh gets so boring at times, step away from your keyboard an GAL.

I do know how it works I was head rigger on the Contruction site for Harbour and General who built the New Plant at Millbrook water treatment works, I joined them 2 weeks after they started when the first crawler crane turned up on site and stayed there till the mth before the start up of the plant when the last crane left the site, and was called back when for the started up and left 2 days after handover to SWA.
So jazzi tosh try and get out off your office and get your hands dirty, do so real hard work, you might just learn a thing or two in the real life, and as for the smell that drifts across now and again, is more than likely just sludge road tankers empting there tanks over Marchwood.

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

jazzi wrote:
Try living in MILLBROOK !! The stench of methane gas from the sewer plant completely dominates many peoples lives. But we are the few and nobody listens or cares about our air being poisoned . Now you want to smoke us out and next poison us more with fluoride in the water system. This plant will go ahead. No body will stop this plant being built, as usual everyone will just argue about it. Dont forget your dose of methane when stuck in traffic coming out of town today, enjoy, NOT.

Interesting point jazzi. I would favour enclosing the sludge tanks and capturing the sewer gas for electricity generation. Councillor SotonDave however has indicated that because of his "environmental" concerns he should be against this process because it produces a greenhouse gas (CO2) as byproduct so he will be in a bit of a quandary with his constituents. So I guess you and the rest of Dave's constituents must continue to enjoy the smell and think how much good you are doing for the Millbrook "environment" by not burning it.

methane is a greenhouse gas. if it was possible to use methane from that plant that would be a good idea.

For what's its worth.. CO2 fix in the works

-

New holey material soaks up CO2.

12 June 2012 Last updated at 11:42.

UK researchers have developed a porous material that can preferentially soak up CO2 from the atmosphere.

NOTT-202 is a "metal-organic framework" that works like a sponge, absorbing a number of gases at high pressures.

But as the pressure is reduced, CO2 is retained as other gases are released.

The development, reported in Nature Materials, holds promise for carbon capture and storage, or even for removing CO2 from the exhaust gases of power plants and factories.

-

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/science-enviro
nment-18396655

-

Environmentally Helius is 20 years behind the times... the new "nanopore" material could put them back 100 years and competing with a rejuvenated King Coal.


Helius will do an over night runner if the above ( or any CO2 fix ) shows any promise... not that they would have any choice

sottondave wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

jazzi wrote:
Try living in MILLBROOK !! The stench of methane gas from the sewer plant completely dominates many peoples lives. But we are the few and nobody listens or cares about our air being poisoned . Now you want to smoke us out and next poison us more with fluoride in the water system. This plant will go ahead. No body will stop this plant being built, as usual everyone will just argue about it. Dont forget your dose of methane when stuck in traffic coming out of town today, enjoy, NOT.

Interesting point jazzi. I would favour enclosing the sludge tanks and capturing the sewer gas for electricity generation. Councillor SotonDave however has indicated that because of his "environmental" concerns he should be against this process because it produces a greenhouse gas (CO2) as byproduct so he will be in a bit of a quandary with his constituents. So I guess you and the rest of Dave's constituents must continue to enjoy the smell and think how much good you are doing for the Millbrook "environment" by not burning it.

methane is a greenhouse gas. if it was possible to use methane from that plant that would be a good idea.

Dave if you read my post it's similar to jazzi's.
there is a British plant that's already extracting Methane from sewage & then using the dried sewage to power the whole process.
the extracted Methane can then be used in various ways one is to burn to produce electricity the other to power cars/lorries.
As long as we the human race survive there will be a resource to extract Methane so in fact a sustainable green energy.
What shocked me is that we've developed it but I saw on a news program that a council in the south( sorry company) were using a German extraction plant to do this very same thing without the drum.
I guess you've realised what party I support but I will always put forwards ideas that I think could enhance the quality of live in this city.
Dave I was brought up in Freshfield Rd so I know of the smell from the sewage works.
if our council could hold talks with the water company about Methane extraction & get a viable energy production from it you would/could stop that smell & greatly benefit the lives of Millbrook & Green Park estate plus Redbridge,Freemantle & I don't know if they can smell it Shirley.
if you at least had talks I would congratulate you & say well done

Dan Soton wrote:
For what's its worth.. CO2 fix in the works

-

New holey material soaks up CO2.

12 June 2012 Last updated at 11:42.

UK researchers have developed a porous material that can preferentially soak up CO2 from the atmosphere.

NOTT-202 is a "metal-organic framework" that works like a sponge, absorbing a number of gases at high pressures.

But as the pressure is reduced, CO2 is retained as other gases are released.

The development, reported in Nature Materials, holds promise for carbon capture and storage, or even for removing CO2 from the exhaust gases of power plants and factories.

-

http://www.bbc.co.uk

/news/science-enviro

nment-18396655

-

Environmentally Helius is 20 years behind the times... the new "nanopore" material could put them back 100 years and competing with a rejuvenated King Coal.


Helius will do an over night runner if the above ( or any CO2 fix ) shows any promise... not that they would have any choice

Here the same thing from Nottingham uni

http://www.nottingha
m.ac.uk/chemistry/ne
ws/unique-porous-mat
erial-selectively-ab
sorbs-carbon-dioxide
.aspx

very intresting read, some thing like this could bring back the coal fired power stations.

loosehead wrote:

sottondave wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

jazzi wrote:
Try living in MILLBROOK !! The stench of methane gas from the sewer plant completely dominates many peoples lives. But we are the few and nobody listens or cares about our air being poisoned . Now you want to smoke us out and next poison us more with fluoride in the water system. This plant will go ahead. No body will stop this plant being built, as usual everyone will just argue about it. Dont forget your dose of methane when stuck in traffic coming out of town today, enjoy, NOT.

Interesting point jazzi. I would favour enclosing the sludge tanks and capturing the sewer gas for electricity generation. Councillor SotonDave however has indicated that because of his "environmental" concerns he should be against this process because it produces a greenhouse gas (CO2) as byproduct so he will be in a bit of a quandary with his constituents. So I guess you and the rest of Dave's constituents must continue to enjoy the smell and think how much good you are doing for the Millbrook "environment" by not burning it.

methane is a greenhouse gas. if it was possible to use methane from that plant that would be a good idea.

Dave if you read my post it's similar to jazzi's.
there is a British plant that's already extracting Methane from sewage & then using the dried sewage to power the whole process.
the extracted Methane can then be used in various ways one is to burn to produce electricity the other to power cars/lorries.
As long as we the human race survive there will be a resource to extract Methane so in fact a sustainable green energy.
What shocked me is that we've developed it but I saw on a news program that a council in the south( sorry company) were using a German extraction plant to do this very same thing without the drum.
I guess you've realised what party I support but I will always put forwards ideas that I think could enhance the quality of live in this city.
Dave I was brought up in Freshfield Rd so I know of the smell from the sewage works.
if our council could hold talks with the water company about Methane extraction & get a viable energy production from it you would/could stop that smell & greatly benefit the lives of Millbrook & Green Park estate plus Redbridge,Freemantle & I don't know if they can smell it Shirley.
if you at least had talks I would congratulate you & say well done

The smell from the water treatment works is not there all the time. I visited the water treatment works late last year and asked many questions.The smell is caused when there is a long dry spell followed by heavy rain and waste is washed through the system, also the wind has to be on shore at the same time.
Southern Water are governed by Ofwat who decide to issue instructions to improve quality issues. The visit I made was because of new EC rules forcing water companies to improve the end product they pump into the Solent. They were putting money into new equipment for this purpose.
There is a phone number for residents to ring to complain about the smell but few people have complained. Southern Water will be happy to invest more money to cure the smell if they are told to by Ofwat. The best thing is for residents to complain more often then it is more likely the money will be invested. The downside is that there would be an increase in bills to pay for it.

sottondave try and explaining that to jazzi will you, it really only effect a small part of the area in Millbrook, but your right about the heavy rain is also a cause for the smell to escape.
But I must inform you nothing is pump into the River Test from Millbrook or Marchwood any more and have not done so since the late 90's, when the new plant was built, on which I was one of the contractors working on building the new plant.
Bit of extra infor for you, when this new plant was being built only 5 people was local from start to finish that contract the rest was traveling men in which most traveled with Harbour and General.

sottondave wrote:

loosehead wrote:

sottondave wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

jazzi wrote:
Try living in MILLBROOK !! The stench of methane gas from the sewer plant completely dominates many peoples lives. But we are the few and nobody listens or cares about our air being poisoned . Now you want to smoke us out and next poison us more with fluoride in the water system. This plant will go ahead. No body will stop this plant being built, as usual everyone will just argue about it. Dont forget your dose of methane when stuck in traffic coming out of town today, enjoy, NOT.

Interesting point jazzi. I would favour enclosing the sludge tanks and capturing the sewer gas for electricity generation. Councillor SotonDave however has indicated that because of his "environmental" concerns he should be against this process because it produces a greenhouse gas (CO2) as byproduct so he will be in a bit of a quandary with his constituents. So I guess you and the rest of Dave's constituents must continue to enjoy the smell and think how much good you are doing for the Millbrook "environment" by not burning it.

methane is a greenhouse gas. if it was possible to use methane from that plant that would be a good idea.

Dave if you read my post it's similar to jazzi's.
there is a British plant that's already extracting Methane from sewage & then using the dried sewage to power the whole process.
the extracted Methane can then be used in various ways one is to burn to produce electricity the other to power cars/lorries.
As long as we the human race survive there will be a resource to extract Methane so in fact a sustainable green energy.
What shocked me is that we've developed it but I saw on a news program that a council in the south( sorry company) were using a German extraction plant to do this very same thing without the drum.
I guess you've realised what party I support but I will always put forwards ideas that I think could enhance the quality of live in this city.
Dave I was brought up in Freshfield Rd so I know of the smell from the sewage works.
if our council could hold talks with the water company about Methane extraction & get a viable energy production from it you would/could stop that smell & greatly benefit the lives of Millbrook & Green Park estate plus Redbridge,Freemantle & I don't know if they can smell it Shirley.
if you at least had talks I would congratulate you & say well done

The smell from the water treatment works is not there all the time. I visited the water treatment works late last year and asked many questions.The smell is caused when there is a long dry spell followed by heavy rain and waste is washed through the system, also the wind has to be on shore at the same time.
Southern Water are governed by Ofwat who decide to issue instructions to improve quality issues. The visit I made was because of new EC rules forcing water companies to improve the end product they pump into the Solent. They were putting money into new equipment for this purpose.
There is a phone number for residents to ring to complain about the smell but few people have complained. Southern Water will be happy to invest more money to cure the smell if they are told to by Ofwat. The best thing is for residents to complain more often then it is more likely the money will be invested. The downside is that there would be an increase in bills to pay for it.

Dave I lived in Freshfield rd & around that way for about 41years & you could regularly smell it.
it was so frequent you got use to it.
it was only when I moved back there after a few years away I smelt it again .
I guess if you ask long time residents of that rd & Victory they'll say yes we do get the smell but they get used to it & tolerate it.
Unless the way they get rid of the Methane has changed?

Food price around the world soar as US sweats.. and Biomass wood ?

-

It doesn't get much dumber..

Southampton powered by wood in an ever-warming world.

-

Sleepwalking into insanity.

Published 02 April 2012.

Around half of the EU’s target for providing 20% of energy from renewable sources by 2020 will be made up by biomass energy from sources such as wood, waste and agricultural crops and residues, according to EU member states’ national action plans.
-

http://www.euractiv.
com/energy/biomass-i
nsanity-may-threaten
-eu-news-511891

-

Western Wildfires Getting Worse In A Warming World.

Jul 9, 2012 at 2:04 pm.

Wildfires in the United States are already increasing due to warming. In the West, there has been a nearly fourfold increase in large wildfires in recent decades, with greater fire frequency, longer fire durations, and longer wildfire seasons. This increase is strongly associated with increased spring and summer temperatures and earlier spring snowmelt, which have caused drying of soils and vegetation.
-

http://tinyurl.com/b
vk4l28

-

Fire Contained In Croatan National Forest after burning more than 21,000 acres.

7:00 PM, Jul 7, 2012.
-

http://tinyurl.com/b
nkwfws

-

Air Force plane crashes battling US forest fire.

July 02, 2012 10:31 PM.
-

http://tinyurl.com/c
ysxz5y

-

Fire rages in Mendocino National Forest, estimate says 2,500 acres burned.

07/09/2012 11:00:03 AM PDT.
-

http://tinyurl.com/b
vxj2bn

-

Deadly Heat the extreme conditions are being blamed for at least 87 deaths across 14 states.

Monday, 09 Jul 2012, 4:52 PM EDT.
-

http://tinyurl.com/d
6pqz36

Dan Soton wrote:
Food price around the world soar as US sweats.. and Biomass wood ?

-

It doesn't get much dumber..

Southampton powered by wood in an ever-warming world.

-

Sleepwalking into insanity.

Published 02 April 2012.

Around half of the EU’s target for providing 20% of energy from renewable sources by 2020 will be made up by biomass energy from sources such as wood, waste and agricultural crops and residues, according to EU member states’ national action plans.
-

http://www.euractiv.

com/energy/biomass-i

nsanity-may-threaten

-eu-news-511891

-

Western Wildfires Getting Worse In A Warming World.

Jul 9, 2012 at 2:04 pm.

Wildfires in the United States are already increasing due to warming. In the West, there has been a nearly fourfold increase in large wildfires in recent decades, with greater fire frequency, longer fire durations, and longer wildfire seasons. This increase is strongly associated with increased spring and summer temperatures and earlier spring snowmelt, which have caused drying of soils and vegetation.
-

http://tinyurl.com/b

vk4l28

-

Fire Contained In Croatan National Forest after burning more than 21,000 acres.

7:00 PM, Jul 7, 2012.
-

http://tinyurl.com/b

nkwfws

-

Air Force plane crashes battling US forest fire.

July 02, 2012 10:31 PM.
-

http://tinyurl.com/c

ysxz5y

-

Fire rages in Mendocino National Forest, estimate says 2,500 acres burned.

07/09/2012 11:00:03 AM PDT.
-

http://tinyurl.com/b

vxj2bn

-

Deadly Heat the extreme conditions are being blamed for at least 87 deaths across 14 states.

Monday, 09 Jul 2012, 4:52 PM EDT.
-

http://tinyurl.com/d

6pqz36

Re: Food prices around the world soar as US sweats.. and Biomass wood ?

-

It doesn't get much dumber..

Southampton powered by wood in an ever-warming world.

-

US Drought Could Trigger Higher Food Prices.

Steve Baragona.
July 09, 2012.

World food prices are likely to rise in the coming months in the wake of record-breaking temperatures and drought in the major maize and soybean producing regions of the United States, economists say.

It would be the third spike in food prices in the past five years.

Previous hikes - during 2007 and 2008, and again in 2010 and 2011 - triggered riots and social instability in dozens of countries around the world.

Whether rising food prices will again trigger unrest is unclear, especially since different crops are affected.

Crops shrinking.

Despite early predictions of a record maize crop, estimates have plummeted after a string of record-high temperature days and dry conditions stretching across the farm states of the U.S. Midwest.


“The Chinese government isn’t going to be the least bit shy about buffering its own domestic markets,” he says. And with $3 trillion in foreign currency reserves, he adds, “they have the wherewithal to do that.”

http://www.voanews.c
om/content/us-drough
t-could-trigger-high
er-food-prices/13814
76.html

Re: Food prices around the world soar as US sweats.. and Biomass fuel/wood ?

-

It doesn't get much dumber..

Southampton powered by wood in an ever-warming world.

some Climate Scientists say apart from the Global Melt, thawing glaciers/permafrost etc, the accelerating frequency of Wildfires is a good indicator of an ever-warming world.

-

Wikipedia: U.S. Wildfires - 1825 To 2012.
-

http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/List_of_wil
dfires

-

Wikipedia: Australia Bushfires - 1851 To 2011
-

http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Bushfires_i
n_Australia

Dan Soton wrote:
Re: Food prices around the world soar as US sweats.. and Biomass fuel/wood ?

-

It doesn't get much dumber..

Southampton powered by wood in an ever-warming world.

some Climate Scientists say apart from the Global Melt, thawing glaciers/permafrost etc, the accelerating frequency of Wildfires is a good indicator of an ever-warming world.

-

Wikipedia: U.S. Wildfires - 1825 To 2012.
-

http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/List_of_wil

dfires

-

Wikipedia: Australia Bushfires - 1851 To 2011
-

http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/Bushfires_i

n_Australia

BP 2,000 gal's of biofuel per acre on marginal land no impact on food crops.

-

no point ribbing Helius powering Southampton with wood unless you have viable alternatives

-


BP eyes wind, biofuels in alternative energy.

July 10, 2012|.

Meghan Schiller of Medill News Service.

BP’s Alternative Energy division began in 2005 with plans to invest $8 billion over a 10-year period. It’s ahead of schedule, having already invested a total of $7 billion, with $4 billion in the United States. BP plans to have invested all $8 billion by the end of the year.


What exactly did they find so attractive? BP projects biofuels will make up 30% of the gasoline pool by 2030 and sees cellulosic ethanol as the energy to watch.

“Our cellulosic ethanol energy grass feedstock grows 15 to18 feet high and produces 1,000 to 2,000 gallons of fuel per acre,” said Landis.

BP grows its “energy cane” at its first commercial plant in a small Florida agricultural town hungry for jobs. Landis says those Floridians are “thrilled with development of this farm, and it’s on marginal land so there is no potential impact of the land being used for food crops.”

The company notes cellulosic ethanol will compete in the market at $80 per barrel by 2030 and yield 4 to 5 times that of corn.

BP says that the wind naysayers should start paying attention.

“Over the course of two,three, four years, depending on gas pricing, we will be able to compete with gas without any form of additional subsidization.”

-

http://tinyurl.com/6
u3gxrf

Dan Soton wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:
Re: Food prices around the world soar as US sweats.. and Biomass fuel/wood ?

-

It doesn't get much dumber..

Southampton powered by wood in an ever-warming world.

some Climate Scientists say apart from the Global Melt, thawing glaciers/permafrost etc, the accelerating frequency of Wildfires is a good indicator of an ever-warming world.

-

Wikipedia: U.S. Wildfires - 1825 To 2012.
-

http://en.wikipedia.


org/wiki/List_of_wil


dfires

-

Wikipedia: Australia Bushfires - 1851 To 2011
-

http://en.wikipedia.


org/wiki/Bushfires_i


n_Australia

BP 2,000 gal's of biofuel per acre on marginal land no impact on food crops.

-

no point ribbing Helius powering Southampton with wood unless you have viable alternatives

-


BP eyes wind, biofuels in alternative energy.

July 10, 2012|.

Meghan Schiller of Medill News Service.

BP’s Alternative Energy division began in 2005 with plans to invest $8 billion over a 10-year period. It’s ahead of schedule, having already invested a total of $7 billion, with $4 billion in the United States. BP plans to have invested all $8 billion by the end of the year.


What exactly did they find so attractive? BP projects biofuels will make up 30% of the gasoline pool by 2030 and sees cellulosic ethanol as the energy to watch.

“Our cellulosic ethanol energy grass feedstock grows 15 to18 feet high and produces 1,000 to 2,000 gallons of fuel per acre,” said Landis.

BP grows its “energy cane” at its first commercial plant in a small Florida agricultural town hungry for jobs. Landis says those Floridians are “thrilled with development of this farm, and it’s on marginal land so there is no potential impact of the land being used for food crops.”

The company notes cellulosic ethanol will compete in the market at $80 per barrel by 2030 and yield 4 to 5 times that of corn.

BP says that the wind naysayers should start paying attention.

“Over the course of two,three, four years, depending on gas pricing, we will be able to compete with gas without any form of additional subsidization.”

-

http://tinyurl.com/6

u3gxrf

Acre of algae produces up to 10,000 gal's grown on the poorest/desert land, does not compete with food crops.

-

No point ribbing Helius powering Southampton with wood unless you have viable alternatives

-

Algae moves to the head of the sustainable energy class.

Jun 27, 2012.

Global energy use is going to grow 53% by 2035, DOE predicts, and algae-based technology is the best candidate to provide a sustainable energy source to meet that growing demand, says IEEE.

Algae is not an unknown quantity. Major oil companies like Chevron and ExxonMobil have been researching it as part of their biofuels programs for years; and the U.S. Navy has been working with it in conjunction with nuclear power as fuel for planes, ships and submarines. But the stuff has never gotten top billing, until now.

"An acre of corn can be used to generate 300 gallons of ethanol per year, while an acre of algae can produce 6,000 to 10,000 gallons of light sweet crude oil annually," said William Kassebaum, IEEE Senior Member and CEO of Algaeon Inc.

-
http://tinyurl.com/c
lhe58k

Dan Soton wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:
Re: Food prices around the world soar as US sweats.. and Biomass fuel/wood ?

-

It doesn't get much dumber..

Southampton powered by wood in an ever-warming world.

some Climate Scientists say apart from the Global Melt, thawing glaciers/permafrost etc, the accelerating frequency of Wildfires is a good indicator of an ever-warming world.

-

Wikipedia: U.S. Wildfires - 1825 To 2012.
-

http://en.wikipedia.



org/wiki/List_of_wil



dfires

-

Wikipedia: Australia Bushfires - 1851 To 2011
-

http://en.wikipedia.



org/wiki/Bushfires_i



n_Australia

BP 2,000 gal's of biofuel per acre on marginal land no impact on food crops.

-

no point ribbing Helius powering Southampton with wood unless you have viable alternatives

-


BP eyes wind, biofuels in alternative energy.

July 10, 2012|.

Meghan Schiller of Medill News Service.

BP’s Alternative Energy division began in 2005 with plans to invest $8 billion over a 10-year period. It’s ahead of schedule, having already invested a total of $7 billion, with $4 billion in the United States. BP plans to have invested all $8 billion by the end of the year.


What exactly did they find so attractive? BP projects biofuels will make up 30% of the gasoline pool by 2030 and sees cellulosic ethanol as the energy to watch.

“Our cellulosic ethanol energy grass feedstock grows 15 to18 feet high and produces 1,000 to 2,000 gallons of fuel per acre,” said Landis.

BP grows its “energy cane” at its first commercial plant in a small Florida agricultural town hungry for jobs. Landis says those Floridians are “thrilled with development of this farm, and it’s on marginal land so there is no potential impact of the land being used for food crops.”

The company notes cellulosic ethanol will compete in the market at $80 per barrel by 2030 and yield 4 to 5 times that of corn.

BP says that the wind naysayers should start paying attention.

“Over the course of two,three, four years, depending on gas pricing, we will be able to compete with gas without any form of additional subsidization.”

-

http://tinyurl.com/6


u3gxrf

Acre of algae produces up to 10,000 gal's grown on the poorest/desert land, does not compete with food crops.

-

No point ribbing Helius powering Southampton with wood unless you have viable alternatives

-

Algae moves to the head of the sustainable energy class.

Jun 27, 2012.

Global energy use is going to grow 53% by 2035, DOE predicts, and algae-based technology is the best candidate to provide a sustainable energy source to meet that growing demand, says IEEE.

Algae is not an unknown quantity. Major oil companies like Chevron and ExxonMobil have been researching it as part of their biofuels programs for years; and the U.S. Navy has been working with it in conjunction with nuclear power as fuel for planes, ships and submarines. But the stuff has never gotten top billing, until now.

"An acre of corn can be used to generate 300 gallons of ethanol per year, while an acre of algae can produce 6,000 to 10,000 gallons of light sweet crude oil annually," said William Kassebaum, IEEE Senior Member and CEO of Algaeon Inc.

-
http://tinyurl.com/c

lhe58k

Solar now 10% of Germany's electricity production.

-

No point ribbing Helius powering Southampton with wood unless you have viable alternatives

-

Solar now 10 percent of Germany's electricity production.

ON 11 JULY 2012.

For the month of May this year, 10 percent of Germany's total electricity production came from solar power, 40 percent more than in 2011, the Federal Association of the Energy and Water Industry reports.

"Germany's decision to replace nuclear energy with other sources is proving to not only be possible, but is creating many valuable prospects for the renewables sector," says Tobias Homann of Germany Trade and Invest. "The continued strength of the solar market has sparked greater investment from abroad."

-

http://tinyurl.com/c
am5heh

It doesn't get much dumber..

Southampton powered by wood in an ever-warming world.

-


Bigger fires are alterting the ecosystem of the American West.

By Brandon Keim 09 July 12.

The vast wildfires of this summer and last represent a new normal for the western United States. They may signal a radical landscape transformation, one that will make the 21st century US an ecological frontier.

Unlike fires that have occurred regularly for thousands of years, these fires are so big and so intense as to create discontinuities in natural cycles. In the aftermath, existing forests may not return. New ecosystems will take their place.

"These transitions could be massive. They represent the convergence of several different forces," said Donald Falk, a fire ecologist at the University of Arizona. "There is a tremendous amount of energy on the landscape that historically would not have been there.

According to the researchers, rising regional temperatures mean fires will become larger and more frequent, with areas burned every few decades. Conifers, which release seeds during fire, aren't attuned to this pace: The next generation of trees will die before they're old enough to release new seeds.

"There will be many species that don't regenerate in that environment," Smithwick said. "The fire cycle is inconsistent with the species that are currently there." By 2050, predicted the researchers, much of Yellowstone's forest could be gone.

-

http://www.wired.co.
uk/news/archive/2012
-07/09/fire-changing
-america

Dan Soton wrote:
It doesn't get much dumber..

Southampton powered by wood in an ever-warming world.

-


Bigger fires are alterting the ecosystem of the American West.

By Brandon Keim 09 July 12.

The vast wildfires of this summer and last represent a new normal for the western United States. They may signal a radical landscape transformation, one that will make the 21st century US an ecological frontier.

Unlike fires that have occurred regularly for thousands of years, these fires are so big and so intense as to create discontinuities in natural cycles. In the aftermath, existing forests may not return. New ecosystems will take their place.

"These transitions could be massive. They represent the convergence of several different forces," said Donald Falk, a fire ecologist at the University of Arizona. "There is a tremendous amount of energy on the landscape that historically would not have been there.

According to the researchers, rising regional temperatures mean fires will become larger and more frequent, with areas burned every few decades. Conifers, which release seeds during fire, aren't attuned to this pace: The next generation of trees will die before they're old enough to release new seeds.

"There will be many species that don't regenerate in that environment," Smithwick said. "The fire cycle is inconsistent with the species that are currently there." By 2050, predicted the researchers, much of Yellowstone's forest could be gone.

-

http://www.wired.co.

uk/news/archive/2012

-07/09/fire-changing

-america

With you're posts & the No campaigns voice exactly why should this city pay for a PR stunt for the NO campaign?

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:
It doesn't get much dumber..

Southampton powered by wood in an ever-warming world.

-


Bigger fires are alterting the ecosystem of the American West.

By Brandon Keim 09 July 12.

The vast wildfires of this summer and last represent a new normal for the western United States. They may signal a radical landscape transformation, one that will make the 21st century US an ecological frontier.

Unlike fires that have occurred regularly for thousands of years, these fires are so big and so intense as to create discontinuities in natural cycles. In the aftermath, existing forests may not return. New ecosystems will take their place.

"These transitions could be massive. They represent the convergence of several different forces," said Donald Falk, a fire ecologist at the University of Arizona. "There is a tremendous amount of energy on the landscape that historically would not have been there.

According to the researchers, rising regional temperatures mean fires will become larger and more frequent, with areas burned every few decades. Conifers, which release seeds during fire, aren't attuned to this pace: The next generation of trees will die before they're old enough to release new seeds.

"There will be many species that don't regenerate in that environment," Smithwick said. "The fire cycle is inconsistent with the species that are currently there." By 2050, predicted the researchers, much of Yellowstone's forest could be gone.

-

http://www.wired.co.


uk/news/archive/2012


-07/09/fire-changing


-america

With you're posts & the No campaigns voice exactly why should this city pay for a PR stunt for the NO campaign?

Southampton to get vote on biomass plant.
-

Loosehead, I’d be a lot happier if we were voting for alternatives such as solar panels for all the roofs in Southampton but that's the nature of the beast.

Simply put.. I see it as a £300m glorified money/wood incinerator cynically promoted by Associated British Ports who were de-listed from the London Stock Exchange back in 2006, now in the ownership of Goldman Sachs and others ABP (JERSEY) Ltd want to max their potential and re-list making loads of dosh Goldman.

who can blame them for trying.

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:
It doesn't get much dumber..

Southampton powered by wood in an ever-warming world.

-


Bigger fires are alterting the ecosystem of the American West.

By Brandon Keim 09 July 12.

The vast wildfires of this summer and last represent a new normal for the western United States. They may signal a radical landscape transformation, one that will make the 21st century US an ecological frontier.

Unlike fires that have occurred regularly for thousands of years, these fires are so big and so intense as to create discontinuities in natural cycles. In the aftermath, existing forests may not return. New ecosystems will take their place.

"These transitions could be massive. They represent the convergence of several different forces," said Donald Falk, a fire ecologist at the University of Arizona. "There is a tremendous amount of energy on the landscape that historically would not have been there.

According to the researchers, rising regional temperatures mean fires will become larger and more frequent, with areas burned every few decades. Conifers, which release seeds during fire, aren't attuned to this pace: The next generation of trees will die before they're old enough to release new seeds.

"There will be many species that don't regenerate in that environment," Smithwick said. "The fire cycle is inconsistent with the species that are currently there." By 2050, predicted the researchers, much of Yellowstone's forest could be gone.

-

http://www.wired.co.


uk/news/archive/2012


-07/09/fire-changing


-america

With you're posts & the No campaigns voice exactly why should this city pay for a PR stunt for the NO campaign?

Southampton to get vote on biomass plant
　

loosehead, I’d be a lot happier if we were voting for alternatives such as solar panels for all the roofs in Southampton but that's the nature of the beast.

simply put.. I see it as a £300m glorified money/wood incinerator cynically promoted by Associated British Ports who were de-listed from the London Stock Exchange back in 2006, now in the ownership of Goldman Sachs and others ABP (JERSEY) Ltd want to max their potential and re-list making loads of dosh for Goldman.

who can blame them for trying.

Dan Soton wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:
It doesn't get much dumber..

Southampton powered by wood in an ever-warming world.

-


Bigger fires are alterting the ecosystem of the American West.

By Brandon Keim 09 July 12.

The vast wildfires of this summer and last represent a new normal for the western United States. They may signal a radical landscape transformation, one that will make the 21st century US an ecological frontier.

Unlike fires that have occurred regularly for thousands of years, these fires are so big and so intense as to create discontinuities in natural cycles. In the aftermath, existing forests may not return. New ecosystems will take their place.

"These transitions could be massive. They represent the convergence of several different forces," said Donald Falk, a fire ecologist at the University of Arizona. "There is a tremendous amount of energy on the landscape that historically would not have been there.

According to the researchers, rising regional temperatures mean fires will become larger and more frequent, with areas burned every few decades. Conifers, which release seeds during fire, aren't attuned to this pace: The next generation of trees will die before they're old enough to release new seeds.

"There will be many species that don't regenerate in that environment," Smithwick said. "The fire cycle is inconsistent with the species that are currently there." By 2050, predicted the researchers, much of Yellowstone's forest could be gone.

-

http://www.wired.co.



uk/news/archive/2012



-07/09/fire-changing



-america

With you're posts & the No campaigns voice exactly why should this city pay for a PR stunt for the NO campaign?

Southampton to get vote on biomass plant
　

loosehead, I’d be a lot happier if we were voting for alternatives such as solar panels for all the roofs in Southampton but that's the nature of the beast.

simply put.. I see it as a £300m glorified money/wood incinerator cynically promoted by Associated British Ports who were de-listed from the London Stock Exchange back in 2006, now in the ownership of Goldman Sachs and others ABP (JERSEY) Ltd want to max their potential and re-list making loads of dosh for Goldman.

who can blame them for trying.

Dan when Labour councillors(three) were asked why council tenants couldn't sign up to free Solar Panels & get a certain amount of free electricity the councillors said it's because if anything is wrong with the roof or they need to put in a loft conversion they would have to pay to take them down?
surely you check the roof before allowing the installation.you only house tenants in those properties who will accept them & who don't need a bedroom in the loft?
Also they failed to mention the Solar Panels on Rozell & Sarnia plus a few others are of the lease for 25 year scheme so why won't they allow it?
Put in wave & tidal generators into our rivers ,burn the excess Methane the sewage works produce to make electricity, put Wind Turbines down our motorways & have Solar Panels on homes then consider UV strips for hot water & then & only then would I agree that the need for Bio Mass isn't there

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:
It doesn't get much dumber..

Southampton powered by wood in an ever-warming world.

-


Bigger fires are alterting the ecosystem of the American West.

By Brandon Keim 09 July 12.

The vast wildfires of this summer and last represent a new normal for the western United States. They may signal a radical landscape transformation, one that will make the 21st century US an ecological frontier.

Unlike fires that have occurred regularly for thousands of years, these fires are so big and so intense as to create discontinuities in natural cycles. In the aftermath, existing forests may not return. New ecosystems will take their place.

"These transitions could be massive. They represent the convergence of several different forces," said Donald Falk, a fire ecologist at the University of Arizona. "There is a tremendous amount of energy on the landscape that historically would not have been there.

According to the researchers, rising regional temperatures mean fires will become larger and more frequent, with areas burned every few decades. Conifers, which release seeds during fire, aren't attuned to this pace: The next generation of trees will die before they're old enough to release new seeds.

"There will be many species that don't regenerate in that environment," Smithwick said. "The fire cycle is inconsistent with the species that are currently there." By 2050, predicted the researchers, much of Yellowstone's forest could be gone.

-

http://www.wired.co.




uk/news/archive/2012




-07/09/fire-changing




-america

With you're posts & the No campaigns voice exactly why should this city pay for a PR stunt for the NO campaign?

Southampton to get vote on biomass plant
　

loosehead, I’d be a lot happier if we were voting for alternatives such as solar panels for all the roofs in Southampton but that's the nature of the beast.

simply put.. I see it as a £300m glorified money/wood incinerator cynically promoted by Associated British Ports who were de-listed from the London Stock Exchange back in 2006, now in the ownership of Goldman Sachs and others ABP (JERSEY) Ltd want to max their potential and re-list making loads of dosh for Goldman.

who can blame them for trying.

Dan when Labour councillors(three) were asked why council tenants couldn't sign up to free Solar Panels & get a certain amount of free electricity the councillors said it's because if anything is wrong with the roof or they need to put in a loft conversion they would have to pay to take them down?
surely you check the roof before allowing the installation.you only house tenants in those properties who will accept them & who don't need a bedroom in the loft?
Also they failed to mention the Solar Panels on Rozell & Sarnia plus a few others are of the lease for 25 year scheme so why won't they allow it?
Put in wave & tidal generators into our rivers ,burn the excess Methane the sewage works produce to make electricity, put Wind Turbines down our motorways & have Solar Panels on homes then consider UV strips for hot water & then & only then would I agree that the need for Bio Mass isn't there

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:

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:
It doesn't get much dumber..

Southampton powered by wood in an ever-warming world.

-


Bigger fires are alterting the ecosystem of the American West.

By Brandon Keim 09 July 12.

The vast wildfires of this summer and last represent a new normal for the western United States. They may signal a radical landscape transformation, one that will make the 21st century US an ecological frontier.

Unlike fires that have occurred regularly for thousands of years, these fires are so big and so intense as to create discontinuities in natural cycles. In the aftermath, existing forests may not return. New ecosystems will take their place.

"These transitions could be massive. They represent the convergence of several different forces," said Donald Falk, a fire ecologist at the University of Arizona. "There is a tremendous amount of energy on the landscape that historically would not have been there.

According to the researchers, rising regional temperatures mean fires will become larger and more frequent, with areas burned every few decades. Conifers, which release seeds during fire, aren't attuned to this pace: The next generation of trees will die before they're old enough to release new seeds.

"There will be many species that don't regenerate in that environment," Smithwick said. "The fire cycle is inconsistent with the species that are currently there." By 2050, predicted the researchers, much of Yellowstone's forest could be gone.

-

http://www.wired.co.





uk/news/archive/2012





-07/09/fire-changing





-america

With you're posts & the No campaigns voice exactly why should this city pay for a PR stunt for the NO campaign?

Southampton to get vote on biomass plant
　

loosehead, I’d be a lot happier if we were voting for alternatives such as solar panels for all the roofs in Southampton but that's the nature of the beast.

simply put.. I see it as a £300m glorified money/wood incinerator cynically promoted by Associated British Ports who were de-listed from the London Stock Exchange back in 2006, now in the ownership of Goldman Sachs and others ABP (JERSEY) Ltd want to max their potential and re-list making loads of dosh for Goldman.

who can blame them for trying.

Dan when Labour councillors(three) were asked why council tenants couldn't sign up to free Solar Panels & get a certain amount of free electricity the councillors said it's because if anything is wrong with the roof or they need to put in a loft conversion they would have to pay to take them down?
surely you check the roof before allowing the installation.you only house tenants in those properties who will accept them & who don't need a bedroom in the loft?
Also they failed to mention the Solar Panels on Rozell & Sarnia plus a few others are of the lease for 25 year scheme so why won't they allow it?
Put in wave & tidal generators into our rivers ,burn the excess Methane the sewage works produce to make electricity, put Wind Turbines down our motorways & have Solar Panels on homes then consider UV strips for hot water & then & only then would I agree that the need for Bio Mass isn't there

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

If high Carbon prices are good for Helius a collapse must be bad news right?

-

Like a cornered rat.. probably hurts Helius's green low carbon PR masquerade, there is evidence that burning biomas actually releases more carbon, per unit of useful energy generated, than burning gas or oil.

-


EU rescue plan setback drives down carbon prices.

By Nina Chestney.

LONDON, July 18 (Reuters).-

Coal-intensive Poland, which on its own could not block a decision, has repeatedly objected to anything that could raise the carbon price, as have some sections of heavy industry.

PRICE COLLAPSE.

Carbon prices have collapsed to record lows under the burden of surplus supply following recession and have been very sensitive for months to news about withdrawing permits.

EU carbon permits traded 6.9 percent lower at 7.15 euros, after sinking to 6.80 euros earlier on Wednesday, above a record low of 5.99 euros in early April but well below the 20 euro level it was trading at in 2008.

Benchmark U.N. carbon credits were also dragged down, hitting a fresh record low below 3 euros a tonne as the market relies on demand from polluters in the EU scheme.

-


http://www.reuters.c
om/article/2012/07/1
8/market-carbon-idUS
L6E8IIAOU20120718

Dan Soton wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:
It doesn't get much dumber..

Southampton powered by wood in an ever-warming world.

-


Bigger fires are alterting the ecosystem of the American West.

By Brandon Keim 09 July 12.

The vast wildfires of this summer and last represent a new normal for the western United States. They may signal a radical landscape transformation, one that will make the 21st century US an ecological frontier.

Unlike fires that have occurred regularly for thousands of years, these fires are so big and so intense as to create discontinuities in natural cycles. In the aftermath, existing forests may not return. New ecosystems will take their place.

"These transitions could be massive. They represent the convergence of several different forces," said Donald Falk, a fire ecologist at the University of Arizona. "There is a tremendous amount of energy on the landscape that historically would not have been there.

According to the researchers, rising regional temperatures mean fires will become larger and more frequent, with areas burned every few decades. Conifers, which release seeds during fire, aren't attuned to this pace: The next generation of trees will die before they're old enough to release new seeds.

"There will be many species that don't regenerate in that environment," Smithwick said. "The fire cycle is inconsistent with the species that are currently there." By 2050, predicted the researchers, much of Yellowstone's forest could be gone.

-

http://www.wired.co.






uk/news/archive/2012






-07/09/fire-changing






-america

With you're posts & the No campaigns voice exactly why should this city pay for a PR stunt for the NO campaign?

Southampton to get vote on biomass plant
　

loosehead, I’d be a lot happier if we were voting for alternatives such as solar panels for all the roofs in Southampton but that's the nature of the beast.

simply put.. I see it as a £300m glorified money/wood incinerator cynically promoted by Associated British Ports who were de-listed from the London Stock Exchange back in 2006, now in the ownership of Goldman Sachs and others ABP (JERSEY) Ltd want to max their potential and re-list making loads of dosh for Goldman.

who can blame them for trying.

Dan when Labour councillors(three) were asked why council tenants couldn't sign up to free Solar Panels & get a certain amount of free electricity the councillors said it's because if anything is wrong with the roof or they need to put in a loft conversion they would have to pay to take them down?
surely you check the roof before allowing the installation.you only house tenants in those properties who will accept them & who don't need a bedroom in the loft?
Also they failed to mention the Solar Panels on Rozell & Sarnia plus a few others are of the lease for 25 year scheme so why won't they allow it?
Put in wave & tidal generators into our rivers ,burn the excess Methane the sewage works produce to make electricity, put Wind Turbines down our motorways & have Solar Panels on homes then consider UV strips for hot water & then & only then would I agree that the need for Bio Mass isn't there

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

If high Carbon prices are good for Helius a collapse must be bad news right?

-

Like a cornered rat.. probably hurts Helius's green low carbon PR masquerade, there is evidence that burning biomas actually releases more carbon, per unit of useful energy generated, than burning gas or oil.

-


EU rescue plan setback drives down carbon prices.

By Nina Chestney.

LONDON, July 18 (Reuters).-

Coal-intensive Poland, which on its own could not block a decision, has repeatedly objected to anything that could raise the carbon price, as have some sections of heavy industry.

PRICE COLLAPSE.

Carbon prices have collapsed to record lows under the burden of surplus supply following recession and have been very sensitive for months to news about withdrawing permits.

EU carbon permits traded 6.9 percent lower at 7.15 euros, after sinking to 6.80 euros earlier on Wednesday, above a record low of 5.99 euros in early April but well below the 20 euro level it was trading at in 2008.

Benchmark U.N. carbon credits were also dragged down, hitting a fresh record low below 3 euros a tonne as the market relies on demand from polluters in the EU scheme.

-


http://www.reuters.c

om/article/2012/07/1

8/market-carbon-idUS

L6E8IIAOU20120718

As you seem so hell bent on stopping Helius why don't you print loads of voting leaflets deliver them around Millbrook ( not green park estate) & Freemantle with your e-mail address & a return address for the leaflets?
The cost in paper & ink would be minimal compared to the £5,000-£45,000 quoted for the council's referendum?
if you couldn't deliver them why not ask the NO campaign to volunteer to do it?
I would have more respect for you & them if you did this off your own backs

loosehead.. The respect of a Helius supporter ?

FYI: printing loads of leaflets is very ungreen

Dan Soton wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:
It doesn't get much dumber..

Southampton powered by wood in an ever-warming world.

-


Bigger fires are alterting the ecosystem of the American West.

By Brandon Keim 09 July 12.

The vast wildfires of this summer and last represent a new normal for the western United States. They may signal a radical landscape transformation, one that will make the 21st century US an ecological frontier.

Unlike fires that have occurred regularly for thousands of years, these fires are so big and so intense as to create discontinuities in natural cycles. In the aftermath, existing forests may not return. New ecosystems will take their place.

"These transitions could be massive. They represent the convergence of several different forces," said Donald Falk, a fire ecologist at the University of Arizona. "There is a tremendous amount of energy on the landscape that historically would not have been there.

According to the researchers, rising regional temperatures mean fires will become larger and more frequent, with areas burned every few decades. Conifers, which release seeds during fire, aren't attuned to this pace: The next generation of trees will die before they're old enough to release new seeds.

"There will be many species that don't regenerate in that environment," Smithwick said. "The fire cycle is inconsistent with the species that are currently there." By 2050, predicted the researchers, much of Yellowstone's forest could be gone.

-

http://www.wired.co.






uk/news/archive/2012






-07/09/fire-changing






-america

With you're posts & the No campaigns voice exactly why should this city pay for a PR stunt for the NO campaign?

Southampton to get vote on biomass plant
　

loosehead, I’d be a lot happier if we were voting for alternatives such as solar panels for all the roofs in Southampton but that's the nature of the beast.

simply put.. I see it as a £300m glorified money/wood incinerator cynically promoted by Associated British Ports who were de-listed from the London Stock Exchange back in 2006, now in the ownership of Goldman Sachs and others ABP (JERSEY) Ltd want to max their potential and re-list making loads of dosh for Goldman.

who can blame them for trying.

Dan when Labour councillors(three) were asked why council tenants couldn't sign up to free Solar Panels & get a certain amount of free electricity the councillors said it's because if anything is wrong with the roof or they need to put in a loft conversion they would have to pay to take them down?
surely you check the roof before allowing the installation.you only house tenants in those properties who will accept them & who don't need a bedroom in the loft?
Also they failed to mention the Solar Panels on Rozell & Sarnia plus a few others are of the lease for 25 year scheme so why won't they allow it?
Put in wave & tidal generators into our rivers ,burn the excess Methane the sewage works produce to make electricity, put Wind Turbines down our motorways & have Solar Panels on homes then consider UV strips for hot water & then & only then would I agree that the need for Bio Mass isn't there

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

If high Carbon prices are good for Helius a collapse must be bad news right?

-

Like a cornered rat.. probably hurts Helius's green low carbon PR masquerade, there is evidence that burning biomas actually releases more carbon, per unit of useful energy generated, than burning gas or oil.

-


EU rescue plan setback drives down carbon prices.

By Nina Chestney.

LONDON, July 18 (Reuters).-

Coal-intensive Poland, which on its own could not block a decision, has repeatedly objected to anything that could raise the carbon price, as have some sections of heavy industry.

PRICE COLLAPSE.

Carbon prices have collapsed to record lows under the burden of surplus supply following recession and have been very sensitive for months to news about withdrawing permits.

EU carbon permits traded 6.9 percent lower at 7.15 euros, after sinking to 6.80 euros earlier on Wednesday, above a record low of 5.99 euros in early April but well below the 20 euro level it was trading at in 2008.

Benchmark U.N. carbon credits were also dragged down, hitting a fresh record low below 3 euros a tonne as the market relies on demand from polluters in the EU scheme.

-


http://www.reuters.c

om/article/2012/07/1

8/market-carbon-idUS

L6E8IIAOU20120718

Stands out a mile.. Helius has no Green ethic, they are not to be trusted.


The building itself should have been designed around a Sustainable Green ethic.

To tick any Green boxes they should of clad the roof/s and southfacing walls with solar panels..


Councillor Williams rightly dubbed it “green wash” a purely opportunistic development.

-

http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/news/district
/southampton/9706278
.New_biomass_plans_a
__greenwash_/

Dan Soton wrote:
loosehead.. The respect of a Helius supporter ?

FYI: printing loads of leaflets is very ungreen

okay why not knock every door ask them if they vote NO to Bio Mass or Yes you know do a questionnaire then get the Echo to print the results & use them in your fight?
what would you do if it comes out as the majority are in favour of the Bio Mass?

Dan Soton wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:
It doesn't get much dumber..

Southampton powered by wood in an ever-warming world.

-


Bigger fires are alterting the ecosystem of the American West.

By Brandon Keim 09 July 12.

The vast wildfires of this summer and last represent a new normal for the western United States. They may signal a radical landscape transformation, one that will make the 21st century US an ecological frontier.

Unlike fires that have occurred regularly for thousands of years, these fires are so big and so intense as to create discontinuities in natural cycles. In the aftermath, existing forests may not return. New ecosystems will take their place.

"These transitions could be massive. They represent the convergence of several different forces," said Donald Falk, a fire ecologist at the University of Arizona. "There is a tremendous amount of energy on the landscape that historically would not have been there.

According to the researchers, rising regional temperatures mean fires will become larger and more frequent, with areas burned every few decades. Conifers, which release seeds during fire, aren't attuned to this pace: The next generation of trees will die before they're old enough to release new seeds.

"There will be many species that don't regenerate in that environment," Smithwick said. "The fire cycle is inconsistent with the species that are currently there." By 2050, predicted the researchers, much of Yellowstone's forest could be gone.

-

http://www.wired.co.







uk/news/archive/2012







-07/09/fire-changing







-america

With you're posts & the No campaigns voice exactly why should this city pay for a PR stunt for the NO campaign?

Southampton to get vote on biomass plant
　

loosehead, I’d be a lot happier if we were voting for alternatives such as solar panels for all the roofs in Southampton but that's the nature of the beast.

simply put.. I see it as a £300m glorified money/wood incinerator cynically promoted by Associated British Ports who were de-listed from the London Stock Exchange back in 2006, now in the ownership of Goldman Sachs and others ABP (JERSEY) Ltd want to max their potential and re-list making loads of dosh for Goldman.

who can blame them for trying.

Dan when Labour councillors(three) were asked why council tenants couldn't sign up to free Solar Panels & get a certain amount of free electricity the councillors said it's because if anything is wrong with the roof or they need to put in a loft conversion they would have to pay to take them down?
surely you check the roof before allowing the installation.you only house tenants in those properties who will accept them & who don't need a bedroom in the loft?
Also they failed to mention the Solar Panels on Rozell & Sarnia plus a few others are of the lease for 25 year scheme so why won't they allow it?
Put in wave & tidal generators into our rivers ,burn the excess Methane the sewage works produce to make electricity, put Wind Turbines down our motorways & have Solar Panels on homes then consider UV strips for hot water & then & only then would I agree that the need for Bio Mass isn't there

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

If high Carbon prices are good for Helius a collapse must be bad news right?

-

Like a cornered rat.. probably hurts Helius's green low carbon PR masquerade, there is evidence that burning biomas actually releases more carbon, per unit of useful energy generated, than burning gas or oil.

-


EU rescue plan setback drives down carbon prices.

By Nina Chestney.

LONDON, July 18 (Reuters).-

Coal-intensive Poland, which on its own could not block a decision, has repeatedly objected to anything that could raise the carbon price, as have some sections of heavy industry.

PRICE COLLAPSE.

Carbon prices have collapsed to record lows under the burden of surplus supply following recession and have been very sensitive for months to news about withdrawing permits.

EU carbon permits traded 6.9 percent lower at 7.15 euros, after sinking to 6.80 euros earlier on Wednesday, above a record low of 5.99 euros in early April but well below the 20 euro level it was trading at in 2008.

Benchmark U.N. carbon credits were also dragged down, hitting a fresh record low below 3 euros a tonne as the market relies on demand from polluters in the EU scheme.

-


http://www.reuters.c


om/article/2012/07/1


8/market-carbon-idUS


L6E8IIAOU20120718

Stands out a mile.. Helius has no Green ethic, they are not to be trusted.


The building itself should have been designed around a Sustainable Green ethic.

To tick any Green boxes they should of clad the roof/s and southfacing walls with solar panels..


Councillor Williams rightly dubbed it “green wash” a purely opportunistic development.

-

http://www.dailyecho

.co.uk/news/district

/southampton/9706278

.New_biomass_plans_a

__greenwash_/

Now you've lost all credibility quoting an out an out Liar!

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:
It doesn't get much dumber..

Southampton powered by wood in an ever-warming world.

-


Bigger fires are alterting the ecosystem of the American West.

By Brandon Keim 09 July 12.

The vast wildfires of this summer and last represent a new normal for the western United States. They may signal a radical landscape transformation, one that will make the 21st century US an ecological frontier.

Unlike fires that have occurred regularly for thousands of years, these fires are so big and so intense as to create discontinuities in natural cycles. In the aftermath, existing forests may not return. New ecosystems will take their place.

"These transitions could be massive. They represent the convergence of several different forces," said Donald Falk, a fire ecologist at the University of Arizona. "There is a tremendous amount of energy on the landscape that historically would not have been there.

According to the researchers, rising regional temperatures mean fires will become larger and more frequent, with areas burned every few decades. Conifers, which release seeds during fire, aren't attuned to this pace: The next generation of trees will die before they're old enough to release new seeds.

"There will be many species that don't regenerate in that environment," Smithwick said. "The fire cycle is inconsistent with the species that are currently there." By 2050, predicted the researchers, much of Yellowstone's forest could be gone.

-

http://www.wired.co.








uk/news/archive/2012








-07/09/fire-changing








-america

With you're posts & the No campaigns voice exactly why should this city pay for a PR stunt for the NO campaign?

Southampton to get vote on biomass plant
　

loosehead, I’d be a lot happier if we were voting for alternatives such as solar panels for all the roofs in Southampton but that's the nature of the beast.

simply put.. I see it as a £300m glorified money/wood incinerator cynically promoted by Associated British Ports who were de-listed from the London Stock Exchange back in 2006, now in the ownership of Goldman Sachs and others ABP (JERSEY) Ltd want to max their potential and re-list making loads of dosh for Goldman.

who can blame them for trying.

Dan when Labour councillors(three) were asked why council tenants couldn't sign up to free Solar Panels & get a certain amount of free electricity the councillors said it's because if anything is wrong with the roof or they need to put in a loft conversion they would have to pay to take them down?
surely you check the roof before allowing the installation.you only house tenants in those properties who will accept them & who don't need a bedroom in the loft?
Also they failed to mention the Solar Panels on Rozell & Sarnia plus a few others are of the lease for 25 year scheme so why won't they allow it?
Put in wave & tidal generators into our rivers ,burn the excess Methane the sewage works produce to make electricity, put Wind Turbines down our motorways & have Solar Panels on homes then consider UV strips for hot water & then & only then would I agree that the need for Bio Mass isn't there

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

If high Carbon prices are good for Helius a collapse must be bad news right?

-

Like a cornered rat.. probably hurts Helius's green low carbon PR masquerade, there is evidence that burning biomas actually releases more carbon, per unit of useful energy generated, than burning gas or oil.

-


EU rescue plan setback drives down carbon prices.

By Nina Chestney.

LONDON, July 18 (Reuters).-

Coal-intensive Poland, which on its own could not block a decision, has repeatedly objected to anything that could raise the carbon price, as have some sections of heavy industry.

PRICE COLLAPSE.

Carbon prices have collapsed to record lows under the burden of surplus supply following recession and have been very sensitive for months to news about withdrawing permits.

EU carbon permits traded 6.9 percent lower at 7.15 euros, after sinking to 6.80 euros earlier on Wednesday, above a record low of 5.99 euros in early April but well below the 20 euro level it was trading at in 2008.

Benchmark U.N. carbon credits were also dragged down, hitting a fresh record low below 3 euros a tonne as the market relies on demand from polluters in the EU scheme.

-


http://www.reuters.c



om/article/2012/07/1



8/market-carbon-idUS



L6E8IIAOU20120718

Stands out a mile.. Helius has no Green ethic, they are not to be trusted.


The building itself should have been designed around a Sustainable Green ethic.

To tick any Green boxes they should of clad the roof/s and southfacing walls with solar panels..


Councillor Williams rightly dubbed it “green wash” a purely opportunistic development.

-

http://www.dailyecho


.co.uk/news/district


/southampton/9706278


.New_biomass_plans_a


__greenwash_/

Now you've lost all credibility quoting an out an out Liar!

loosehead says... you've lost all credibility quoting an out an out Liar

-


The world's greatest liars tend to be highly intelligent and well quoted, choosing wisely can influence the World.

you can quote me on that.

-



Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Liberty

Dan Soton wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:
It doesn't get much dumber..

Southampton powered by wood in an ever-warming world.

-


Bigger fires are alterting the ecosystem of the American West.

By Brandon Keim 09 July 12.

The vast wildfires of this summer and last represent a new normal for the western United States. They may signal a radical landscape transformation, one that will make the 21st century US an ecological frontier.

Unlike fires that have occurred regularly for thousands of years, these fires are so big and so intense as to create discontinuities in natural cycles. In the aftermath, existing forests may not return. New ecosystems will take their place.

"These transitions could be massive. They represent the convergence of several different forces," said Donald Falk, a fire ecologist at the University of Arizona. "There is a tremendous amount of energy on the landscape that historically would not have been there.

According to the researchers, rising regional temperatures mean fires will become larger and more frequent, with areas burned every few decades. Conifers, which release seeds during fire, aren't attuned to this pace: The next generation of trees will die before they're old enough to release new seeds.

"There will be many species that don't regenerate in that environment," Smithwick said. "The fire cycle is inconsistent with the species that are currently there." By 2050, predicted the researchers, much of Yellowstone's forest could be gone.

-

http://www.wired.co.









uk/news/archive/2012









-07/09/fire-changing









-america

With you're posts & the No campaigns voice exactly why should this city pay for a PR stunt for the NO campaign?

Southampton to get vote on biomass plant
　

loosehead, I’d be a lot happier if we were voting for alternatives such as solar panels for all the roofs in Southampton but that's the nature of the beast.

simply put.. I see it as a £300m glorified money/wood incinerator cynically promoted by Associated British Ports who were de-listed from the London Stock Exchange back in 2006, now in the ownership of Goldman Sachs and others ABP (JERSEY) Ltd want to max their potential and re-list making loads of dosh for Goldman.

who can blame them for trying.

Dan when Labour councillors(three) were asked why council tenants couldn't sign up to free Solar Panels & get a certain amount of free electricity the councillors said it's because if anything is wrong with the roof or they need to put in a loft conversion they would have to pay to take them down?
surely you check the roof before allowing the installation.you only house tenants in those properties who will accept them & who don't need a bedroom in the loft?
Also they failed to mention the Solar Panels on Rozell & Sarnia plus a few others are of the lease for 25 year scheme so why won't they allow it?
Put in wave & tidal generators into our rivers ,burn the excess Methane the sewage works produce to make electricity, put Wind Turbines down our motorways & have Solar Panels on homes then consider UV strips for hot water & then & only then would I agree that the need for Bio Mass isn't there

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

If high Carbon prices are good for Helius a collapse must be bad news right?

-

Like a cornered rat.. probably hurts Helius's green low carbon PR masquerade, there is evidence that burning biomas actually releases more carbon, per unit of useful energy generated, than burning gas or oil.

-


EU rescue plan setback drives down carbon prices.

By Nina Chestney.

LONDON, July 18 (Reuters).-

Coal-intensive Poland, which on its own could not block a decision, has repeatedly objected to anything that could raise the carbon price, as have some sections of heavy industry.

PRICE COLLAPSE.

Carbon prices have collapsed to record lows under the burden of surplus supply following recession and have been very sensitive for months to news about withdrawing permits.

EU carbon permits traded 6.9 percent lower at 7.15 euros, after sinking to 6.80 euros earlier on Wednesday, above a record low of 5.99 euros in early April but well below the 20 euro level it was trading at in 2008.

Benchmark U.N. carbon credits were also dragged down, hitting a fresh record low below 3 euros a tonne as the market relies on demand from polluters in the EU scheme.

-


http://www.reuters.c




om/article/2012/07/1




8/market-carbon-idUS




L6E8IIAOU20120718

Stands out a mile.. Helius has no Green ethic, they are not to be trusted.


The building itself should have been designed around a Sustainable Green ethic.

To tick any Green boxes they should of clad the roof/s and southfacing walls with solar panels..


Councillor Williams rightly dubbed it “green wash” a purely opportunistic development.

-

http://www.dailyecho



.co.uk/news/district



/southampton/9706278



.New_biomass_plans_a



__greenwash_/

Now you've lost all credibility quoting an out an out Liar!

loosehead says... you've lost all credibility quoting an out an out Liar

-


The world's greatest liars tend to be highly intelligent and well quoted, choosing wisely can influence the World.

you can quote me on that.

-



Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Liberty

loosehead says... you've lost all credibility quoting an out an out Liar



-

I'll have another go at that.

-


The world's greatest liars tend to be highly intelligent and well quoted, by choosing wisely you can influence the World.


you can quote me on that.

-



Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Liberty

Helius competing with agricultural land.. 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass pellets

-


Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means Helius could be incinerating 120,000 acres of Canadan Miscanthus grass per year

-


Biomass pellets becoming a hot commodity in Europe.

By Diana Martin, QMI Agency.
Posted 12 days ago.

“Last year, Europe consumed 13 million tonnes of biomass pellets,” said Ian Moncrieff, president and CEO of Canadian Biofuel. “By 2015, they will be using 20 million; by 2020, it will be 30 million-plus.”

European countries don’t have the landmass to produce enough biomass pellets to meet the demand, which is why they are looking at Canada to fill the void, he said.

Moncrieff added Canadian Biofuels would need 12,000 to 15,000 acres of miscanthus to produces 100,000 tonnes to support a new plant.

-

http://tinyurl.com/c
srdlee

Dan Soton wrote:
Helius competing with agricultural land.. 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass pellets

-


Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means Helius could be incinerating 120,000 acres of Canadan Miscanthus grass per year

-


Biomass pellets becoming a hot commodity in Europe.

By Diana Martin, QMI Agency.
Posted 12 days ago.

“Last year, Europe consumed 13 million tonnes of biomass pellets,” said Ian Moncrieff, president and CEO of Canadian Biofuel. “By 2015, they will be using 20 million; by 2020, it will be 30 million-plus.”

European countries don’t have the landmass to produce enough biomass pellets to meet the demand, which is why they are looking at Canada to fill the void, he said.

Moncrieff added Canadian Biofuels would need 12,000 to 15,000 acres of miscanthus to produces 100,000 tonnes to support a new plant.

-

http://tinyurl.com/c

srdlee

Dan you've achieved your goal! put up all this cr*p & stifle debate shows your not really interested in a true debate doesn't it?

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:
Helius competing with agricultural land.. 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass pellets

-


Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means Helius could be incinerating 120,000 acres of Canadan Miscanthus grass per year

-


Biomass pellets becoming a hot commodity in Europe.

By Diana Martin, QMI Agency.
Posted 12 days ago.

“Last year, Europe consumed 13 million tonnes of biomass pellets,” said Ian Moncrieff, president and CEO of Canadian Biofuel. “By 2015, they will be using 20 million; by 2020, it will be 30 million-plus.”

European countries don’t have the landmass to produce enough biomass pellets to meet the demand, which is why they are looking at Canada to fill the void, he said.

Moncrieff added Canadian Biofuels would need 12,000 to 15,000 acres of miscanthus to produces 100,000 tonnes to support a new plant.

-

http://tinyurl.com/c


srdlee

Dan you've achieved your goal! put up all this cr*p & stifle debate shows your not really interested in a true debate doesn't it?

Re: Helius competing with agricultural land.. 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass pellets.

-

loosehead you want to debate about all this cr*p ?

-

Watch this youtube video @ 03:40 mins.. a Canadian farmer says he grows Tobacco, Soya, and Wheat but Miscanthus grass for biofuel pellets is his future.

-

www.youtube.com/watc
h?v=-ix1n2RfMpA


-


if you think its all cr*p here's the link to contact and debate with Canadian Biofuels the sponsors and makes of the video.

-

http://www.canadianb
iofuel.ca/contact/

Today Bells peeled across Southampton to welcome the Olympics.. cover your ear's here's the Biomass Alarm Bells

-



For evey home Helius could be incinerating Six Acres of Canadian Miscanthus grass per year .

Six Acres of solar panels can power 199 homes.

One home Helius Biomass Vs One hundred and ninety nine homes Solar Panels.

-



Daily Echo.. Estate creates huge solar panel farm.

9:37am Friday 13th July 2012.

Nearly 19,000 solar panels have been installed on 30 acres of land on the Cadland Estate at Fawley to generate enough electricity to power 1,000 homes.

-

http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/business/9815
892.Estate_creates_h
uge_solar_panel_farm
/

Europe needs 30 million plus tonnes of biomass pellets per year.

-

According to Canadian miscanthus growers, Europe needs 30 million-plus tonnes of grass pellets per year grown on 4.5 million acres or about 7,031 square miles of land.

That's 1000 square miles more land than Egypt's Nile Valley ( not the best comparison ) that helps to feed Egypt's estimate 90 million population.

When it comes to profits incinerating tall grass wins out over timber it's that simple

-


AFAIK: this Government or I should say the EU's support for biomass/biofuel isn't centred on incinerating timber or grass but Helius's Southampton plans are.

environmentally Helius is 20 years behind the times.


Helius is the wrong company at the wrong time.

Governments Will Tax Algae Biofuel.. why subsidise Helius's Wood/Grass incinerator ?

-
　

Algae Biofuel is getting to the point where it will be commercially viable and not to soon after Taxable.
　
If the below news can be trusted, a £300m, 119 acre Algae Plant can produce over 15m gallons of biofuel per year.. 20,000 homes x 750 gallons.

If scaled up to Fawley Refinery's 3,250 acre site an Algae Plant can produce over 400m gallons of biofuel per year.. 20,000 homes x 20,000 gallons.


-



Austrian algae biofuel-production technology to debut in Brazil.

By Antonio Pasolini.

10:53 July 20, 2012.

The new plant will make the most of algae's potential. One of the products to come out of it will be feedstock for animals, providing an alternative to soybeans. The process also yields algal lipids that can be used to make biodiesel and biochemicals. Algae are also a source of omega-3. As overfishing has become a serious environmental concern, algae are a more environmentally friendly source of this nutrient, which is commonly sold as a supplement.

"We believe that this marks a significant step forward in the evolution of our company and validates both our exclusive technology and the commercial viability of algae, especially for use in feed and biofuels,” said Dr. Joachim Grill, SAT’s CEO.

The plant will occupy one hectare (2.5 acres) and the total investment is €8 million (US$9.81 million). SAT expects the unit to be producing 1.2 million liters (317,000 gallons) of biodiesel per year when it starts operating in late 2013.

-

http://www.gizmag.co
m/algae-biomass-plan
t-brazil/23378/


-



As I said to one ( Millbrook Church Hall ) of Helius's management team, environmentally Helius is 20 years behind the times.. Southampton has a choice of Algae Biofuel, Fuel Cell, Wind, Tidal, Geothermal and Solar why should we incinerate Wood/Grass ?

I'm still waiting on an honest believable replay and what are you going to do when all the subsidies dry up?

If one solar home can power three who needs Helius's timber/grass incinerator ?

-


By 2020 one Southampton solar home could be generating 16,000kWh of energy and only using 4,000-5,000kWh a year.

-

YouTube Video.. Robert Llewellyn.


http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=Ac0cPOZMT
Tk


-



The Energy Efficient House | Fully Charged

Published on 25 Jul 2012 by

Robert Llewellyn visits an energy efficient house in Berlin.

Robert is back in Berlin, where he speaks to Jörg Welke who lives in a house which produces 16,000kWh of energy a year, when it only uses 4,000-5,000kWh. With it's great insulation, solar panels, and a 40kWh storage battery, it is truly energy efficient.

In 2010, the UK could produce on a sunny midsummer day, 74,000kW of energy from solar electricity. Compare this to Germany who under the same conditions producer 17,000,000kW of energy.

An inquiry headed by Sir David Attenborough ?


-
　

Going by the below UK Renewable Energy Roadmap this Coalition Government hasn't carried out an in-depth inquiry into the sustainability of Wood/Grass Biomass Energy.

-

An inquiry headed by David Attenborough could keep everyone happy?.. He supported Glyndebourne in their successful application to obtain planning permission for a wind turbine in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and gave evidence at the planning inquiry arguing in favour of the proposal.


1) This Coalition Government says Biomass heat technologies supply chains have not yet been tested at scale, the key issue of whether the global supply of sustainable feedstocks can fuel it, given that supplies are finite and there are competing uses in the bio-economy.


2) This Coalition Government says Cost reductions are expected for offshore wind and solar PV as supply chains and technologies develop to 2020.. AFAIK this Government sees no such Cost reductions for Wood/Grass Biomass Energy.

-



UK Renewable Energy Roadmap.

July 2011.

The nations of the United Kingdom are endowed with vast and varied renewable energy resources. We have the best wind, wave and tidal resources in Europe.

The UK leads the world in offshore wind, with more than 700 turbines already installed, and is accelerating the deployment of onshore wind with the biggest projects in Europe already operating and under construction in Scotland and Wales.

Taken together onshore and offshore wind provide enough power for more than two and a half million homes. But we could do so much more. Our challenge is to bring costs down and deployment up.

This document – the UK’s first Renewable Energy Roadmap – sets out our shared approach to unlocking our renewable energy potential.


Plant Biomass

The range of cost uncertainty is particularly large for technologies such as marine, which is at the early stages of commercial deployment in the UK, and biomass heat technologies, for which supply chains have not yet been tested at scale.

Cost reductions are expected to be most pronounced for electricity technologies, particularly offshore wind and solar PV, as supply chains and technologies develop to 2020.

The cost of generating heat and electricity from fossil fuels is also expected to rise over time.

It is essential that costs of renewable technologies fall over the decade as deployment increases. Our goal in the medium to long term is to help renewables compete on a level playing field against other low carbon technologies. We will regularly review our subsidy programmes to take account of cost changes from supply chain development, learning, and technical breakthrough.

Figure 19 sets out the results of analysis of the potential for growth in biomass electricity generation to 2020.

The breadth of the central range reflects the dynamic potential of the large-scale biomass sector and the key issue of whether the global supply of sustainable feedstocks can fuel it, given that supplies are finite and there are competing uses in the bio-economy. The low and high scenarios reflect initial views from industry on the upside potential and downside risks.

Dedicated biomass electricity offers great potential for cost effective renewable electricity generation, provided that it is generated from sustainable feedstocks. As noted above, the Government’s ambition for biomass electricity depends on the availability of suitable feedstocks. The Government considers that sustainable biomass should be cultivated, processed and transported in a way which delivers real and significant greenhouse gas savings compared to the fossil fuel it is replacing. In particular, forest and woodlands must be sustainably managed to ensure continuing supplies in future years.

There would also be significant public concern to projects delivering unsustainable generation.

-


http://www.decc.gov.
uk/assets/decc/11/me
eting-energy-demand/
renewable-energy/216
7-uk-renewable-energ
y-roadmap.pdf