Fawley Power Station to close (From Daily Echo)

Great place for a nuclear plant - railway line already there! If it's good enough for the French, it must be good enough for us...

Barney123 wrote:
Great place for a nuclear plant - railway line already there! If it's good enough for the French, it must be good enough for us...

I'd look forward to the 3 eyed fish popping up at Weston shore.

I bet Helius are rubbing their hands together.

Barney123 wrote:
Great place for a nuclear plant - railway line already there! If it's good enough for the French, it must be good enough for us...

Since when has the railway line extended to this site?

To the best of my knowledge, it ends at the oil refinery.

Good site for the biomass plant!

Maine Lobster wrote:
Good site for the biomass plant!

That's exactly what southy said a few months back.

Rhombus wrote:

Barney123 wrote: Great place for a nuclear plant - railway line already there! If it's good enough for the French, it must be good enough for us...

I'd look forward to the 3 eyed fish popping up at Weston shore. I bet Helius are rubbing their hands together.

There no need to look forward to them.... they are already there!

Georgem wrote:

Maine Lobster wrote: Good site for the biomass plant!

That's exactly what southy said a few months back.

Yes and he was wrong. There is no deepwater quay at Fawley and there is up to 800metres of salt marsh between the site and the main channel. (The refinery jetty is too far north and totally unsuitable for the bulk material. I wonder if the mollusc lovers of Dibden Bay will be so anxious to protect shellfish this far down the water or if their love only extended as far as Hythe Marina Village?
The railway ends over half a mile to the north but could be extended at some cost, though there would be objections from users of Ashlett Creek. What I find hypocritical is that many protesters in Millbrook would be happy for the woodchip plant to relocate 8 miles upwind to Fawley where they would actually be at more risk of particulate fallout than if the station was nearby. There is going to be a lot of hypocrisy exposed on this thread which is no bad thing.

Does anyone know what work is being done on the pylons along the Hythe by-pass? Surely not upgrading??

Large scale biomass plants will not help the overall environmental situation. We need to use less electricity, burn less fossil fuels and use more wind and solar. I am just going to turn my laptop off now.

I was thinking the same as Maine lobster but then I thought two different companies & the owners of this site will want as big a return as possible so maybe more houses needing energy?

They can't close it - I use the chimney to check wind direction on leaving the Hamble to go sailing.

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Maine Lobster wrote: Good site for the biomass plant!

That's exactly what southy said a few months back.

Yes and he was wrong. There is no deepwater quay at Fawley and there is up to 800metres of salt marsh between the site and the main channel. (The refinery jetty is too far north and totally unsuitable for the bulk material. I wonder if the mollusc lovers of Dibden Bay will be so anxious to protect shellfish this far down the water or if their love only extended as far as Hythe Marina Village?
The railway ends over half a mile to the north but could be extended at some cost, though there would be objections from users of Ashlett Creek. What I find hypocritical is that many protesters in Millbrook would be happy for the woodchip plant to relocate 8 miles upwind to Fawley where they would actually be at more risk of particulate fallout than if the station was nearby. There is going to be a lot of hypocrisy exposed on this thread which is no bad thing.

Andy, do you ever get tired of telling the people of Freemantle and Millbrook what they should have, or need in the area in which they live? Isn’t there some BURNING issue in Locks Heath that you can get your teeth into?

St Graz wrote:
Does anyone know what work is being done on the pylons along the Hythe by-pass? Surely not upgrading??

Replacing the conductors, as they're reaching the end of their working life. Fawley PS may close, but the switching house and East/West feed security, via the Chilling tunnel, will need to remain.

What will happen to Hardley, Applemore, and Noadswood schools, and their primary feeder schools ? As far as I remember, many parents work at Fawley Power Station.

Obviously after the decommissioning and removal / treatment of any contaminated land - my guess is that it will be housing, with a Co-op AND another Tesco!!

Niel wrote:

St Graz wrote:
Does anyone know what work is being done on the pylons along the Hythe by-pass? Surely not upgrading??

Replacing the conductors, as they're reaching the end of their working life. Fawley PS may close, but the switching house and East/West feed security, via the Chilling tunnel, will need to remain.

Thanks!

Andy, do you ever get tired of telling the people of Freemantle and Millbrook what they should have, or need in the area in which they live? Isn’t there some BURNING issue in Locks Heath that you can get your teeth into?”
DOn't worry SKin - I am equally critical of the hypocrites round here who put up equally flawed and deliberately misleading info against the Chilling Gravel Pit which would have had far less impact on people's live than the CamelSolent activists claimed and I point out their deliberate distortions and factual errors with equal relish. The only reason I reiterate points on the Millbrook site is because the impact of the Biomass Plant would be far far smaller than Nimbies have been claiming. Life is not going to get measureably any worse for anybody in the area..

Linesman wrote:

Barney123 wrote:
Great place for a nuclear plant - railway line already there! If it's good enough for the French, it must be good enough for us...

Since when has the railway line extended to this site?

To the best of my knowledge, it ends at the oil refinery.

That it do Linesman but how ever there is a track laying gound there all ready, just needs the line relaid, would not take alot of work to get this part opperational.

This the best location for this boi-mass power plant.

Georgem wrote:

Maine Lobster wrote:
Good site for the biomass plant!

That's exactly what southy said a few months back.

and last year I said the same, when i also said we would be hearing about the closure of Fawley power station this mth.

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Maine Lobster wrote: Good site for the biomass plant!

That's exactly what southy said a few months back.

Yes and he was wrong. There is no deepwater quay at Fawley and there is up to 800metres of salt marsh between the site and the main channel. (The refinery jetty is too far north and totally unsuitable for the bulk material. I wonder if the mollusc lovers of Dibden Bay will be so anxious to protect shellfish this far down the water or if their love only extended as far as Hythe Marina Village?
The railway ends over half a mile to the north but could be extended at some cost, though there would be objections from users of Ashlett Creek. What I find hypocritical is that many protesters in Millbrook would be happy for the woodchip plant to relocate 8 miles upwind to Fawley where they would actually be at more risk of particulate fallout than if the station was nearby. There is going to be a lot of hypocrisy exposed on this thread which is no bad thing.

Wrong Andy and also the Bio-mass would be cross wind with prevailing wind direction.

St Graz wrote:
Does anyone know what work is being done on the pylons along the Hythe by-pass? Surely not upgrading??

sort off repair work is mainly whats going on, normal maintaince work.

BillyTheKid wrote:
What will happen to Hardley, Applemore, and Noadswood schools, and their primary feeder schools ? As far as I remember, many parents work at Fawley Power Station.

What with 60 employees? Hardly going to change the number of kids going to school in the area is it?!

southy wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Maine Lobster wrote: Good site for the biomass plant!

That's exactly what southy said a few months back.

Yes and he was wrong. There is no deepwater quay at Fawley and there is up to 800metres of salt marsh between the site and the main channel. (The refinery jetty is too far north and totally unsuitable for the bulk material. I wonder if the mollusc lovers of Dibden Bay will be so anxious to protect shellfish this far down the water or if their love only extended as far as Hythe Marina Village? The railway ends over half a mile to the north but could be extended at some cost, though there would be objections from users of Ashlett Creek. What I find hypocritical is that many protesters in Millbrook would be happy for the woodchip plant to relocate 8 miles upwind to Fawley where they would actually be at more risk of particulate fallout than if the station was nearby. There is going to be a lot of hypocrisy exposed on this thread which is no bad thing.

Wrong Andy and also the Bio-mass would be cross wind with prevailing wind direction.

True Southy. Fawley Power station is south east of Southampton, around 140 degrees. However according to DEFRA's own analysis of the estuary the windrose for SOuthampton Water shows the wind in this direction on just over 5% of days, say around 18 days per year. Although nobody would actually experience any real fall out anyway due to flue scrubbing this is around 18 days more risk than if the power station chimney was right next door. Hot gases do not fall to earth. Not on this planet anyway.
PS It's a good document for anyone interested in the area. Worth a read. It's free and online.

I thought 100's of people worked at Fawley, not 60!

St Graz wrote:
Does anyone know what work is being done on the pylons along the Hythe by-pass? Surely not upgrading??

They are renewing the insulators on mainly the angled pylons as they take most of the strain

ottred wrote:
I thought 100's of people worked at Fawley, not 60!

The power station. Not the refinery.

jim_s1s wrote:
They can't close it - I use the chimney to check wind direction on leaving the Hamble to go sailing.

That can only help when there is smoke coming out of it.

St Graz wrote:

Niel wrote:

St Graz wrote:
Does anyone know what work is being done on the pylons along the Hythe by-pass? Surely not upgrading??

Replacing the conductors, as they're reaching the end of their working life. Fawley PS may close, but the switching house and East/West feed security, via the Chilling tunnel, will need to remain.

Thanks!

Not the conductors the glass insulators are being replaced

Three BIG! cheers to that, No more 'Fawley Filth' from that chimney(acid rain). It wasn't there when we bought our house off Kanes Hill in 1963. The people in Hamble must be rejoicing as well. They clean the thing with steam jets during the night, so as we wouldn't see the clouds of Filth coming out, but we see it on our cars in the morning.

How odd.
Our family lived off Hamble Lane for many years in the 60's and neither we, nor any of our neighbours, experienced any of the so called 'Fawley Filth' problems.

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

southy wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Maine Lobster wrote: Good site for the biomass plant!

That's exactly what southy said a few months back.

Yes and he was wrong. There is no deepwater quay at Fawley and there is up to 800metres of salt marsh between the site and the main channel. (The refinery jetty is too far north and totally unsuitable for the bulk material. I wonder if the mollusc lovers of Dibden Bay will be so anxious to protect shellfish this far down the water or if their love only extended as far as Hythe Marina Village? The railway ends over half a mile to the north but could be extended at some cost, though there would be objections from users of Ashlett Creek. What I find hypocritical is that many protesters in Millbrook would be happy for the woodchip plant to relocate 8 miles upwind to Fawley where they would actually be at more risk of particulate fallout than if the station was nearby. There is going to be a lot of hypocrisy exposed on this thread which is no bad thing.

Wrong Andy and also the Bio-mass would be cross wind with prevailing wind direction.

True Southy. Fawley Power station is south east of Southampton, around 140 degrees. However according to DEFRA's own analysis of the estuary the windrose for SOuthampton Water shows the wind in this direction on just over 5% of days, say around 18 days per year. Although nobody would actually experience any real fall out anyway due to flue scrubbing this is around 18 days more risk than if the power station chimney was right next door. Hot gases do not fall to earth. Not on this planet anyway.
PS It's a good document for anyone interested in the area. Worth a read. It's free and online.

Was going to say your in more of a line up for a fall out from the power station, warash to Hamble cops the most of any fall out there is.

septuagenarian wrote:
Three BIG! cheers to that, No more 'Fawley Filth' from that chimney(acid rain). It wasn't there when we bought our house off Kanes Hill in 1963. The people in Hamble must be rejoicing as well. They clean the thing with steam jets during the night, so as we wouldn't see the clouds of Filth coming out, but we see it on our cars in the morning.

That is not from Fawley Power Station you should look else where for that

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
Andy, do you ever get tired of telling the people of Freemantle and Millbrook what they should have, or need in the area in which they live? Isn’t there some BURNING issue in Locks Heath that you can get your teeth into?”
DOn't worry SKin - I am equally critical of the hypocrites round here who put up equally flawed and deliberately misleading info against the Chilling Gravel Pit which would have had far less impact on people's live than the CamelSolent activists claimed and I point out their deliberate distortions and factual errors with equal relish. The only reason I reiterate points on the Millbrook site is because the impact of the Biomass Plant would be far far smaller than Nimbies have been claiming. Life is not going to get measureably any worse for anybody in the area..

Do you base your observations, of impact to Nimbies as small, down to first hand experience of living 250 yards from large power stations?

Biomass could be landed at the western docks and put straight into rail
wagons similar to the gypsum that is landed now. Twenty wagons = 1600 tons. This already happens from the port of tyne.

Looking via google satellite less than 2km of track to lay that gets done every weekend in the south.

how are these expert yotties going to navigate if there is no fawley power stn chimney to aim for??

septuagenarian wrote:
Three BIG! cheers to that, No more 'Fawley Filth' from that chimney(acid rain). It wasn't there when we bought our house off Kanes Hill in 1963. The people in Hamble must be rejoicing as well. They clean the thing with steam jets during the night, so as we wouldn't see the clouds of Filth coming out, but we see it on our cars in the morning.

I presume you are ready to get the candles out and cook on logs if you despise electricity?

southy wrote:

Linesman wrote:

Barney123 wrote:
Great place for a nuclear plant - railway line already there! If it's good enough for the French, it must be good enough for us...

Since when has the railway line extended to this site?

To the best of my knowledge, it ends at the oil refinery.

That it do Linesman but how ever there is a track laying gound there all ready, just needs the line relaid, would not take alot of work to get this part opperational.

This the best location for this boi-mass power plant.

Wrong my old chicken! it would take significant investment to extend the line. It would then need the blessing of the land owner and network rail who own the easement up to 2.5 km north of the station. There is and never has been a railroad through Ashlett.

septuagenarian wrote:
Three BIG! cheers to that, No more 'Fawley Filth' from that chimney(acid rain). It wasn't there when we bought our house off Kanes Hill in 1963. The people in Hamble must be rejoicing as well. They clean the thing with steam jets during the night, so as we wouldn't see the clouds of Filth coming out, but we see it on our cars in the morning.

Once again I agree with Southy. That is not from the refinery nor the power station! That is an urban myth that I thought had been buried years ago. The dirt you get on your car is from the rain and only the rain and it is not polluted by any of those stacks. You should have figured that out for yourself by realising that the wind rarely blows out of that quarter as I said previously - statistics show around 5% of the time only. Rain picks up dust and dirt especially if we are in the middle of a very large weather system dragging air up from the Med or north Aftrica. You should be more insightful and more rational and not just regurgitate urban myths witthout thinking then through.

skin2000 wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
Andy, do you ever get tired of telling the people of Freemantle and Millbrook what they should have, or need in the area in which they live? Isn’t there some BURNING issue in Locks Heath that you can get your teeth into?”
DOn't worry SKin - I am equally critical of the hypocrites round here who put up equally flawed and deliberately misleading info against the Chilling Gravel Pit which would have had far less impact on people's live than the CamelSolent activists claimed and I point out their deliberate distortions and factual errors with equal relish. The only reason I reiterate points on the Millbrook site is because the impact of the Biomass Plant would be far far smaller than Nimbies have been claiming. Life is not going to get measureably any worse for anybody in the area..

Do you base your observations, of impact to Nimbies as small, down to first hand experience of living 250 yards from large power stations?

I have worked on, near and in power stations - including fast breeder reactors, as well as Drax and Ferrybridge 'C' and they are now far cleaner than ever before. Not one single person is actually going to be "within 250 yards" anyway. This is typical Nimby exaggeration that now sees the entire population of Millbrook and Freemantle all crammed into the very last house on Foundry Lane all somehow gazing endlessly through telephoto lenses across a busy dual carriageway, a main railway line and freight terminals, towards a heavily industrialised area that boasts a brand new building obscuring their view of another power station in the middle distance! Yes it is shocking. Perhaps if the entire population went to the back bedroom or went downstairs and stopped looking at it they'd realise their lives weren't actually that different after all.
I wouldn't mind but elected councillors believe that sort of garbage too.

Pretty sure I posted this somewhere last year but around March 2011 I got this response from RWE NPower (Fawley Owners)

Thank you for your enquiry regarding Fawley power station.

The LCPD is the Large Combustion Plant Directive, and is a piece of European legislation governing the amount of sulphur dioxide emissions. It came into force in 2008, and power stations whose emissions exceeded the given list were given the chance to 'opt in' to the legislation by fitting Flue Gas Desulphurisation equipment to capture the emissions, or 'opt out' of the legislation - which reduced its lifespan, giving each opted out station 20,000 hours to operate by 31st December 2015.

Fawley has opted out of the LCPD, and as such must close by 2015 at the latest. No final decision has been made regarding its closure, or on the future of the site. We are not currently considering the Fawley site for biomass.

-- Not sure if anything has changed but if Fawley became Biomass it wouldn't be via Helius - RWE NPower would do it themselves.

Personally I do not welcome Helius at Western Docks and I wouldn't welcome large scale, import based biomass at Fawley either!

Steven Galton wrote:
Pretty sure I posted this somewhere last year but around March 2011 I got this response from RWE NPower (Fawley Owners)

Thank you for your enquiry regarding Fawley power station.

The LCPD is the Large Combustion Plant Directive, and is a piece of European legislation governing the amount of sulphur dioxide emissions. It came into force in 2008, and power stations whose emissions exceeded the given list were given the chance to 'opt in' to the legislation by fitting Flue Gas Desulphurisation equipment to capture the emissions, or 'opt out' of the legislation - which reduced its lifespan, giving each opted out station 20,000 hours to operate by 31st December 2015.

Fawley has opted out of the LCPD, and as such must close by 2015 at the latest. No final decision has been made regarding its closure, or on the future of the site. We are not currently considering the Fawley site for biomass.

-- Not sure if anything has changed but if Fawley became Biomass it wouldn't be via Helius - RWE NPower would do it themselves.

Personally I do not welcome Helius at Western Docks and I wouldn't welcome large scale, import based biomass at Fawley either!

Why would you not welcome it?

There'll be no nuclear power station on the site, the ground is too soft

Frank28 wrote:
There'll be no nuclear power station on the site, the ground is too soft

Meanwhile, the future use of the 230-acre site remains undecided but a spokesman said it remains “a strategic location for future power generation for the UK.”

I am really glad to hear that the ground is too soft to put a nuclear power station on. It is the one thing I dread the most is living near a nuclear power station, Really terrifies me.

I would rather have the bio mass thing.

Stobart transports tonnes of waste to the docks(up North) then it get's shipped to Sweden to be burnt to produce electricity.
The factory could put it onto a train straight to the Bio Mass as I'm sure if they could get this type of fuel cheap enough they could burn it.
this would stop shipping in wood chip & destroy a lot of the arguments against it

Good opportunity for a few wind turbines to replace that ugly chimney stack that has puffed out so much dirty smoke for far too long!

Who cares where it's built, Freemantle/Millbrook - Fawley ? Anywhere but France where a considerable amount of our EDF electricity probably comes from frankly I like to come home during our up and coming winter and flick a light switch to welcoming warm home, I could care less where the electricity is being made as long as it's not from wind farms, with components destroying vast areas of China, for us to believe we are producing green power. Lets just get on with building a dozen Nuclear Plants around the country.

Who cares where it's built, Freemantle/Millbrook - Fawley ? Anywhere but France where a considerable amount of our EDF electricity probably comes from frankly I like to come home during our up and coming winter and flick a light switch to welcoming warm home, I could care less where the electricity is being made as long as it's not from wind farms, with components destroying vast areas of China, for us to believe we are producing green power. Lets just get on with building a dozen Nuclear Plants around the country.

That stack has been there for most of my life and unlike the snobs here I'm not ashamed to say that I like it. I missed the old Marchwood power station, I miss the old floating crane that I used to pass on the Hythe Ferry every day, I miss the old smell of the Pirelli factory where West Quay is today and I'll miss this when it goes. It's will be a sad day.

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

skin2000 wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
Andy, do you ever get tired of telling the people of Freemantle and Millbrook what they should have, or need in the area in which they live? Isn’t there some BURNING issue in Locks Heath that you can get your teeth into?”
DOn't worry SKin - I am equally critical of the hypocrites round here who put up equally flawed and deliberately misleading info against the Chilling Gravel Pit which would have had far less impact on people's live than the CamelSolent activists claimed and I point out their deliberate distortions and factual errors with equal relish. The only reason I reiterate points on the Millbrook site is because the impact of the Biomass Plant would be far far smaller than Nimbies have been claiming. Life is not going to get measureably any worse for anybody in the area..

Do you base your observations, of impact to Nimbies as small, down to first hand experience of living 250 yards from large power stations?

I have worked on, near and in power stations - including fast breeder reactors, as well as Drax and Ferrybridge 'C' and they are now far cleaner than ever before. Not one single person is actually going to be "within 250 yards" anyway. This is typical Nimby exaggeration that now sees the entire population of Millbrook and Freemantle all crammed into the very last house on Foundry Lane all somehow gazing endlessly through telephoto lenses across a busy dual carriageway, a main railway line and freight terminals, towards a heavily industrialised area that boasts a brand new building obscuring their view of another power station in the middle distance! Yes it is shocking. Perhaps if the entire population went to the back bedroom or went downstairs and stopped looking at it they'd realise their lives weren't actually that different after all.
I wouldn't mind but elected councillors believe that sort of garbage too.

So you have not lived near a Biomass power station.

Nobody had lived near a Tesco Superstore until one was built so don't try that silly sophistry. Thr truth is you could drive past a variety of power stations and would have no idea what fuel they burn unless you look very carefully. It is a thermal power station - whether it burns coal, coke, or wood is totally immaterial to anyone except those designing the boilers. If you think you can score a point with that nonsense you are wrong, so you tell me - what is it about a woodchip power station as opposed to the alternative - coal - that you find particularly galling?
oh and by the way, I have worked very close to one recently - in Slough.And you know what? Nobody in Slough even knows or cares anything about it because it is in the middle of Slough Trading Estate, just like this would be in the middle of the docks area, not Shirley Hight Street.

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
Nobody had lived near a Tesco Superstore until one was built so don't try that silly sophistry. Thr truth is you could drive past a variety of power stations and would have no idea what fuel they burn unless you look very carefully. It is a thermal power station - whether it burns coal, coke, or wood is totally immaterial to anyone except those designing the boilers. If you think you can score a point with that nonsense you are wrong, so you tell me - what is it about a woodchip power station as opposed to the alternative - coal - that you find particularly galling?
oh and by the way, I have worked very close to one recently - in Slough.And you know what? Nobody in Slough even knows or cares anything about it because it is in the middle of Slough Trading Estate, just like this would be in the middle of the docks area, not Shirley Hight Street.

As you seem to consider yourself an expert on power stations and the people who run them, what can you tell me about Helius and their track record of running Biomass plants?

Surely the most likely thing to go into the site would be a gas fired power station?

"Gas-fired power stations can provide a flexible, reliable electrical output, but are fuelled increasingly by imported gas as the UK's North Sea reserves decline."

"Burning gas also emits greenhouse gases. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology could present a possible solution, though it has not yet been proven to work on an industrial scale. CCS is also expected to increase the cost of constructing a gas-fired power station, and reduce its efficiency. In a recent report the Climate Change Committee, which advises the Government on carbon emissions, predicts that gas-fired power stations both with and without CCS will remain part of the UK's electricity generating mix for the foreseeable future."

Skin 2000 said
As you seem to consider yourself an expert on power stations and the people who run them, what can you tell me about Helius and their track record of running Biomass plants?”

You can do that yourself. You obviously have a computer so put "Helius Energy" into your browser and several sites including their own come up.

I am 53 I was born on the Island, raised on the Pilands Estate Bursledon and have lived at Holbury since 1982.
I found the fawley site including the refinery very pretty at night, the disturbance was greater from the old colledge of air training when the chipmonks and beechcraft used to fly over our house and rattle the steel framed windows, the rebuilding of Pilands Estate was criminal, large houses and flats ripped down to cram more into less, the **** place is now a rabbit warren.
Fawley power station was sited where it is for a good reason, fuel from the refinery and cooling water from the solent, the power plant is now old and expensive to run but should be replaced by another power plant.
Us locals are used to seeing that stack and another stack will not be an issue.
Tree huggers forget that green thinking makes everyones lives more expensive from inefficiant windpower to criminally expensive petrol, the greens produced the arguement for dearer fuel and the politicians were only too ready to raise the tax on drivers.
If Fawley becomes another housing estate with its tiny houses with tiny rooms then the developers will again fail to add the infrastructure to go with them, the Jobs and the shops, big houses will get built but only for the well off to enjoy the view, look at Webbs at Lymington, 500 hundred jobs went so a building site could be made available after the freehold of the land became available, I wonder who owns the freehold, eh Mr Wxxx?
No keep Fawley as a power station, rebuild it as a place for people to work, this country needs power and to lose a power station to the developers is the last thing that the waterside needs!

Tony Nicholson

Think of it piped methane Gas from the new extraction unit at the sewage plant being burnt to produce electricity & water vapour & oxygen on this site what a wonderful idea!
Pity the Sewage plant have no plans to extract methane from our sewage or that the owners of the power station have considered this idea

skin2000 wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote: Nobody had lived near a Tesco Superstore until one was built so don't try that silly sophistry. Thr truth is you could drive past a variety of power stations and would have no idea what fuel they burn unless you look very carefully. It is a thermal power station - whether it burns coal, coke, or wood is totally immaterial to anyone except those designing the boilers. If you think you can score a point with that nonsense you are wrong, so you tell me - what is it about a woodchip power station as opposed to the alternative - coal - that you find particularly galling? oh and by the way, I have worked very close to one recently - in Slough.And you know what? Nobody in Slough even knows or cares anything about it because it is in the middle of Slough Trading Estate, just like this would be in the middle of the docks area, not Shirley Hight Street.

As you seem to consider yourself an expert on power stations and the people who run them, what can you tell me about Helius and their track record of running Biomass plants?

In addition to Vonnie's point the fact is that their track record is irrelevent THis is just an illustration of the lack of understanding of how Big projects happen. Who developed Canary Wharf ? It was Olymppia and York, a company with no direct knowledge of the mechanics of construction. Who pays for and owns most of the rolling stock on Britain's Railways? Answer HSBC. What does a bank know about trains? WHo owns Agent Provocateur? Answer 3i, a Venture Capitalist. What do they know about lingerie? Large Development is all about finance. THe Nimbyish obsession with rubbishing Helius as a business is amateurish and misinformed. They do not need a "track record" in running power stations.
Biomass is one of the better things to emerge in the 21st century as a way of utilising waste to reduce global warming. The "Millbrook Centre for Alternative Energy" cannot get it into its thick head that you cannot use wind, tide and sun alone for electricity generation. You need a stable baseload provision or you might as well go live in a yurt and reliable part time solutions like this save a colossal amount of expensive wasted capacity

tonyholbury69 wrote:
I am 53 I was born on the Island, raised on the Pilands Estate Bursledon and have lived at Holbury since 1982. I found the fawley site including the refinery very pretty at night, the disturbance was greater from the old colledge of air training when the chipmonks and beechcraft used to fly over our house and rattle the steel framed windows, the rebuilding of Pilands Estate was criminal, large houses and flats ripped down to cram more into less, the **** place is now a rabbit warren. Fawley power station was sited where it is for a good reason, fuel from the refinery and cooling water from the solent, the power plant is now old and expensive to run but should be replaced by another power plant. Us locals are used to seeing that stack and another stack will not be an issue. Tree huggers forget that green thinking makes everyones lives more expensive from inefficiant windpower to criminally expensive petrol, the greens produced the arguement for dearer fuel and the politicians were only too ready to raise the tax on drivers. If Fawley becomes another housing estate with its tiny houses with tiny rooms then the developers will again fail to add the infrastructure to go with them, the Jobs and the shops, big houses will get built but only for the well off to enjoy the view, look at Webbs at Lymington, 500 hundred jobs went so a building site could be made available after the freehold of the land became available, I wonder who owns the freehold, eh Mr Wxxx? No keep Fawley as a power station, rebuild it as a place for people to work, this country needs power and to lose a power station to the developers is the last thing that the waterside needs! Tony Nicholson

Well said Tony. Good post. It might be a good "Plan B" for a biomass power station but the costs would increase as others have pointed out. But the chimney stack the turbine hall and transformer house could be reused which might offset some of those costs.

Dave of Dibden wrote:

St Graz wrote:

Niel wrote:

St Graz wrote:
Does anyone know what work is being done on the pylons along the Hythe by-pass? Surely not upgrading??

Replacing the conductors, as they're reaching the end of their working life. Fawley PS may close, but the switching house and East/West feed security, via the Chilling tunnel, will need to remain.

Thanks!

Not the conductors the glass insulators are being replaced

Conductors on the Eastern side of Chilling tunnel, the pikey's have had a field day!

Frank28 wrote:
There'll be no nuclear power station on the site, the ground is too soft

Fawley P/S is effectively one huge barge, the wonder is it's not lost the control room building!

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

southy wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Maine Lobster wrote: Good site for the biomass plant!

That's exactly what southy said a few months back.

Yes and he was wrong. There is no deepwater quay at Fawley and there is up to 800metres of salt marsh between the site and the main channel. (The refinery jetty is too far north and totally unsuitable for the bulk material. I wonder if the mollusc lovers of Dibden Bay will be so anxious to protect shellfish this far down the water or if their love only extended as far as Hythe Marina Village? The railway ends over half a mile to the north but could be extended at some cost, though there would be objections from users of Ashlett Creek. What I find hypocritical is that many protesters in Millbrook would be happy for the woodchip plant to relocate 8 miles upwind to Fawley where they would actually be at more risk of particulate fallout than if the station was nearby. There is going to be a lot of hypocrisy exposed on this thread which is no bad thing.

Wrong Andy and also the Bio-mass would be cross wind with prevailing wind direction.

True Southy. Fawley Power station is south east of Southampton, around 140 degrees. However according to DEFRA's own analysis of the estuary the windrose for SOuthampton Water shows the wind in this direction on just over 5% of days, say around 18 days per year. Although nobody would actually experience any real fall out anyway due to flue scrubbing this is around 18 days more risk than if the power station chimney was right next door. Hot gases do not fall to earth. Not on this planet anyway.
PS It's a good document for anyone interested in the area. Worth a read. It's free and online.

The stack at Fawley was extended ~50 feet as the acid rain fall out was damaging Norfolk's tree's as built, the extended version's fall out land's in Scandinavia!
It doesn't matter how tall a chimney is, someone's going to suffer...

Shame eh, as a down-graded and long underused Brown field site, it 'wood' have been ideal for the siting of a new 'alternative' power station?

Sorry. too much joined-up thinking methinks, might as well continue the downgrade and deterioration of this substantial national utility site then leave it empty and put all the windmills and solar panels somewhere else-most politician's orifi would provide a good fit!

St Graz wrote:
Does anyone know what work is being done on the pylons along the Hythe by-pass? Surely not upgrading??

Solar panel and windmill appended whilst politicians debate your very relevant question?

RWE npower say.. The closure was “driven by Government policy”




Helius would go bankrupt in Scotland.. no Combined Heat and Power, not close to local Biomass supplies.




Helius's Southampton pollution generating timber/grass incinerator lacks Combined Heat and Power (CHP), Helius to source timber/grass materials from Canada, South Africa, South America and Australia.

-


Summary.. Scotlands vision for biomass is clear: it is for small and sustainable stations that are close to available local supplies and operate as efficiently as possible, 10MW that are not good quality combined heat and power ( CHP) stations will not be eligible for ROCs after 2013.

-



Scottish Government tightens rules on Biomass power.

Posted on DateSeptember 15, 2012 by AuthorAlly.

the Scottish Government conducted a consultation into the way biomass subsidies for low carbon energy operate - and after doing some research, and listening to a lots of consultation responses, including our own, Fergus Ewing announced yesteday in parliament his Government's conclusions.

Here's what he said about biomass:

"On biomass generation, we asked for views on whether to restrict or remove support for large-scale wood-fuelled electricity-only and combined heat and power stations. A significant majority responded in favour of such restrictions, although others argued that biomass generation has an important role to play in meeting Scotland’s electricity and heat targets.

"I accept that role, but I also believe that our concerns over competition for the finite supply of wood and our concerns about the strategic value of biomass heat over electricity merit the introduction of a new control.

"I am therefore proposing that wood-fuelled stations with a total installed capacity that is greater than 10MW and that are not good quality combined heat and power stations will not be eligible for ROCs after 2013. That will not apply to stations that commission after April 2013, but which received consent or planning permission before our consultation was published.

"Our vision for biomass is clear: it is for small and sustainable stations that are close to available local supplies and operate as efficiently as possible."

-

http://www.greenerle
ith.org/greener-leit
h-news/2012/9/15/sco
ttish-government-tig
htens-rules-on-bioma
ss-power.html

Good article Dan, thanks.

I work in Edinburgh for a third party electricity aggregation company, and we work closely with a wide range of partners that generate using renewable and/or CHP capabilities. A good example are these guys; http://loucetios.com
/

Given the existing infastructure, it would be madness not to replace Fawley PS with something similar.

Dan Soton wrote:
RWE npower say.. The closure was “driven by Government policy”




Helius would go bankrupt in Scotland.. no Combined Heat and Power, not close to local Biomass supplies.




Helius's Southampton pollution generating timber/grass incinerator lacks Combined Heat and Power (CHP), Helius to source timber/grass materials from Canada, South Africa, South America and Australia.

-


Summary.. Scotlands vision for biomass is clear: it is for small and sustainable stations that are close to available local supplies and operate as efficiently as possible, 10MW that are not good quality combined heat and power ( CHP) stations will not be eligible for ROCs after 2013.

-



Scottish Government tightens rules on Biomass power.

Posted on DateSeptember 15, 2012 by AuthorAlly.

the Scottish Government conducted a consultation into the way biomass subsidies for low carbon energy operate - and after doing some research, and listening to a lots of consultation responses, including our own, Fergus Ewing announced yesteday in parliament his Government's conclusions.

Here's what he said about biomass:

"On biomass generation, we asked for views on whether to restrict or remove support for large-scale wood-fuelled electricity-only and combined heat and power stations. A significant majority responded in favour of such restrictions, although others argued that biomass generation has an important role to play in meeting Scotland’s electricity and heat targets.

"I accept that role, but I also believe that our concerns over competition for the finite supply of wood and our concerns about the strategic value of biomass heat over electricity merit the introduction of a new control.

"I am therefore proposing that wood-fuelled stations with a total installed capacity that is greater than 10MW and that are not good quality combined heat and power stations will not be eligible for ROCs after 2013. That will not apply to stations that commission after April 2013, but which received consent or planning permission before our consultation was published.

"Our vision for biomass is clear: it is for small and sustainable stations that are close to available local supplies and operate as efficiently as possible."

-

http://www.greenerle

ith.org/greener-leit

h-news/2012/9/15/sco

ttish-government-tig

htens-rules-on-bioma

ss-power.html

Good post mate

Andy, first of all I want to thank you for explaining how big projects work, but I take it from your comments, you, like myself are in he dark about details of Helius as a company. This I find odd, because at the presentations, they stated that they were leaders in he Biomass industry......By the way how did you find their presentation?
Changing tack, a lot of experts challenge the sustainability of Biofuels, do you share their concerns?

Vonnie wrote:
Skin 2000 said
As you seem to consider yourself an expert on power stations and the people who run them, what can you tell me about Helius and their track record of running Biomass plants?”

You can do that yourself. You obviously have a computer so put "Helius Energy" into your browser and several sites including their own come up.

Thanks for the tip

Dan Soton wrote:
RWE npower say.. The closure was “driven by Government policy”




Helius would go bankrupt in Scotland.. no Combined Heat and Power, not close to local Biomass supplies.




Helius's Southampton pollution generating timber/grass incinerator lacks Combined Heat and Power (CHP), Helius to source timber/grass materials from Canada, South Africa, South America and Australia.

-


Summary.. Scotlands vision for biomass is clear: it is for small and sustainable stations that are close to available local supplies and operate as efficiently as possible, 10MW that are not good quality combined heat and power ( CHP) stations will not be eligible for ROCs after 2013.

-



Scottish Government tightens rules on Biomass power.

Posted on DateSeptember 15, 2012 by AuthorAlly.

the Scottish Government conducted a consultation into the way biomass subsidies for low carbon energy operate - and after doing some research, and listening to a lots of consultation responses, including our own, Fergus Ewing announced yesteday in parliament his Government's conclusions.

Here's what he said about biomass:

"On biomass generation, we asked for views on whether to restrict or remove support for large-scale wood-fuelled electricity-only and combined heat and power stations. A significant majority responded in favour of such restrictions, although others argued that biomass generation has an important role to play in meeting Scotland’s electricity and heat targets.

"I accept that role, but I also believe that our concerns over competition for the finite supply of wood and our concerns about the strategic value of biomass heat over electricity merit the introduction of a new control.

"I am therefore proposing that wood-fuelled stations with a total installed capacity that is greater than 10MW and that are not good quality combined heat and power stations will not be eligible for ROCs after 2013. That will not apply to stations that commission after April 2013, but which received consent or planning permission before our consultation was published.

"Our vision for biomass is clear: it is for small and sustainable stations that are close to available local supplies and operate as efficiently as possible."

-

http://www.greenerle

ith.org/greener-leit

h-news/2012/9/15/sco

ttish-government-tig

htens-rules-on-bioma

ss-power.html

So Dan could this plant not be used for burning waste (sorted)?
As I've said before there's a factory up North exporting sorted waste to be burnt to produce electricity so why can't we do that there ?
if all air quality measures are in place no Arable land used to grow trees for wood chip.
By the way could you explain to me once we've chopped down all those trees to grow crops exactly what are we going to breathe?

skin2000 wrote:
Andy, first of all I want to thank you for explaining how big projects work, but I take it from your comments, you, like myself are in he dark about details of Helius as a company. This I find odd, because at the presentations, they stated that they were leaders in he Biomass industry......By the way how did you find their presentation? Changing tack, a lot of experts challenge the sustainability of Biofuels, do you share their concerns?

Hello Skin, I didn't attend any of the public meetings - these tend to be bearpits and I am sure the presenters were given a rough ride :-) Helius are a typical AIM company - they start life with venture capital and a lot of foilware and not much else. That's not a reason to dislike them but their projects stand or fall on obtaining finance, rather than on technology or construction issues.
On biomass itself, I took issue from the start with the misunderstanding of the fuel supply. The UK produces around 8m tonnes of softwood timber pa which is around 36% of total demand. The rest is imported. but the timber (and farming) industries have never been geared to produce biomass. I don't like timber grown purely for biomass as it defeats the value proposition. IMHO biomass should always be a by product or waste, never a primary crop. Actual timber consumes 60-80% of the tree - the rest is waste - or potential biomass fuel. This indicates around 1.6m tonnes pa of domestic biomass potential. THere has been a lot of misinformation about the UK' ability to supply its own fuel from waste. Of course on day 1 all the fuel would have to be imported from mature markets. what the government must do before allowing schemes like SOuthampton to proceed is insist that within 10 years most of the fuel is sourced within the UK - say 75% .
THere are plenty of people professing to be "experts" in this area but who assume markets are static, They are not. FInally if you uexamine the production potential of UK forestry it is easy to engineer a 50% production increase but only if there is a market for the actual timber, so UK timber must compete with Scandinavian efficieny first, in order to yield an increase in biomass production. THis is an important point if several new biomass stations are all built.

skin2000 wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:
RWE npower say.. The closure was “driven by Government policy”




Helius would go bankrupt in Scotland.. no Combined Heat and Power, not close to local Biomass supplies.




Helius's Southampton pollution generating timber/grass incinerator lacks Combined Heat and Power (CHP), Helius to source timber/grass materials from Canada, South Africa, South America and Australia.

-


Summary.. Scotlands vision for biomass is clear: it is for small and sustainable stations that are close to available local supplies and operate as efficiently as possible, 10MW that are not good quality combined heat and power ( CHP) stations will not be eligible for ROCs after 2013.

-



Scottish Government tightens rules on Biomass power.

Posted on DateSeptember 15, 2012 by AuthorAlly.

the Scottish Government conducted a consultation into the way biomass subsidies for low carbon energy operate - and after doing some research, and listening to a lots of consultation responses, including our own, Fergus Ewing announced yesteday in parliament his Government's conclusions.

Here's what he said about biomass:

"On biomass generation, we asked for views on whether to restrict or remove support for large-scale wood-fuelled electricity-only and combined heat and power stations. A significant majority responded in favour of such restrictions, although others argued that biomass generation has an important role to play in meeting Scotland’s electricity and heat targets.

"I accept that role, but I also believe that our concerns over competition for the finite supply of wood and our concerns about the strategic value of biomass heat over electricity merit the introduction of a new control.

"I am therefore proposing that wood-fuelled stations with a total installed capacity that is greater than 10MW and that are not good quality combined heat and power stations will not be eligible for ROCs after 2013. That will not apply to stations that commission after April 2013, but which received consent or planning permission before our consultation was published.

"Our vision for biomass is clear: it is for small and sustainable stations that are close to available local supplies and operate as efficiently as possible."

-

http://www.greenerle


ith.org/greener-leit


h-news/2012/9/15/sco


ttish-government-tig


htens-rules-on-bioma


ss-power.html

Good post mate

Scottish rules on Biomass.. not close to local Biomass supplies no planning permission, no CHP no subsidy.


Skin200, the new Scottish rules have answered something that’s been bugging me since June, that’s when I went to see Helius plans at Millbrook Rd, I asked a Helius representative why are you here? why has a Scottish plc come south to build a Biomass power station when you can source timber from the forests of Scotland.. not only that by ship you’d be about half the distance to the vast forests of Scandinavia.

his (briefed) reply.. subsidies will allow us to source Biomass materials from Canada, South Africa, South America and Australia,.. to say the least, I was none too happy with that answer.


From here on it makes me wonder if Helius have ever been truthful about their motives.


also back in June Paul Brighton, Helius Energy’s planning director, told the Echo: "This project would make a significant contribution to the UK’s efforts to tackle climate change and will make Southampton a leader in sustainable energy.

-

http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/news/district
/southampton/9755456
.Revised_biomass_pla
ns_go_on_show/

-


Leith Biomass: More carbon emissions than coal for 270 years?

Date August 3, 2011.

by AuthorAlly.

The developers proposing to build a giant biomass fueled power station on Leith docks will probably not enjoy this graph.

It is taken from a new report into the issues surrounding the use of woody biomass for electricity generation that has been produced by a coalition of European NGOs including Friends of the Earth Scotland and Birdlife International.

It provides more evidence to back up our call to the Scottish Government to cut renewable energy subsidies for large, inefficient biomass plants like the one proposed by Forth Energy on Leith docks.

The report raises a host of environmental concerns over the growth in the use of biomass for electricity generation, but the graph that stood out is the one above which shows that a biomass plant that burns woody biomass from existing 'managed forests' for electricity - which is pretty much equivalent to the Leith Biomass proposals - could take almost 300 years to generate any carbon saving at all.

-
http://www.greenerle
ith.org/greener-leit
h-news/2011/8/3/leit
h-biomass-more-carbo
n-emissions-than-coa
l-for-270-years.html

Dan, I don;t know how long it takes messages to get from your eyes to your brain but what you have cut and pasted has little value in isolation. For a start there is no context and no accountability from sponsors or speakers. Is it FoE's job to guarantee enough electricity to keep Scotland healthy? No it isn't, so they are free to snipe on the sidelines with never any obligation to prove how their renewables would gurantee the same quality of life. Your Q&A makes no sense, The replies given are irrelevant to location, which is your big concern. It sounds as if you were so anxious to look for trigger words like subsidy that you lost the sense and context of the reply. Imports from the places you mention could go to Scotland as eaily as Southampton.
You still seem intent on comparing thermal with renewable when it suits you, and keeping quiet when it doesn't. Biomass is "better" than coal.in its production carbon overhead and when the fuel is waste product it is as good as or better than gas (and better for national security of supply). If you want to compare thermal with renewables then you tell us how much redundancy would you need in a) wind, b) sun c) tide generation to GUARANTEE a supply of 100MW of grid voltage electricity with two hour's notice. Let's see the true costs if you actually have them. Oh and remember to include transmission costs from source to grid won't you. Oh and remember to mention renewable subsidies too as you have mentioned them for biomass. Shall we remove renewable subsidies starting tomorrow?

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
Dan, I don;t know how long it takes messages to get from your eyes to your brain but what you have cut and pasted has little value in isolation. For a start there is no context and no accountability from sponsors or speakers. Is it FoE's job to guarantee enough electricity to keep Scotland healthy? No it isn't, so they are free to snipe on the sidelines with never any obligation to prove how their renewables would gurantee the same quality of life. Your Q&A makes no sense, The replies given are irrelevant to location, which is your big concern. It sounds as if you were so anxious to look for trigger words like subsidy that you lost the sense and context of the reply. Imports from the places you mention could go to Scotland as eaily as Southampton.
You still seem intent on comparing thermal with renewable when it suits you, and keeping quiet when it doesn't. Biomass is "better" than coal.in its production carbon overhead and when the fuel is waste product it is as good as or better than gas (and better for national security of supply). If you want to compare thermal with renewables then you tell us how much redundancy would you need in a) wind, b) sun c) tide generation to GUARANTEE a supply of 100MW of grid voltage electricity with two hour's notice. Let's see the true costs if you actually have them. Oh and remember to include transmission costs from source to grid won't you. Oh and remember to mention renewable subsidies too as you have mentioned them for biomass. Shall we remove renewable subsidies starting tomorrow?

Andy what about a methane power station with Methane extracted from sewage?

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:
RWE npower say.. The closure was “driven by Government policy”




Helius would go bankrupt in Scotland.. no Combined Heat and Power, not close to local Biomass supplies.




Helius's Southampton pollution generating timber/grass incinerator lacks Combined Heat and Power (CHP), Helius to source timber/grass materials from Canada, South Africa, South America and Australia.

-


Summary.. Scotlands vision for biomass is clear: it is for small and sustainable stations that are close to available local supplies and operate as efficiently as possible, 10MW that are not good quality combined heat and power ( CHP) stations will not be eligible for ROCs after 2013.

-



Scottish Government tightens rules on Biomass power.

Posted on DateSeptember 15, 2012 by AuthorAlly.

the Scottish Government conducted a consultation into the way biomass subsidies for low carbon energy operate - and after doing some research, and listening to a lots of consultation responses, including our own, Fergus Ewing announced yesteday in parliament his Government's conclusions.

Here's what he said about biomass:

"On biomass generation, we asked for views on whether to restrict or remove support for large-scale wood-fuelled electricity-only and combined heat and power stations. A significant majority responded in favour of such restrictions, although others argued that biomass generation has an important role to play in meeting Scotland’s electricity and heat targets.

"I accept that role, but I also believe that our concerns over competition for the finite supply of wood and our concerns about the strategic value of biomass heat over electricity merit the introduction of a new control.

"I am therefore proposing that wood-fuelled stations with a total installed capacity that is greater than 10MW and that are not good quality combined heat and power stations will not be eligible for ROCs after 2013. That will not apply to stations that commission after April 2013, but which received consent or planning permission before our consultation was published.

"Our vision for biomass is clear: it is for small and sustainable stations that are close to available local supplies and operate as efficiently as possible."

-

http://www.greenerle


ith.org/greener-leit


h-news/2012/9/15/sco


ttish-government-tig


htens-rules-on-bioma


ss-power.html

So Dan could this plant not be used for burning waste (sorted)?
As I've said before there's a factory up North exporting sorted waste to be burnt to produce electricity so why can't we do that there ?
if all air quality measures are in place no Arable land used to grow trees for wood chip.
By the way could you explain to me once we've chopped down all those trees to grow crops exactly what are we going to breathe?

Loosehead says.. there's a factory up North exporting sorted waste to be burnt to produce electricity so why can't we do that there ?




as I've said to Andy Locks I'm not into burning stuff unless it's eco sustainable algae or seaweed made into biofuel.

-

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

Dan Soton wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:
RWE npower say.. The closure was “driven by Government policy”




Helius would go bankrupt in Scotland.. no Combined Heat and Power, not close to local Biomass supplies.




Helius's Southampton pollution generating timber/grass incinerator lacks Combined Heat and Power (CHP), Helius to source timber/grass materials from Canada, South Africa, South America and Australia.

-


Summary.. Scotlands vision for biomass is clear: it is for small and sustainable stations that are close to available local supplies and operate as efficiently as possible, 10MW that are not good quality combined heat and power ( CHP) stations will not be eligible for ROCs after 2013.

-



Scottish Government tightens rules on Biomass power.

Posted on DateSeptember 15, 2012 by AuthorAlly.

the Scottish Government conducted a consultation into the way biomass subsidies for low carbon energy operate - and after doing some research, and listening to a lots of consultation responses, including our own, Fergus Ewing announced yesteday in parliament his Government's conclusions.

Here's what he said about biomass:

"On biomass generation, we asked for views on whether to restrict or remove support for large-scale wood-fuelled electricity-only and combined heat and power stations. A significant majority responded in favour of such restrictions, although others argued that biomass generation has an important role to play in meeting Scotland’s electricity and heat targets.

"I accept that role, but I also believe that our concerns over competition for the finite supply of wood and our concerns about the strategic value of biomass heat over electricity merit the introduction of a new control.

"I am therefore proposing that wood-fuelled stations with a total installed capacity that is greater than 10MW and that are not good quality combined heat and power stations will not be eligible for ROCs after 2013. That will not apply to stations that commission after April 2013, but which received consent or planning permission before our consultation was published.

"Our vision for biomass is clear: it is for small and sustainable stations that are close to available local supplies and operate as efficiently as possible."

-

http://www.greenerle



ith.org/greener-leit



h-news/2012/9/15/sco



ttish-government-tig



htens-rules-on-bioma



ss-power.html

So Dan could this plant not be used for burning waste (sorted)?
As I've said before there's a factory up North exporting sorted waste to be burnt to produce electricity so why can't we do that there ?
if all air quality measures are in place no Arable land used to grow trees for wood chip.
By the way could you explain to me once we've chopped down all those trees to grow crops exactly what are we going to breathe?

Loosehead says.. there's a factory up North exporting sorted waste to be burnt to produce electricity so why can't we do that there ?




as I've said to Andy Locks I'm not into burning stuff unless it's eco sustainable algae or seaweed made into biofuel.

-

http://www.dailyecho

.co.uk/news/district

/southampton/9706278

.New_biomass_plans_a

__greenwash

Mothball Fawley Power Station.


or keep Fawley's closure on hold, in a few years Fawley could be Powered by eco sustainable algae or seaweed biofuel.

-


A breakthrough in making biofuel from seaweed.

Keith Hayse-Gregson & James Diana.

Mar 08, 2012.

Many believe that using seaweed for biofuel production holds promise.

Using seaweed for biofuel overcomes land use and energetic constraints of current biofuel production. When corn is used to produce ethanol, debates arise over food versus fuel land use. Culturing a fuel source in the ocean circumvents this debate. Furthermore, there is also no demand for freshwater resources when growing seaweed.

On top of bypassing ethical questions about land use, seaweed also contains no lignin. Lignin is one of the most abundant organic molecules on Earth. This molecule is a complex network of carbon atoms that plants construct within their cell walls to help give plants structure and support. The additional advantage of lignin to plants is that even though it is a large molecule, it contains very little energy. The complexity and low energy of lignin means that not many organisms can digest it. Therefore, lignin serves as a deterrent to organisms that want to eat plants. Tough woody structures filled with lignin are difficult for bacteria or fungus to infiltrate and to consume the abundance of energy contained within the biomass of plants.

Because it does not have lignin, more of the seaweed biomass is available to produce ethanol. Therefore, each unit of seaweed contains more potential ethanol than corn or switchgrass.


-

http://earthsky.org/
human-world/a-breakt
hrough-in-making-bio
fuel-from-seaweed

loosehead wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
Dan, I don;t know how long it takes messages to get from your eyes to your brain but what you have cut and pasted has little value in isolation. For a start there is no context and no accountability from sponsors or speakers. Is it FoE's job to guarantee enough electricity to keep Scotland healthy? No it isn't, so they are free to snipe on the sidelines with never any obligation to prove how their renewables would gurantee the same quality of life. Your Q&A makes no sense, The replies given are irrelevant to location, which is your big concern. It sounds as if you were so anxious to look for trigger words like subsidy that you lost the sense and context of the reply. Imports from the places you mention could go to Scotland as eaily as Southampton.
You still seem intent on comparing thermal with renewable when it suits you, and keeping quiet when it doesn't. Biomass is "better" than coal.in its production carbon overhead and when the fuel is waste product it is as good as or better than gas (and better for national security of supply). If you want to compare thermal with renewables then you tell us how much redundancy would you need in a) wind, b) sun c) tide generation to GUARANTEE a supply of 100MW of grid voltage electricity with two hour's notice. Let's see the true costs if you actually have them. Oh and remember to include transmission costs from source to grid won't you. Oh and remember to mention renewable subsidies too as you have mentioned them for biomass. Shall we remove renewable subsidies starting tomorrow?

Andy what about a methane power station with Methane extracted from sewage?

It's one of the best examples of fuel from waste, Loosehead - better than biomass. If only there were more of it! Many landfill sites now have small methane driven generators and the only by products are Co2 and water. The total production potential is probably quite small but useful, and of course it could be stored and used at peak demand times.

Dan, I don't really know anything about the potential size of market for seaweed as a fuel but I would imagine the biggest problem would be the cost of harvesting and transport. It does sound as though it might be most useful as a future petroleum replacement, because unlike biodiesel it has quite a high flashpoint so would need to be artificially ignited. .

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
Dan, I don't really know anything about the potential size of market for seaweed as a fuel but I would imagine the biggest problem would be the cost of harvesting and transport. It does sound as though it might be most useful as a future petroleum replacement, because unlike biodiesel it has quite a high flashpoint so would need to be artificially ignited. .

Andy Locks says.. I don't really know anything about the potential size of market for seaweed.


that's all right, I did say Fawley Powered by eco sustainable Algae or Seaweed Biofuel, I'll start again but this time I'll lay the emphasis on Algae Biofuel.. a quick Google search tells me Algae Biofuel will give you more numbers crunch.


post hear again ASAP, probably sometime tomorrow.

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
Dan, I don;t know how long it takes messages to get from your eyes to your brain but what you have cut and pasted has little value in isolation. For a start there is no context and no accountability from sponsors or speakers. Is it FoE's job to guarantee enough electricity to keep Scotland healthy? No it isn't, so they are free to snipe on the sidelines with never any obligation to prove how their renewables would gurantee the same quality of life. Your Q&A makes no sense, The replies given are irrelevant to location, which is your big concern. It sounds as if you were so anxious to look for trigger words like subsidy that you lost the sense and context of the reply. Imports from the places you mention could go to Scotland as eaily as Southampton.
You still seem intent on comparing thermal with renewable when it suits you, and keeping quiet when it doesn't. Biomass is "better" than coal.in its production carbon overhead and when the fuel is waste product it is as good as or better than gas (and better for national security of supply). If you want to compare thermal with renewables then you tell us how much redundancy would you need in a) wind, b) sun c) tide generation to GUARANTEE a supply of 100MW of grid voltage electricity with two hour's notice. Let's see the true costs if you actually have them. Oh and remember to include transmission costs from source to grid won't you. Oh and remember to mention renewable subsidies too as you have mentioned them for biomass. Shall we remove renewable subsidies starting tomorrow?

Andy what about a methane power station with Methane extracted from sewage?

It's one of the best examples of fuel from waste, Loosehead - better than biomass. If only there were more of it! Many landfill sites now have small methane driven generators and the only by products are Co2 and water. The total production potential is probably quite small but useful, and of course it could be stored and used at peak demand times.

Andy saw a program about extracting Methane from sewage & there were two ways to do it.
1/ Bugs eating into the sewage giving off Water,Oxygen & Methane producing a lot of all three elements.Then remainder used as fertiliser.
2/ Methane is extracted then sewage is put into a giant drum where more Methane is extracted then the dried sewage can be burnt as a fuel producing electricity.
I can't believe a town has adopted a German device when we have better technology here yet we're not using it?

loosehead wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
Dan, I don;t know how long it takes messages to get from your eyes to your brain but what you have cut and pasted has little value in isolation. For a start there is no context and no accountability from sponsors or speakers. Is it FoE's job to guarantee enough electricity to keep Scotland healthy? No it isn't, so they are free to snipe on the sidelines with never any obligation to prove how their renewables would gurantee the same quality of life. Your Q&A makes no sense, The replies given are irrelevant to location, which is your big concern. It sounds as if you were so anxious to look for trigger words like subsidy that you lost the sense and context of the reply. Imports from the places you mention could go to Scotland as eaily as Southampton.
You still seem intent on comparing thermal with renewable when it suits you, and keeping quiet when it doesn't. Biomass is "better" than coal.in its production carbon overhead and when the fuel is waste product it is as good as or better than gas (and better for national security of supply). If you want to compare thermal with renewables then you tell us how much redundancy would you need in a) wind, b) sun c) tide generation to GUARANTEE a supply of 100MW of grid voltage electricity with two hour's notice. Let's see the true costs if you actually have them. Oh and remember to include transmission costs from source to grid won't you. Oh and remember to mention renewable subsidies too as you have mentioned them for biomass. Shall we remove renewable subsidies starting tomorrow?

Andy what about a methane power station with Methane extracted from sewage?

It's one of the best examples of fuel from waste, Loosehead - better than biomass. If only there were more of it! Many landfill sites now have small methane driven generators and the only by products are Co2 and water. The total production potential is probably quite small but useful, and of course it could be stored and used at peak demand times.

Andy saw a program about extracting Methane from sewage & there were two ways to do it.
1/ Bugs eating into the sewage giving off Water,Oxygen & Methane producing a lot of all three elements.Then remainder used as fertiliser.
2/ Methane is extracted then sewage is put into a giant drum where more Methane is extracted then the dried sewage can be burnt as a fuel producing electricity.
I can't believe a town has adopted a German device when we have better technology here yet we're not using it?

There has been some encouragement of livestock farms to use slurry digesters to produce methane for power generation. The capital, maintenance and insurance costs are very high for a small scale operation such as a farm, but it seems to be economical on a sewage farm level. Southy claimed it is already in use at the large Millbrook sewage plant, so I could probably get some figures on output. I would imagine it would be under 100KW of sustained output.
As an aside I worked on a farm as a weekend job when I was a boy and the farmer allowed the local sewage farm to tip treated sludge directly onto the land (it was allowed in those days).I then had to plough it in, partly to stop a sea of unwanted tomato plants from growing!. At the end of the day clearing ploughshares etc I was covered in the stuff. How times change.

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
Dan, I don;t know how long it takes messages to get from your eyes to your brain but what you have cut and pasted has little value in isolation. For a start there is no context and no accountability from sponsors or speakers. Is it FoE's job to guarantee enough electricity to keep Scotland healthy? No it isn't, so they are free to snipe on the sidelines with never any obligation to prove how their renewables would gurantee the same quality of life. Your Q&A makes no sense, The replies given are irrelevant to location, which is your big concern. It sounds as if you were so anxious to look for trigger words like subsidy that you lost the sense and context of the reply. Imports from the places you mention could go to Scotland as eaily as Southampton.
You still seem intent on comparing thermal with renewable when it suits you, and keeping quiet when it doesn't. Biomass is "better" than coal.in its production carbon overhead and when the fuel is waste product it is as good as or better than gas (and better for national security of supply). If you want to compare thermal with renewables then you tell us how much redundancy would you need in a) wind, b) sun c) tide generation to GUARANTEE a supply of 100MW of grid voltage electricity with two hour's notice. Let's see the true costs if you actually have them. Oh and remember to include transmission costs from source to grid won't you. Oh and remember to mention renewable subsidies too as you have mentioned them for biomass. Shall we remove renewable subsidies starting tomorrow?

Andy what about a methane power station with Methane extracted from sewage?

It's one of the best examples of fuel from waste, Loosehead - better than biomass. If only there were more of it! Many landfill sites now have small methane driven generators and the only by products are Co2 and water. The total production potential is probably quite small but useful, and of course it could be stored and used at peak demand times.

Andy saw a program about extracting Methane from sewage & there were two ways to do it.
1/ Bugs eating into the sewage giving off Water,Oxygen & Methane producing a lot of all three elements.Then remainder used as fertiliser.
2/ Methane is extracted then sewage is put into a giant drum where more Methane is extracted then the dried sewage can be burnt as a fuel producing electricity.
I can't believe a town has adopted a German device when we have better technology here yet we're not using it?

There has been some encouragement of livestock farms to use slurry digesters to produce methane for power generation. The capital, maintenance and insurance costs are very high for a small scale operation such as a farm, but it seems to be economical on a sewage farm level. Southy claimed it is already in use at the large Millbrook sewage plant, so I could probably get some figures on output. I would imagine it would be under 100KW of sustained output.
As an aside I worked on a farm as a weekend job when I was a boy and the farmer allowed the local sewage farm to tip treated sludge directly onto the land (it was allowed in those days).I then had to plough it in, partly to stop a sea of unwanted tomato plants from growing!. At the end of the day clearing ploughshares etc I was covered in the stuff. How times change.

They haven't changed that much - back then you were covered in sh*t, now you are full of it.

The Wickham Man wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
Dan, I don;t know how long it takes messages to get from your eyes to your brain but what you have cut and pasted has little value in isolation. For a start there is no context and no accountability from sponsors or speakers. Is it FoE's job to guarantee enough electricity to keep Scotland healthy? No it isn't, so they are free to snipe on the sidelines with never any obligation to prove how their renewables would gurantee the same quality of life. Your Q&A makes no sense, The replies given are irrelevant to location, which is your big concern. It sounds as if you were so anxious to look for trigger words like subsidy that you lost the sense and context of the reply. Imports from the places you mention could go to Scotland as eaily as Southampton.
You still seem intent on comparing thermal with renewable when it suits you, and keeping quiet when it doesn't. Biomass is "better" than coal.in its production carbon overhead and when the fuel is waste product it is as good as or better than gas (and better for national security of supply). If you want to compare thermal with renewables then you tell us how much redundancy would you need in a) wind, b) sun c) tide generation to GUARANTEE a supply of 100MW of grid voltage electricity with two hour's notice. Let's see the true costs if you actually have them. Oh and remember to include transmission costs from source to grid won't you. Oh and remember to mention renewable subsidies too as you have mentioned them for biomass. Shall we remove renewable subsidies starting tomorrow?

Andy what about a methane power station with Methane extracted from sewage?

It's one of the best examples of fuel from waste, Loosehead - better than biomass. If only there were more of it! Many landfill sites now have small methane driven generators and the only by products are Co2 and water. The total production potential is probably quite small but useful, and of course it could be stored and used at peak demand times.

Andy saw a program about extracting Methane from sewage & there were two ways to do it.
1/ Bugs eating into the sewage giving off Water,Oxygen & Methane producing a lot of all three elements.Then remainder used as fertiliser.
2/ Methane is extracted then sewage is put into a giant drum where more Methane is extracted then the dried sewage can be burnt as a fuel producing electricity.
I can't believe a town has adopted a German device when we have better technology here yet we're not using it?

There has been some encouragement of livestock farms to use slurry digesters to produce methane for power generation. The capital, maintenance and insurance costs are very high for a small scale operation such as a farm, but it seems to be economical on a sewage farm level. Southy claimed it is already in use at the large Millbrook sewage plant, so I could probably get some figures on output. I would imagine it would be under 100KW of sustained output.
As an aside I worked on a farm as a weekend job when I was a boy and the farmer allowed the local sewage farm to tip treated sludge directly onto the land (it was allowed in those days).I then had to plough it in, partly to stop a sea of unwanted tomato plants from growing!. At the end of the day clearing ploughshares etc I was covered in the stuff. How times change.

They haven't changed that much - back then you were covered in sh*t, now you are full of it.

What a muppet you are!
we are having an adult debate & you come out with that?