Southampton council leader Richard Williams wants Helius to look at alternative locations

Daily Echo: Company's preferred design for biomass plant Company's preferred design for biomass plant

The company behind Southampton’s controversial biomass energy plant have been told to find a new site.

Southampton council boss Richard Williams wants the firm to find an alternative site for the £300m plant.

He said he knew better locations for the scheme which has sparked controversy and complaints among residents living near the planned site in Southampton Docks.

It comes after Helius, the firm planning the plant, unveiled its preferred design for the plant.

For the full story click here

 

Comments (70)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:27am Sun 7 Oct 12

southy says...

Williams knows of no better locations he as to be told.
Williams knows of no better locations he as to be told. southy

10:42am Sun 7 Oct 12

southy says...

southy wrote:
Williams knows of no better locations he as to be told.
Williams can use section 4 of planning to stop this from going ahead if the Government rules against the peoples rejection
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Williams knows of no better locations he as to be told.[/p][/quote]Williams can use section 4 of planning to stop this from going ahead if the Government rules against the peoples rejection southy

10:45am Sun 7 Oct 12

G0Rf says...

does the plant benefit to local residents?
If not build it a little further east down the M27
does the plant benefit to local residents? If not build it a little further east down the M27 G0Rf

10:50am Sun 7 Oct 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

Fawley Power Station no brainer.
Fawley Power Station no brainer. OSPREYSAINT

10:52am Sun 7 Oct 12

southy says...

G0Rf wrote:
does the plant benefit to local residents?
If not build it a little further east down the M27
No benefits to locals or to the people of Southampton, it would have the same amount of benefit if it was built in york, when built it will be tied into the national grid
[quote][p][bold]G0Rf[/bold] wrote: does the plant benefit to local residents? If not build it a little further east down the M27[/p][/quote]No benefits to locals or to the people of Southampton, it would have the same amount of benefit if it was built in york, when built it will be tied into the national grid southy

10:54am Sun 7 Oct 12

southy says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Fawley Power Station no brainer.
Thats what i been saying all along it is the best place
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: Fawley Power Station no brainer.[/p][/quote]Thats what i been saying all along it is the best place southy

11:03am Sun 7 Oct 12

Just another reader says...

That would be the perfect solution, to build it at Fawley Power station. That's exactly why it's more likely to be built on Hoglands Park than there!
That would be the perfect solution, to build it at Fawley Power station. That's exactly why it's more likely to be built on Hoglands Park than there! Just another reader

11:10am Sun 7 Oct 12

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
southy wrote:
Williams knows of no better locations he as to be told.
Williams can use section 4 of planning to stop this from going ahead if the Government rules against the peoples rejection
.. again I challenge you to reveal what you mean by "section 4 of planning".

What bit of legislation and/or regulation are you referring to?

Like last time, I want to know what it is; and not what you say it does.

About time you cleared this up with some precise clarification. Only then will we know what you are talking about.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Williams knows of no better locations he as to be told.[/p][/quote]Williams can use section 4 of planning to stop this from going ahead if the Government rules against the peoples rejection[/p][/quote].. again I challenge you to reveal what you mean by "section 4 of planning". What bit of legislation and/or regulation are you referring to? Like last time, I want to know what it is; and not what you say it does. About time you cleared this up with some precise clarification. Only then will we know what you are talking about. freefinker

11:18am Sun 7 Oct 12

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
southy wrote:
Williams knows of no better locations he as to be told.
Williams can use section 4 of planning to stop this from going ahead if the Government rules against the peoples rejection
.. again I challenge you to reveal what you mean by "section 4 of planning".

What bit of legislation and/or regulation are you referring to?

Like last time, I want to know what it is; and not what you say it does.

About time you cleared this up with some precise clarification. Only then will we know what you are talking about.
Its about time you started to do some real research, you should be able to find out what section 4 says in the planning office, Or get your self involved
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Williams knows of no better locations he as to be told.[/p][/quote]Williams can use section 4 of planning to stop this from going ahead if the Government rules against the peoples rejection[/p][/quote].. again I challenge you to reveal what you mean by "section 4 of planning". What bit of legislation and/or regulation are you referring to? Like last time, I want to know what it is; and not what you say it does. About time you cleared this up with some precise clarification. Only then will we know what you are talking about.[/p][/quote]Its about time you started to do some real research, you should be able to find out what section 4 says in the planning office, Or get your self involved southy

11:21am Sun 7 Oct 12

Stillness says...

southy wrote:
G0Rf wrote:
does the plant benefit to local residents?
If not build it a little further east down the M27
No benefits to locals or to the people of Southampton, it would have the same amount of benefit if it was built in york, when built it will be tied into the national grid
Unless you live "off grid" it's a benefit to have electricity generated no matter where it is. What you are saying is that you want the benefit and not the plant.

(Waits to hear that Kendal Avenue is off grid)
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G0Rf[/bold] wrote: does the plant benefit to local residents? If not build it a little further east down the M27[/p][/quote]No benefits to locals or to the people of Southampton, it would have the same amount of benefit if it was built in york, when built it will be tied into the national grid[/p][/quote]Unless you live "off grid" it's a benefit to have electricity generated no matter where it is. What you are saying is that you want the benefit and not the plant. (Waits to hear that Kendal Avenue is off grid) Stillness

11:27am Sun 7 Oct 12

southy says...

Stillness wrote:
southy wrote:
G0Rf wrote:
does the plant benefit to local residents?
If not build it a little further east down the M27
No benefits to locals or to the people of Southampton, it would have the same amount of benefit if it was built in york, when built it will be tied into the national grid
Unless you live "off grid" it's a benefit to have electricity generated no matter where it is. What you are saying is that you want the benefit and not the plant.

(Waits to hear that Kendal Avenue is off grid)
If your off grid then your generating your own power, Think about it.
[quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G0Rf[/bold] wrote: does the plant benefit to local residents? If not build it a little further east down the M27[/p][/quote]No benefits to locals or to the people of Southampton, it would have the same amount of benefit if it was built in york, when built it will be tied into the national grid[/p][/quote]Unless you live "off grid" it's a benefit to have electricity generated no matter where it is. What you are saying is that you want the benefit and not the plant. (Waits to hear that Kendal Avenue is off grid)[/p][/quote]If your off grid then your generating your own power, Think about it. southy

11:30am Sun 7 Oct 12

Stillness says...

southy wrote:
Stillness wrote:
southy wrote:
G0Rf wrote:
does the plant benefit to local residents?
If not build it a little further east down the M27
No benefits to locals or to the people of Southampton, it would have the same amount of benefit if it was built in york, when built it will be tied into the national grid
Unless you live "off grid" it's a benefit to have electricity generated no matter where it is. What you are saying is that you want the benefit and not the plant.

(Waits to hear that Kendal Avenue is off grid)
If your off grid then your generating your own power, Think about it.
Okay................
....................
..Now what?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G0Rf[/bold] wrote: does the plant benefit to local residents? If not build it a little further east down the M27[/p][/quote]No benefits to locals or to the people of Southampton, it would have the same amount of benefit if it was built in york, when built it will be tied into the national grid[/p][/quote]Unless you live "off grid" it's a benefit to have electricity generated no matter where it is. What you are saying is that you want the benefit and not the plant. (Waits to hear that Kendal Avenue is off grid)[/p][/quote]If your off grid then your generating your own power, Think about it.[/p][/quote]Okay................ .................... ..Now what? Stillness

11:33am Sun 7 Oct 12

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
southy wrote:
Williams knows of no better locations he as to be told.
Williams can use section 4 of planning to stop this from going ahead if the Government rules against the peoples rejection
.. again I challenge you to reveal what you mean by "section 4 of planning".

What bit of legislation and/or regulation are you referring to?

Like last time, I want to know what it is; and not what you say it does.

About time you cleared this up with some precise clarification. Only then will we know what you are talking about.
Its about time you started to do some real research, you should be able to find out what section 4 says in the planning office, Or get your self involved
.. so, I'll take that as you don't know.

Yet again southy pulls the “about time you started to do some real research” card when challenged on nonsense he has posted.

Yet again you dive into something that you don't actually know anything about.

"section 4 of planning" means absolutely nothing - which is about all you know on planning issues.

But now we also have "the planning office". Would you like to elaborate on what that is?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Williams knows of no better locations he as to be told.[/p][/quote]Williams can use section 4 of planning to stop this from going ahead if the Government rules against the peoples rejection[/p][/quote].. again I challenge you to reveal what you mean by "section 4 of planning". What bit of legislation and/or regulation are you referring to? Like last time, I want to know what it is; and not what you say it does. About time you cleared this up with some precise clarification. Only then will we know what you are talking about.[/p][/quote]Its about time you started to do some real research, you should be able to find out what section 4 says in the planning office, Or get your self involved[/p][/quote].. so, I'll take that as you don't know. Yet again southy pulls the “about time you started to do some real research” card when challenged on nonsense he has posted. Yet again you dive into something that you don't actually know anything about. "section 4 of planning" means absolutely nothing - which is about all you know on planning issues. But now we also have "the planning office". Would you like to elaborate on what that is? freefinker

11:41am Sun 7 Oct 12

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
southy wrote:
Williams knows of no better locations he as to be told.
Williams can use section 4 of planning to stop this from going ahead if the Government rules against the peoples rejection
.. again I challenge you to reveal what you mean by "section 4 of planning".

What bit of legislation and/or regulation are you referring to?

Like last time, I want to know what it is; and not what you say it does.

About time you cleared this up with some precise clarification. Only then will we know what you are talking about.
Its about time you started to do some real research, you should be able to find out what section 4 says in the planning office, Or get your self involved
.. so, I'll take that as you don't know.

Yet again southy pulls the “about time you started to do some real research” card when challenged on nonsense he has posted.

Yet again you dive into something that you don't actually know anything about.

"section 4 of planning" means absolutely nothing - which is about all you know on planning issues.

But now we also have "the planning office". Would you like to elaborate on what that is?
No I do know, there are councils all ready using section 4 of planning to over rule a Government decision.
"the planning office" you are way out of your depth.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Williams knows of no better locations he as to be told.[/p][/quote]Williams can use section 4 of planning to stop this from going ahead if the Government rules against the peoples rejection[/p][/quote].. again I challenge you to reveal what you mean by "section 4 of planning". What bit of legislation and/or regulation are you referring to? Like last time, I want to know what it is; and not what you say it does. About time you cleared this up with some precise clarification. Only then will we know what you are talking about.[/p][/quote]Its about time you started to do some real research, you should be able to find out what section 4 says in the planning office, Or get your self involved[/p][/quote].. so, I'll take that as you don't know. Yet again southy pulls the “about time you started to do some real research” card when challenged on nonsense he has posted. Yet again you dive into something that you don't actually know anything about. "section 4 of planning" means absolutely nothing - which is about all you know on planning issues. But now we also have "the planning office". Would you like to elaborate on what that is?[/p][/quote]No I do know, there are councils all ready using section 4 of planning to over rule a Government decision. "the planning office" you are way out of your depth. southy

11:47am Sun 7 Oct 12

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
southy wrote:
Williams knows of no better locations he as to be told.
Williams can use section 4 of planning to stop this from going ahead if the Government rules against the peoples rejection
.. again I challenge you to reveal what you mean by "section 4 of planning".

What bit of legislation and/or regulation are you referring to?

Like last time, I want to know what it is; and not what you say it does.

About time you cleared this up with some precise clarification. Only then will we know what you are talking about.
Its about time you started to do some real research, you should be able to find out what section 4 says in the planning office, Or get your self involved
.. so, I'll take that as you don't know.

Yet again southy pulls the “about time you started to do some real research” card when challenged on nonsense he has posted.

Yet again you dive into something that you don't actually know anything about.

"section 4 of planning" means absolutely nothing - which is about all you know on planning issues.

But now we also have "the planning office". Would you like to elaborate on what that is?
No I do know, there are councils all ready using section 4 of planning to over rule a Government decision.
"the planning office" you are way out of your depth.
.. I'm out of my depth!!!???!!!

Again, "section 4 of planning" means absolutely nothing.

Until you can provide 'chapter and verse', i.e actually name the legislation and/or regulation you are referring to, your comments are without substance and meaningless.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Williams knows of no better locations he as to be told.[/p][/quote]Williams can use section 4 of planning to stop this from going ahead if the Government rules against the peoples rejection[/p][/quote].. again I challenge you to reveal what you mean by "section 4 of planning". What bit of legislation and/or regulation are you referring to? Like last time, I want to know what it is; and not what you say it does. About time you cleared this up with some precise clarification. Only then will we know what you are talking about.[/p][/quote]Its about time you started to do some real research, you should be able to find out what section 4 says in the planning office, Or get your self involved[/p][/quote].. so, I'll take that as you don't know. Yet again southy pulls the “about time you started to do some real research” card when challenged on nonsense he has posted. Yet again you dive into something that you don't actually know anything about. "section 4 of planning" means absolutely nothing - which is about all you know on planning issues. But now we also have "the planning office". Would you like to elaborate on what that is?[/p][/quote]No I do know, there are councils all ready using section 4 of planning to over rule a Government decision. "the planning office" you are way out of your depth.[/p][/quote].. I'm out of my depth!!!???!!! Again, "section 4 of planning" means absolutely nothing. Until you can provide 'chapter and verse', i.e actually name the legislation and/or regulation you are referring to, your comments are without substance and meaningless. freefinker

12:44pm Sun 7 Oct 12

southy says...

You out of your depth, did you not note that none of the councillors that posted on never came back on it, thats because they know about section 4, and the info is not for you its for those that meet at the waterloo for them to know that section 4 can be used to block the building of this plant, same as the 150,000 signatures (or 250,000 e-petition) petition will force this House of Commons to have a debate about it and a vote on the matter, this is all info for the Anti-Bio-Mass brigade can use.
And its only meaningless to you, unless your trying to stop this sort of info being pass on.
You out of your depth, did you not note that none of the councillors that posted on never came back on it, thats because they know about section 4, and the info is not for you its for those that meet at the waterloo for them to know that section 4 can be used to block the building of this plant, same as the 150,000 signatures (or 250,000 e-petition) petition will force this House of Commons to have a debate about it and a vote on the matter, this is all info for the Anti-Bio-Mass brigade can use. And its only meaningless to you, unless your trying to stop this sort of info being pass on. southy

12:45pm Sun 7 Oct 12

Stillness says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
southy wrote:
Williams knows of no better locations he as to be told.
Williams can use section 4 of planning to stop this from going ahead if the Government rules against the peoples rejection
.. again I challenge you to reveal what you mean by "section 4 of planning".

What bit of legislation and/or regulation are you referring to?

Like last time, I want to know what it is; and not what you say it does.

About time you cleared this up with some precise clarification. Only then will we know what you are talking about.
Its about time you started to do some real research, you should be able to find out what section 4 says in the planning office, Or get your self involved
.. so, I'll take that as you don't know.

Yet again southy pulls the “about time you started to do some real research” card when challenged on nonsense he has posted.

Yet again you dive into something that you don't actually know anything about.

"section 4 of planning" means absolutely nothing - which is about all you know on planning issues.

But now we also have "the planning office". Would you like to elaborate on what that is?
No I do know, there are councils all ready using section 4 of planning to over rule a Government decision.
"the planning office" you are way out of your depth.
.. I'm out of my depth!!!???!!!

Again, "section 4 of planning" means absolutely nothing.

Until you can provide 'chapter and verse', i.e actually name the legislation and/or regulation you are referring to, your comments are without substance and meaningless.
"without substance and meaningless". Quoted from south's coat of arms.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Williams knows of no better locations he as to be told.[/p][/quote]Williams can use section 4 of planning to stop this from going ahead if the Government rules against the peoples rejection[/p][/quote].. again I challenge you to reveal what you mean by "section 4 of planning". What bit of legislation and/or regulation are you referring to? Like last time, I want to know what it is; and not what you say it does. About time you cleared this up with some precise clarification. Only then will we know what you are talking about.[/p][/quote]Its about time you started to do some real research, you should be able to find out what section 4 says in the planning office, Or get your self involved[/p][/quote].. so, I'll take that as you don't know. Yet again southy pulls the “about time you started to do some real research” card when challenged on nonsense he has posted. Yet again you dive into something that you don't actually know anything about. "section 4 of planning" means absolutely nothing - which is about all you know on planning issues. But now we also have "the planning office". Would you like to elaborate on what that is?[/p][/quote]No I do know, there are councils all ready using section 4 of planning to over rule a Government decision. "the planning office" you are way out of your depth.[/p][/quote].. I'm out of my depth!!!???!!! Again, "section 4 of planning" means absolutely nothing. Until you can provide 'chapter and verse', i.e actually name the legislation and/or regulation you are referring to, your comments are without substance and meaningless.[/p][/quote]"without substance and meaningless". Quoted from south's coat of arms. Stillness

12:56pm Sun 7 Oct 12

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
southy wrote:
Williams knows of no better locations he as to be told.
Williams can use section 4 of planning to stop this from going ahead if the Government rules against the peoples rejection
.. again I challenge you to reveal what you mean by "section 4 of planning".

What bit of legislation and/or regulation are you referring to?

Like last time, I want to know what it is; and not what you say it does.

About time you cleared this up with some precise clarification. Only then will we know what you are talking about.
Its about time you started to do some real research, you should be able to find out what section 4 says in the planning office, Or get your self involved
.. so, I'll take that as you don't know.

Yet again southy pulls the “about time you started to do some real research” card when challenged on nonsense he has posted.

Yet again you dive into something that you don't actually know anything about.

"section 4 of planning" means absolutely nothing - which is about all you know on planning issues.

But now we also have "the planning office". Would you like to elaborate on what that is?
No I do know, there are councils all ready using section 4 of planning to over rule a Government decision.
"the planning office" you are way out of your depth.
.. I'm out of my depth!!!???!!!

Again, "section 4 of planning" means absolutely nothing.

Until you can provide 'chapter and verse', i.e actually name the legislation and/or regulation you are referring to, your comments are without substance and meaningless.
You out of your depth, did you not note that none of the councillors that posted on never came back on it, thats because they know about section 4, and the info is not for you its for those that meet at the waterloo for them to know that section 4 can be used to block the building of this plant, same as the 150,000 signatures (or 250,000 e-petition) petition will force this House of Commons to have a debate about it and a vote on the matter, this is all info for the Anti-Bio-Mass brigade can use.
And its only meaningless to you, unless your trying to stop this sort of info being pass on.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Williams knows of no better locations he as to be told.[/p][/quote]Williams can use section 4 of planning to stop this from going ahead if the Government rules against the peoples rejection[/p][/quote].. again I challenge you to reveal what you mean by "section 4 of planning". What bit of legislation and/or regulation are you referring to? Like last time, I want to know what it is; and not what you say it does. About time you cleared this up with some precise clarification. Only then will we know what you are talking about.[/p][/quote]Its about time you started to do some real research, you should be able to find out what section 4 says in the planning office, Or get your self involved[/p][/quote].. so, I'll take that as you don't know. Yet again southy pulls the “about time you started to do some real research” card when challenged on nonsense he has posted. Yet again you dive into something that you don't actually know anything about. "section 4 of planning" means absolutely nothing - which is about all you know on planning issues. But now we also have "the planning office". Would you like to elaborate on what that is?[/p][/quote]No I do know, there are councils all ready using section 4 of planning to over rule a Government decision. "the planning office" you are way out of your depth.[/p][/quote].. I'm out of my depth!!!???!!! Again, "section 4 of planning" means absolutely nothing. Until you can provide 'chapter and verse', i.e actually name the legislation and/or regulation you are referring to, your comments are without substance and meaningless.[/p][/quote]You out of your depth, did you not note that none of the councillors that posted on never came back on it, thats because they know about section 4, and the info is not for you its for those that meet at the waterloo for them to know that section 4 can be used to block the building of this plant, same as the 150,000 signatures (or 250,000 e-petition) petition will force this House of Commons to have a debate about it and a vote on the matter, this is all info for the Anti-Bio-Mass brigade can use. And its only meaningless to you, unless your trying to stop this sort of info being pass on. southy

1:12pm Sun 7 Oct 12

loosehead says...

So exactly what's Williams saying?
We Want it.it's a good thing but not in my back yard ?
How can you say the position of it's proposed site is residential?
6 lanes of Traffic rail lines & a station then empty ground then the Site hardly comes under residential does it?
Is there a deep enough berth at Dibden?
Maybe build it on that piece of land as the locals don't want a dock built there?
No if it's okay to be built then why not on industrial land?
The port is industrial & I for one would rather see this building than a mountain of scrap metal
So exactly what's Williams saying? We Want it.it's a good thing but not in my back yard ? How can you say the position of it's proposed site is residential? 6 lanes of Traffic rail lines & a station then empty ground then the Site hardly comes under residential does it? Is there a deep enough berth at Dibden? Maybe build it on that piece of land as the locals don't want a dock built there? No if it's okay to be built then why not on industrial land? The port is industrial & I for one would rather see this building than a mountain of scrap metal loosehead

1:13pm Sun 7 Oct 12

Danae says...

An 'Article 4 Direction' may well be the focus of the Southy/Freefinker discussion above.

One summary of Article 4 can be found here: http://www.planning-
applications.co.uk/a
rticle4.htm

This is a provision under the Planning Acts whereby a Local Planning Authority (an LPA, like SCC), when considering the planning applications it determines, can (within a stated boundary) waive what are known as Permitted Development Rights (PD).

PD typically allows a home owner to build one single storey rear extension (of stated maximum dimensions) without the need to apply for planning permission.

There are other limited PD provisions BUT all this applies only to planning applications that LPAs can determine.

If Helius make an application for Development Consent for a Power Station in Southampton, that will be examined over six months by the Planning Inspectorate who then make a recommendation to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, whose office after further consideration will announce the decision.

(SCC's role in this process is to prepare the important Local Impact Report - on a proposed power station - to the Planning Inspectorate).

As a Helius application will not be determined by our Local Planning Authority, Article 4 does not apply.

Apart from the assessment of the massive range of planning evidence and objections, that would be submitted by many organisations (and individuals) on a power station application, there are a number of other issues, including incompetent handling of processes, which could cause a Helius application to fail.
An 'Article 4 Direction' may well be the focus of the Southy/Freefinker discussion above. One summary of Article 4 can be found here: http://www.planning- applications.co.uk/a rticle4.htm This is a provision under the Planning Acts whereby a Local Planning Authority (an LPA, like SCC), when considering the planning applications it determines, can (within a stated boundary) waive what are known as Permitted Development Rights (PD). PD typically allows a home owner to build one single storey rear extension (of stated maximum dimensions) without the need to apply for planning permission. There are other limited PD provisions BUT all this applies only to planning applications that LPAs can determine. If Helius make an application for Development Consent for a Power Station in Southampton, that will be examined over six months by the Planning Inspectorate who then make a recommendation to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, whose office after further consideration will announce the decision. (SCC's role in this process is to prepare the important Local Impact Report - on a proposed power station - to the Planning Inspectorate). As a Helius application will not be determined by our Local Planning Authority, Article 4 does not apply. Apart from the assessment of the massive range of planning evidence and objections, that would be submitted by many organisations (and individuals) on a power station application, there are a number of other issues, including incompetent handling of processes, which could cause a Helius application to fail. Danae

1:18pm Sun 7 Oct 12

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
You out of your depth, did you not note that none of the councillors that posted on never came back on it, thats because they know about section 4, and the info is not for you its for those that meet at the waterloo for them to know that section 4 can be used to block the building of this plant, same as the 150,000 signatures (or 250,000 e-petition) petition will force this House of Commons to have a debate about it and a vote on the matter, this is all info for the Anti-Bio-Mass brigade can use.
And its only meaningless to you, unless your trying to stop this sort of info being pass on.
Yet again you can't reveal what "section 4 of planning" is for the very simple reason that you don't know.

And as for "trying to stop this sort of info being pass on"; you are not actually giving ANY useful information, are you?

If you could give the information I requested in the previous story, and in my posts above, then your info may be of some use. Trouble is, I fear, you don’t have the faintest idea what you mean by “section 4 of planning”.

As it is, I can assure you, as an infrequent attendee of the Waterloo Arms regular meetings, there is nothing you could contribute to the No Southampton Biomass campaign’s detailed and extensive knowledge of the complex planning system for strategic infrastructure.

You are as uninformed on this issue as you are on most others.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: You out of your depth, did you not note that none of the councillors that posted on never came back on it, thats because they know about section 4, and the info is not for you its for those that meet at the waterloo for them to know that section 4 can be used to block the building of this plant, same as the 150,000 signatures (or 250,000 e-petition) petition will force this House of Commons to have a debate about it and a vote on the matter, this is all info for the Anti-Bio-Mass brigade can use. And its only meaningless to you, unless your trying to stop this sort of info being pass on.[/p][/quote]Yet again you can't reveal what "section 4 of planning" is for the very simple reason that you don't know. And as for "trying to stop this sort of info being pass on"; you are not actually giving ANY useful information, are you? If you could give the information I requested in the previous story, and in my posts above, then your info may be of some use. Trouble is, I fear, you don’t have the faintest idea what you mean by “section 4 of planning”. As it is, I can assure you, as an infrequent attendee of the Waterloo Arms regular meetings, there is nothing you could contribute to the No Southampton Biomass campaign’s detailed and extensive knowledge of the complex planning system for strategic infrastructure. You are as uninformed on this issue as you are on most others. freefinker

1:27pm Sun 7 Oct 12

southy says...

Danae wrote:
An 'Article 4 Direction' may well be the focus of the Southy/Freefinker discussion above.

One summary of Article 4 can be found here: http://www.planning-

applications.co.uk/a

rticle4.htm

This is a provision under the Planning Acts whereby a Local Planning Authority (an LPA, like SCC), when considering the planning applications it determines, can (within a stated boundary) waive what are known as Permitted Development Rights (PD).

PD typically allows a home owner to build one single storey rear extension (of stated maximum dimensions) without the need to apply for planning permission.

There are other limited PD provisions BUT all this applies only to planning applications that LPAs can determine.

If Helius make an application for Development Consent for a Power Station in Southampton, that will be examined over six months by the Planning Inspectorate who then make a recommendation to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, whose office after further consideration will announce the decision.

(SCC's role in this process is to prepare the important Local Impact Report - on a proposed power station - to the Planning Inspectorate).

As a Helius application will not be determined by our Local Planning Authority, Article 4 does not apply.

Apart from the assessment of the massive range of planning evidence and objections, that would be submitted by many organisations (and individuals) on a power station application, there are a number of other issues, including incompetent handling of processes, which could cause a Helius application to fail.
Thats Article 4 of local planning, go to section 4 national planning act
[quote][p][bold]Danae[/bold] wrote: An 'Article 4 Direction' may well be the focus of the Southy/Freefinker discussion above. One summary of Article 4 can be found here: http://www.planning- applications.co.uk/a rticle4.htm This is a provision under the Planning Acts whereby a Local Planning Authority (an LPA, like SCC), when considering the planning applications it determines, can (within a stated boundary) waive what are known as Permitted Development Rights (PD). PD typically allows a home owner to build one single storey rear extension (of stated maximum dimensions) without the need to apply for planning permission. There are other limited PD provisions BUT all this applies only to planning applications that LPAs can determine. If Helius make an application for Development Consent for a Power Station in Southampton, that will be examined over six months by the Planning Inspectorate who then make a recommendation to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, whose office after further consideration will announce the decision. (SCC's role in this process is to prepare the important Local Impact Report - on a proposed power station - to the Planning Inspectorate). As a Helius application will not be determined by our Local Planning Authority, Article 4 does not apply. Apart from the assessment of the massive range of planning evidence and objections, that would be submitted by many organisations (and individuals) on a power station application, there are a number of other issues, including incompetent handling of processes, which could cause a Helius application to fail.[/p][/quote]Thats Article 4 of local planning, go to section 4 national planning act southy

1:31pm Sun 7 Oct 12

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
You out of your depth, did you not note that none of the councillors that posted on never came back on it, thats because they know about section 4, and the info is not for you its for those that meet at the waterloo for them to know that section 4 can be used to block the building of this plant, same as the 150,000 signatures (or 250,000 e-petition) petition will force this House of Commons to have a debate about it and a vote on the matter, this is all info for the Anti-Bio-Mass brigade can use.
And its only meaningless to you, unless your trying to stop this sort of info being pass on.
Yet again you can't reveal what "section 4 of planning" is for the very simple reason that you don't know.

And as for "trying to stop this sort of info being pass on"; you are not actually giving ANY useful information, are you?

If you could give the information I requested in the previous story, and in my posts above, then your info may be of some use. Trouble is, I fear, you don’t have the faintest idea what you mean by “section 4 of planning”.

As it is, I can assure you, as an infrequent attendee of the Waterloo Arms regular meetings, there is nothing you could contribute to the No Southampton Biomass campaign’s detailed and extensive knowledge of the complex planning system for strategic infrastructure.

You are as uninformed on this issue as you are on most others.
No not uniformed it as all ready been used against the Government to stop building works being started
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: You out of your depth, did you not note that none of the councillors that posted on never came back on it, thats because they know about section 4, and the info is not for you its for those that meet at the waterloo for them to know that section 4 can be used to block the building of this plant, same as the 150,000 signatures (or 250,000 e-petition) petition will force this House of Commons to have a debate about it and a vote on the matter, this is all info for the Anti-Bio-Mass brigade can use. And its only meaningless to you, unless your trying to stop this sort of info being pass on.[/p][/quote]Yet again you can't reveal what "section 4 of planning" is for the very simple reason that you don't know. And as for "trying to stop this sort of info being pass on"; you are not actually giving ANY useful information, are you? If you could give the information I requested in the previous story, and in my posts above, then your info may be of some use. Trouble is, I fear, you don’t have the faintest idea what you mean by “section 4 of planning”. As it is, I can assure you, as an infrequent attendee of the Waterloo Arms regular meetings, there is nothing you could contribute to the No Southampton Biomass campaign’s detailed and extensive knowledge of the complex planning system for strategic infrastructure. You are as uninformed on this issue as you are on most others.[/p][/quote]No not uniformed it as all ready been used against the Government to stop building works being started southy

1:39pm Sun 7 Oct 12

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
Danae wrote:
An 'Article 4 Direction' may well be the focus of the Southy/Freefinker discussion above.

One summary of Article 4 can be found here: http://www.planning-


applications.co.uk/a


rticle4.htm

This is a provision under the Planning Acts whereby a Local Planning Authority (an LPA, like SCC), when considering the planning applications it determines, can (within a stated boundary) waive what are known as Permitted Development Rights (PD).

PD typically allows a home owner to build one single storey rear extension (of stated maximum dimensions) without the need to apply for planning permission.

There are other limited PD provisions BUT all this applies only to planning applications that LPAs can determine.

If Helius make an application for Development Consent for a Power Station in Southampton, that will be examined over six months by the Planning Inspectorate who then make a recommendation to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, whose office after further consideration will announce the decision.

(SCC's role in this process is to prepare the important Local Impact Report - on a proposed power station - to the Planning Inspectorate).

As a Helius application will not be determined by our Local Planning Authority, Article 4 does not apply.

Apart from the assessment of the massive range of planning evidence and objections, that would be submitted by many organisations (and individuals) on a power station application, there are a number of other issues, including incompetent handling of processes, which could cause a Helius application to fail.
Thats Article 4 of local planning, go to section 4 national planning act
There is no such legislation as the "National Planning Act."

Precision, southy, precision.

That's what's needed, and you can't provide.

We are no nearer to solving the mystery of “section 4 of planning” than we were at the beginning of these exchanges.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Danae[/bold] wrote: An 'Article 4 Direction' may well be the focus of the Southy/Freefinker discussion above. One summary of Article 4 can be found here: http://www.planning- applications.co.uk/a rticle4.htm This is a provision under the Planning Acts whereby a Local Planning Authority (an LPA, like SCC), when considering the planning applications it determines, can (within a stated boundary) waive what are known as Permitted Development Rights (PD). PD typically allows a home owner to build one single storey rear extension (of stated maximum dimensions) without the need to apply for planning permission. There are other limited PD provisions BUT all this applies only to planning applications that LPAs can determine. If Helius make an application for Development Consent for a Power Station in Southampton, that will be examined over six months by the Planning Inspectorate who then make a recommendation to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, whose office after further consideration will announce the decision. (SCC's role in this process is to prepare the important Local Impact Report - on a proposed power station - to the Planning Inspectorate). As a Helius application will not be determined by our Local Planning Authority, Article 4 does not apply. Apart from the assessment of the massive range of planning evidence and objections, that would be submitted by many organisations (and individuals) on a power station application, there are a number of other issues, including incompetent handling of processes, which could cause a Helius application to fail.[/p][/quote]Thats Article 4 of local planning, go to section 4 national planning act[/p][/quote]There is no such legislation as the "National Planning Act." Precision, southy, precision. That's what's needed, and you can't provide. We are no nearer to solving the mystery of “section 4 of planning” than we were at the beginning of these exchanges. freefinker

1:41pm Sun 7 Oct 12

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
You out of your depth, did you not note that none of the councillors that posted on never came back on it, thats because they know about section 4, and the info is not for you its for those that meet at the waterloo for them to know that section 4 can be used to block the building of this plant, same as the 150,000 signatures (or 250,000 e-petition) petition will force this House of Commons to have a debate about it and a vote on the matter, this is all info for the Anti-Bio-Mass brigade can use.
And its only meaningless to you, unless your trying to stop this sort of info being pass on.
Yet again you can't reveal what "section 4 of planning" is for the very simple reason that you don't know.

And as for "trying to stop this sort of info being pass on"; you are not actually giving ANY useful information, are you?

If you could give the information I requested in the previous story, and in my posts above, then your info may be of some use. Trouble is, I fear, you don’t have the faintest idea what you mean by “section 4 of planning”.

As it is, I can assure you, as an infrequent attendee of the Waterloo Arms regular meetings, there is nothing you could contribute to the No Southampton Biomass campaign’s detailed and extensive knowledge of the complex planning system for strategic infrastructure.

You are as uninformed on this issue as you are on most others.
No not uniformed it as all ready been used against the Government to stop building works being started
.. oh, has it?

Chapter and verse please.

What building work, where, when?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: You out of your depth, did you not note that none of the councillors that posted on never came back on it, thats because they know about section 4, and the info is not for you its for those that meet at the waterloo for them to know that section 4 can be used to block the building of this plant, same as the 150,000 signatures (or 250,000 e-petition) petition will force this House of Commons to have a debate about it and a vote on the matter, this is all info for the Anti-Bio-Mass brigade can use. And its only meaningless to you, unless your trying to stop this sort of info being pass on.[/p][/quote]Yet again you can't reveal what "section 4 of planning" is for the very simple reason that you don't know. And as for "trying to stop this sort of info being pass on"; you are not actually giving ANY useful information, are you? If you could give the information I requested in the previous story, and in my posts above, then your info may be of some use. Trouble is, I fear, you don’t have the faintest idea what you mean by “section 4 of planning”. As it is, I can assure you, as an infrequent attendee of the Waterloo Arms regular meetings, there is nothing you could contribute to the No Southampton Biomass campaign’s detailed and extensive knowledge of the complex planning system for strategic infrastructure. You are as uninformed on this issue as you are on most others.[/p][/quote]No not uniformed it as all ready been used against the Government to stop building works being started[/p][/quote].. oh, has it? Chapter and verse please. What building work, where, when? freefinker

1:47pm Sun 7 Oct 12

Stillness says...

Cun enyone trinslate southy four as has noot alll ov uss hads the bestest off edumacations.
Cun enyone trinslate southy four as has noot alll ov uss hads the bestest off edumacations. Stillness

2:18pm Sun 7 Oct 12

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
Danae wrote:
An 'Article 4 Direction' may well be the focus of the Southy/Freefinker discussion above.

One summary of Article 4 can be found here: http://www.planning-


applications.co.uk/a


rticle4.htm

This is a provision under the Planning Acts whereby a Local Planning Authority (an LPA, like SCC), when considering the planning applications it determines, can (within a stated boundary) waive what are known as Permitted Development Rights (PD).

PD typically allows a home owner to build one single storey rear extension (of stated maximum dimensions) without the need to apply for planning permission.

There are other limited PD provisions BUT all this applies only to planning applications that LPAs can determine.

If Helius make an application for Development Consent for a Power Station in Southampton, that will be examined over six months by the Planning Inspectorate who then make a recommendation to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, whose office after further consideration will announce the decision.

(SCC's role in this process is to prepare the important Local Impact Report - on a proposed power station - to the Planning Inspectorate).

As a Helius application will not be determined by our Local Planning Authority, Article 4 does not apply.

Apart from the assessment of the massive range of planning evidence and objections, that would be submitted by many organisations (and individuals) on a power station application, there are a number of other issues, including incompetent handling of processes, which could cause a Helius application to fail.
Thats Article 4 of local planning, go to section 4 national planning act
.. reminds me very much of a southy classic from 4:44pm Sat 8 Jan 11: -

“criminal law home office are the laws you should be reading not criminal foreign office laws.”

LOL
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Danae[/bold] wrote: An 'Article 4 Direction' may well be the focus of the Southy/Freefinker discussion above. One summary of Article 4 can be found here: http://www.planning- applications.co.uk/a rticle4.htm This is a provision under the Planning Acts whereby a Local Planning Authority (an LPA, like SCC), when considering the planning applications it determines, can (within a stated boundary) waive what are known as Permitted Development Rights (PD). PD typically allows a home owner to build one single storey rear extension (of stated maximum dimensions) without the need to apply for planning permission. There are other limited PD provisions BUT all this applies only to planning applications that LPAs can determine. If Helius make an application for Development Consent for a Power Station in Southampton, that will be examined over six months by the Planning Inspectorate who then make a recommendation to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, whose office after further consideration will announce the decision. (SCC's role in this process is to prepare the important Local Impact Report - on a proposed power station - to the Planning Inspectorate). As a Helius application will not be determined by our Local Planning Authority, Article 4 does not apply. Apart from the assessment of the massive range of planning evidence and objections, that would be submitted by many organisations (and individuals) on a power station application, there are a number of other issues, including incompetent handling of processes, which could cause a Helius application to fail.[/p][/quote]Thats Article 4 of local planning, go to section 4 national planning act[/p][/quote].. reminds me very much of a southy classic from 4:44pm Sat 8 Jan 11: - “criminal law home office are the laws you should be reading not criminal foreign office laws.” LOL freefinker

2:28pm Sun 7 Oct 12

skin2000 says...

loosehead wrote:
So exactly what's Williams saying?
We Want it.it's a good thing but not in my back yard ?
How can you say the position of it's proposed site is residential?
6 lanes of Traffic rail lines & a station then empty ground then the Site hardly comes under residential does it?
Is there a deep enough berth at Dibden?
Maybe build it on that piece of land as the locals don't want a dock built there?
No if it's okay to be built then why not on industrial land?
The port is industrial & I for one would rather see this building than a mountain of scrap metal
It is residential because there are houses near to the proposed plant.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: So exactly what's Williams saying? We Want it.it's a good thing but not in my back yard ? How can you say the position of it's proposed site is residential? 6 lanes of Traffic rail lines & a station then empty ground then the Site hardly comes under residential does it? Is there a deep enough berth at Dibden? Maybe build it on that piece of land as the locals don't want a dock built there? No if it's okay to be built then why not on industrial land? The port is industrial & I for one would rather see this building than a mountain of scrap metal[/p][/quote]It is residential because there are houses near to the proposed plant. skin2000

2:53pm Sun 7 Oct 12

freefinker says...

My problem with the line taken by leader Williams is that he is failing to address the environmental stupidity of this proposal.

The No Southampton Biomass campaign make it quite clear that this proposal is unwanted on many grounds and one of their main lines of argument is the lack of green credentials.

Moving it elsewhere will not address this. This proposal and other such proposed large Biomass schemes that will rely on the worldwide importation of fuel make no green sense what-so-ever and are only economically viable due to the rigged market on electricity supply.

However, biomass generation using local sources should become a most welcome addition to our electricity supply balance. It is essential we wean ourselves off of our addiction to fossil fuels.
My problem with the line taken by leader Williams is that he is failing to address the environmental stupidity of this proposal. The No Southampton Biomass campaign make it quite clear that this proposal is unwanted on many grounds and one of their main lines of argument is the lack of green credentials. Moving it elsewhere will not address this. This proposal and other such proposed large Biomass schemes that will rely on the worldwide importation of fuel make no green sense what-so-ever and are only economically viable due to the rigged market on electricity supply. However, biomass generation using local sources should become a most welcome addition to our electricity supply balance. It is essential we wean ourselves off of our addiction to fossil fuels. freefinker

3:51pm Sun 7 Oct 12

Fatty x Ford Worker says...

Dibden Bay a ideal site !
Dibden Bay a ideal site ! Fatty x Ford Worker

3:52pm Sun 7 Oct 12

Linesman says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Fawley Power Station no brainer.
Your right. A no brainer. Only someone with no brain would consider it.

The power station produced power by gas, not solid fuel.

For this reason, it would not be economic sense to convert it to solid fuel.

It is sited about half a mile from the banks of the Southampton Water, and as it was gas powered, there was no requirement for berthing facilities.

The cost of building berthing facilities to unload the fuel for a biomass facility, across a large area of marshland would be prohibitive.

Like you say.

A NO BRAINER.
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: Fawley Power Station no brainer.[/p][/quote]Your right. A no brainer. Only someone with no brain would consider it. The power station produced power by gas, not solid fuel. For this reason, it would not be economic sense to convert it to solid fuel. It is sited about half a mile from the banks of the Southampton Water, and as it was gas powered, there was no requirement for berthing facilities. The cost of building berthing facilities to unload the fuel for a biomass facility, across a large area of marshland would be prohibitive. Like you say. A NO BRAINER. Linesman

4:07pm Sun 7 Oct 12

geoff51 says...

Fatty x Ford Worker wrote:
Dibden Bay a ideal site !
We dont want your crap on the Waterside just because you dont wan it in your backyard, we are fed up of being the dumping ground for Southampton's rubbish.
If you want it build it in your backyard not ours!
[quote][p][bold]Fatty x Ford Worker[/bold] wrote: Dibden Bay a ideal site ![/p][/quote]We dont want your crap on the Waterside just because you dont wan it in your backyard, we are fed up of being the dumping ground for Southampton's rubbish. If you want it build it in your backyard not ours! geoff51

4:14pm Sun 7 Oct 12

Stillness says...

geoff51 wrote:
Fatty x Ford Worker wrote:
Dibden Bay a ideal site !
We dont want your crap on the Waterside just because you dont wan it in your backyard, we are fed up of being the dumping ground for Southampton's rubbish.
If you want it build it in your backyard not ours!
I thought it was our backyard ;-)
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fatty x Ford Worker[/bold] wrote: Dibden Bay a ideal site ![/p][/quote]We dont want your crap on the Waterside just because you dont wan it in your backyard, we are fed up of being the dumping ground for Southampton's rubbish. If you want it build it in your backyard not ours![/p][/quote]I thought it was our backyard ;-) Stillness

4:16pm Sun 7 Oct 12

Danae says...

Only really quite small power generation plants can be supported by local timber sourcing.

They may be appropriate up to about 7Kwh in remote off grid locations (for example at a Whisky distillery).

This is a scenario which Scotland seems to be moving towards while discouraging large power stations
reliant on imported wood pellet.

The UK only produces 10 million tons a year of timber overall, which goes for construction, furniture making and other uses. We have in addition always imported very much more timber than this; for similar uses.

Already, with the rather uncontrolled expansion of wood burning in English power stations we have Drax, Tilbury and soon Ironbridge each burning up to 7 million tons a year, or a bit more, of imported wood pellet.

Several other stations, including Didcot (till all but the gas fired station on site closes) and Kingsnorth (Kent) are co-firing with imported wood pellet as well.

Projected c 2018 UK power station imported wood pellet consumption is in the 60 million to 80 million tons pa range. Certainly unsustainable.

The world market for wood pellet could get well out of hand, especially when one considers that we are in competition with many other European, American, Australasian and even Far Eastern nations for the stuff.

This competitive world market suggests high prices for wood pellet and unreliable supply.

These considerations, among others, lie behind Banks' and other investors' reluctance to fund Helius' other planned 100Mw wood burning power station project at Avonmouth.
Only really quite small power generation plants can be supported by local timber sourcing. They may be appropriate up to about 7Kwh in remote off grid locations (for example at a Whisky distillery). This is a scenario which Scotland seems to be moving towards while discouraging large power stations reliant on imported wood pellet. The UK only produces 10 million tons a year of timber overall, which goes for construction, furniture making and other uses. We have in addition always imported very much more timber than this; for similar uses. Already, with the rather uncontrolled expansion of wood burning in English power stations we have Drax, Tilbury and soon Ironbridge each burning up to 7 million tons a year, or a bit more, of imported wood pellet. Several other stations, including Didcot (till all but the gas fired station on site closes) and Kingsnorth (Kent) are co-firing with imported wood pellet as well. Projected c 2018 UK power station imported wood pellet consumption is in the 60 million to 80 million tons pa range. Certainly unsustainable. The world market for wood pellet could get well out of hand, especially when one considers that we are in competition with many other European, American, Australasian and even Far Eastern nations for the stuff. This competitive world market suggests high prices for wood pellet and unreliable supply. These considerations, among others, lie behind Banks' and other investors' reluctance to fund Helius' other planned 100Mw wood burning power station project at Avonmouth. Danae

4:36pm Sun 7 Oct 12

Fatty x Ford Worker says...

Stillness wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Fatty x Ford Worker wrote:
Dibden Bay a ideal site !
We dont want your crap on the Waterside just because you dont wan it in your backyard, we are fed up of being the dumping ground for Southampton's rubbish.
If you want it build it in your backyard not ours!
I thought it was our backyard ;-)
Plenty of deadwood in the forest then what happens to it!
[quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fatty x Ford Worker[/bold] wrote: Dibden Bay a ideal site ![/p][/quote]We dont want your crap on the Waterside just because you dont wan it in your backyard, we are fed up of being the dumping ground for Southampton's rubbish. If you want it build it in your backyard not ours![/p][/quote]I thought it was our backyard ;-)[/p][/quote]Plenty of deadwood in the forest then what happens to it! Fatty x Ford Worker

4:43pm Sun 7 Oct 12

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
southy wrote:
Williams knows of no better locations he as to be told.
Williams can use section 4 of planning to stop this from going ahead if the Government rules against the peoples rejection
.. again I challenge you to reveal what you mean by "section 4 of planning".

What bit of legislation and/or regulation are you referring to?

Like last time, I want to know what it is; and not what you say it does.

About time you cleared this up with some precise clarification. Only then will we know what you are talking about.
Its about time you started to do some real research, you should be able to find out what section 4 says in the planning office, Or get your self involved
.. so, I'll take that as you don't know.

Yet again southy pulls the “about time you started to do some real research” card when challenged on nonsense he has posted.

Yet again you dive into something that you don't actually know anything about.

"section 4 of planning" means absolutely nothing - which is about all you know on planning issues.

But now we also have "the planning office". Would you like to elaborate on what that is?
No I do know, there are councils all ready using section 4 of planning to over rule a Government decision.
"the planning office" you are way out of your depth.
.. I'm out of my depth!!!???!!!

Again, "section 4 of planning" means absolutely nothing.

Until you can provide 'chapter and verse', i.e actually name the legislation and/or regulation you are referring to, your comments are without substance and meaningless.
You out of your depth, did you not note that none of the councillors that posted on never came back on it, thats because they know about section 4, and the info is not for you its for those that meet at the waterloo for them to know that section 4 can be used to block the building of this plant, same as the 150,000 signatures (or 250,000 e-petition) petition will force this House of Commons to have a debate about it and a vote on the matter, this is all info for the Anti-Bio-Mass brigade can use.
And its only meaningless to you, unless your trying to stop this sort of info being pass on.
I rather think you are out of your depth on your (Mis) understanding of e-petitions. Go on , tell me 'i ain't got a clue'.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Williams knows of no better locations he as to be told.[/p][/quote]Williams can use section 4 of planning to stop this from going ahead if the Government rules against the peoples rejection[/p][/quote].. again I challenge you to reveal what you mean by "section 4 of planning". What bit of legislation and/or regulation are you referring to? Like last time, I want to know what it is; and not what you say it does. About time you cleared this up with some precise clarification. Only then will we know what you are talking about.[/p][/quote]Its about time you started to do some real research, you should be able to find out what section 4 says in the planning office, Or get your self involved[/p][/quote].. so, I'll take that as you don't know. Yet again southy pulls the “about time you started to do some real research” card when challenged on nonsense he has posted. Yet again you dive into something that you don't actually know anything about. "section 4 of planning" means absolutely nothing - which is about all you know on planning issues. But now we also have "the planning office". Would you like to elaborate on what that is?[/p][/quote]No I do know, there are councils all ready using section 4 of planning to over rule a Government decision. "the planning office" you are way out of your depth.[/p][/quote].. I'm out of my depth!!!???!!! Again, "section 4 of planning" means absolutely nothing. Until you can provide 'chapter and verse', i.e actually name the legislation and/or regulation you are referring to, your comments are without substance and meaningless.[/p][/quote]You out of your depth, did you not note that none of the councillors that posted on never came back on it, thats because they know about section 4, and the info is not for you its for those that meet at the waterloo for them to know that section 4 can be used to block the building of this plant, same as the 150,000 signatures (or 250,000 e-petition) petition will force this House of Commons to have a debate about it and a vote on the matter, this is all info for the Anti-Bio-Mass brigade can use. And its only meaningless to you, unless your trying to stop this sort of info being pass on.[/p][/quote]I rather think you are out of your depth on your (Mis) understanding of e-petitions. Go on , tell me 'i ain't got a clue'. Torchie1

4:45pm Sun 7 Oct 12

skin2000 says...

Danae wrote:
Only really quite small power generation plants can be supported by local timber sourcing.

They may be appropriate up to about 7Kwh in remote off grid locations (for example at a Whisky distillery).

This is a scenario which Scotland seems to be moving towards while discouraging large power stations
reliant on imported wood pellet.

The UK only produces 10 million tons a year of timber overall, which goes for construction, furniture making and other uses. We have in addition always imported very much more timber than this; for similar uses.

Already, with the rather uncontrolled expansion of wood burning in English power stations we have Drax, Tilbury and soon Ironbridge each burning up to 7 million tons a year, or a bit more, of imported wood pellet.

Several other stations, including Didcot (till all but the gas fired station on site closes) and Kingsnorth (Kent) are co-firing with imported wood pellet as well.

Projected c 2018 UK power station imported wood pellet consumption is in the 60 million to 80 million tons pa range. Certainly unsustainable.

The world market for wood pellet could get well out of hand, especially when one considers that we are in competition with many other European, American, Australasian and even Far Eastern nations for the stuff.

This competitive world market suggests high prices for wood pellet and unreliable supply.

These considerations, among others, lie behind Banks' and other investors' reluctance to fund Helius' other planned 100Mw wood burning power station project at Avonmouth.
Spot on Dan, there is certainly many questions to be answered over the substainabilty of Biomass Plants of this size.
[quote][p][bold]Danae[/bold] wrote: Only really quite small power generation plants can be supported by local timber sourcing. They may be appropriate up to about 7Kwh in remote off grid locations (for example at a Whisky distillery). This is a scenario which Scotland seems to be moving towards while discouraging large power stations reliant on imported wood pellet. The UK only produces 10 million tons a year of timber overall, which goes for construction, furniture making and other uses. We have in addition always imported very much more timber than this; for similar uses. Already, with the rather uncontrolled expansion of wood burning in English power stations we have Drax, Tilbury and soon Ironbridge each burning up to 7 million tons a year, or a bit more, of imported wood pellet. Several other stations, including Didcot (till all but the gas fired station on site closes) and Kingsnorth (Kent) are co-firing with imported wood pellet as well. Projected c 2018 UK power station imported wood pellet consumption is in the 60 million to 80 million tons pa range. Certainly unsustainable. The world market for wood pellet could get well out of hand, especially when one considers that we are in competition with many other European, American, Australasian and even Far Eastern nations for the stuff. This competitive world market suggests high prices for wood pellet and unreliable supply. These considerations, among others, lie behind Banks' and other investors' reluctance to fund Helius' other planned 100Mw wood burning power station project at Avonmouth.[/p][/quote]Spot on Dan, there is certainly many questions to be answered over the substainabilty of Biomass Plants of this size. skin2000

4:46pm Sun 7 Oct 12

The Wickham Man says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Fawley Power Station no brainer.
Brainer. You have to build the deepwater quay to land the woodchip, and the railway if you want to bring in domestic fuel supplies.. At the moment there is just a sluice channel and acres of mud there to be dredged.
Anyway there is more chance of getting fallout from a Fawley location than there is from the docks. Why on earth would you want it built down there?
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: Fawley Power Station no brainer.[/p][/quote]Brainer. You have to build the deepwater quay to land the woodchip, and the railway if you want to bring in domestic fuel supplies.. At the moment there is just a sluice channel and acres of mud there to be dredged. Anyway there is more chance of getting fallout from a Fawley location than there is from the docks. Why on earth would you want it built down there? The Wickham Man

4:55pm Sun 7 Oct 12

geoff51 says...

Stillness wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Fatty x Ford Worker wrote:
Dibden Bay a ideal site !
We dont want your crap on the Waterside just because you dont wan it in your backyard, we are fed up of being the dumping ground for Southampton's rubbish.
If you want it build it in your backyard not ours!
I thought it was our backyard ;-)
No its not your backyard, its Hampshire County not Southampton city and as such you have no legal right to it.
Just because you filled your backyard with rubbish you are not goingto start on ours.
When you seperated Southampton from Hampshire by becoming a unitary authority you forfeited any rights to control anything outside your boundaries so if you want, it stick your biomass in your rear yard
[quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fatty x Ford Worker[/bold] wrote: Dibden Bay a ideal site ![/p][/quote]We dont want your crap on the Waterside just because you dont wan it in your backyard, we are fed up of being the dumping ground for Southampton's rubbish. If you want it build it in your backyard not ours![/p][/quote]I thought it was our backyard ;-)[/p][/quote]No its not your backyard, its Hampshire County not Southampton city and as such you have no legal right to it. Just because you filled your backyard with rubbish you are not goingto start on ours. When you seperated Southampton from Hampshire by becoming a unitary authority you forfeited any rights to control anything outside your boundaries so if you want, it stick your biomass in your rear yard geoff51

5:06pm Sun 7 Oct 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

skin2000 wrote:
Danae wrote:
Only really quite small power generation plants can be supported by local timber sourcing.

They may be appropriate up to about 7Kwh in remote off grid locations (for example at a Whisky distillery).

This is a scenario which Scotland seems to be moving towards while discouraging large power stations
reliant on imported wood pellet.

The UK only produces 10 million tons a year of timber overall, which goes for construction, furniture making and other uses. We have in addition always imported very much more timber than this; for similar uses.

Already, with the rather uncontrolled expansion of wood burning in English power stations we have Drax, Tilbury and soon Ironbridge each burning up to 7 million tons a year, or a bit more, of imported wood pellet.

Several other stations, including Didcot (till all but the gas fired station on site closes) and Kingsnorth (Kent) are co-firing with imported wood pellet as well.

Projected c 2018 UK power station imported wood pellet consumption is in the 60 million to 80 million tons pa range. Certainly unsustainable.

The world market for wood pellet could get well out of hand, especially when one considers that we are in competition with many other European, American, Australasian and even Far Eastern nations for the stuff.

This competitive world market suggests high prices for wood pellet and unreliable supply.

These considerations, among others, lie behind Banks' and other investors' reluctance to fund Helius' other planned 100Mw wood burning power station project at Avonmouth.
Spot on Dan, there is certainly many questions to be answered over the substainabilty of Biomass Plants of this size.
It isn't spot on, and you are only saying this because it happens to fit your preexisting prejudice,but it's a reasonable post. The benefit of biomass as a fuel is that it does not have to be a primary crop. Danae have made the mistake (again) of citing primary production figures and not considering secondary. The second major miscalculation in Danae's figures is that do not consider supplies growing to meet demand. UK primary timber production stands at around 8m tonnes, but is delimited by economic not physical limits, and could be lifted to 12m tonnes pa within 5 years without too much effort if domestic demand warants this. But the significance of this is not the 4m tonnes of additional timber but the 25-40% of the tree that is currently wasted which is the best example of beneficial biomass - roots branches and tops currently wasted. (Hay and straw are also biomass by products, and the waste from biofuel (biodiesel) production is currently used only as animal feed).
I agree with Danae that there is very little chance that this plant will run 24x7. The energy pricing market (subsidising renewables more than any other supply despite erroneous claims in the column) suggests it will run 4-6 hours per day and as standby for other demand surges and other peak times (half time in Televised football matches is a typical headache) . The 800kt pa demand figure is flying a kite for investors. I suspect this plant would actually consume around 200kt pa though that is immaterial to closed minds.
[quote][p][bold]skin2000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Danae[/bold] wrote: Only really quite small power generation plants can be supported by local timber sourcing. They may be appropriate up to about 7Kwh in remote off grid locations (for example at a Whisky distillery). This is a scenario which Scotland seems to be moving towards while discouraging large power stations reliant on imported wood pellet. The UK only produces 10 million tons a year of timber overall, which goes for construction, furniture making and other uses. We have in addition always imported very much more timber than this; for similar uses. Already, with the rather uncontrolled expansion of wood burning in English power stations we have Drax, Tilbury and soon Ironbridge each burning up to 7 million tons a year, or a bit more, of imported wood pellet. Several other stations, including Didcot (till all but the gas fired station on site closes) and Kingsnorth (Kent) are co-firing with imported wood pellet as well. Projected c 2018 UK power station imported wood pellet consumption is in the 60 million to 80 million tons pa range. Certainly unsustainable. The world market for wood pellet could get well out of hand, especially when one considers that we are in competition with many other European, American, Australasian and even Far Eastern nations for the stuff. This competitive world market suggests high prices for wood pellet and unreliable supply. These considerations, among others, lie behind Banks' and other investors' reluctance to fund Helius' other planned 100Mw wood burning power station project at Avonmouth.[/p][/quote]Spot on Dan, there is certainly many questions to be answered over the substainabilty of Biomass Plants of this size.[/p][/quote]It isn't spot on, and you are only saying this because it happens to fit your preexisting prejudice,but it's a reasonable post. The benefit of biomass as a fuel is that it does not have to be a primary crop. Danae have made the mistake (again) of citing primary production figures and not considering secondary. The second major miscalculation in Danae's figures is that do not consider supplies growing to meet demand. UK primary timber production stands at around 8m tonnes, but is delimited by economic not physical limits, and could be lifted to 12m tonnes pa within 5 years without too much effort if domestic demand warants this. But the significance of this is not the 4m tonnes of additional timber but the 25-40% of the tree that is currently wasted which is the best example of beneficial biomass - roots branches and tops currently wasted. (Hay and straw are also biomass by products, and the waste from biofuel (biodiesel) production is currently used only as animal feed). I agree with Danae that there is very little chance that this plant will run 24x7. The energy pricing market (subsidising renewables more than any other supply despite erroneous claims in the column) suggests it will run 4-6 hours per day and as standby for other demand surges and other peak times (half time in Televised football matches is a typical headache) . The 800kt pa demand figure is flying a kite for investors. I suspect this plant would actually consume around 200kt pa though that is immaterial to closed minds. Andy Locks Heath

5:12pm Sun 7 Oct 12

skin2000 says...

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
skin2000 wrote:
Danae wrote:
Only really quite small power generation plants can be supported by local timber sourcing.

They may be appropriate up to about 7Kwh in remote off grid locations (for example at a Whisky distillery).

This is a scenario which Scotland seems to be moving towards while discouraging large power stations
reliant on imported wood pellet.

The UK only produces 10 million tons a year of timber overall, which goes for construction, furniture making and other uses. We have in addition always imported very much more timber than this; for similar uses.

Already, with the rather uncontrolled expansion of wood burning in English power stations we have Drax, Tilbury and soon Ironbridge each burning up to 7 million tons a year, or a bit more, of imported wood pellet.

Several other stations, including Didcot (till all but the gas fired station on site closes) and Kingsnorth (Kent) are co-firing with imported wood pellet as well.

Projected c 2018 UK power station imported wood pellet consumption is in the 60 million to 80 million tons pa range. Certainly unsustainable.

The world market for wood pellet could get well out of hand, especially when one considers that we are in competition with many other European, American, Australasian and even Far Eastern nations for the stuff.

This competitive world market suggests high prices for wood pellet and unreliable supply.

These considerations, among others, lie behind Banks' and other investors' reluctance to fund Helius' other planned 100Mw wood burning power station project at Avonmouth.
Spot on Dan, there is certainly many questions to be answered over the substainabilty of Biomass Plants of this size.
It isn't spot on, and you are only saying this because it happens to fit your preexisting prejudice,but it's a reasonable post. The benefit of biomass as a fuel is that it does not have to be a primary crop. Danae have made the mistake (again) of citing primary production figures and not considering secondary. The second major miscalculation in Danae's figures is that do not consider supplies growing to meet demand. UK primary timber production stands at around 8m tonnes, but is delimited by economic not physical limits, and could be lifted to 12m tonnes pa within 5 years without too much effort if domestic demand warants this. But the significance of this is not the 4m tonnes of additional timber but the 25-40% of the tree that is currently wasted which is the best example of beneficial biomass - roots branches and tops currently wasted. (Hay and straw are also biomass by products, and the waste from biofuel (biodiesel) production is currently used only as animal feed).
I agree with Danae that there is very little chance that this plant will run 24x7. The energy pricing market (subsidising renewables more than any other supply despite erroneous claims in the column) suggests it will run 4-6 hours per day and as standby for other demand surges and other peak times (half time in Televised football matches is a typical headache) . The 800kt pa demand figure is flying a kite for investors. I suspect this plant would actually consume around 200kt pa though that is immaterial to closed minds.
You say that is not spot on because of your preexisting prejudice. In my opinion it is spot on.
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]skin2000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Danae[/bold] wrote: Only really quite small power generation plants can be supported by local timber sourcing. They may be appropriate up to about 7Kwh in remote off grid locations (for example at a Whisky distillery). This is a scenario which Scotland seems to be moving towards while discouraging large power stations reliant on imported wood pellet. The UK only produces 10 million tons a year of timber overall, which goes for construction, furniture making and other uses. We have in addition always imported very much more timber than this; for similar uses. Already, with the rather uncontrolled expansion of wood burning in English power stations we have Drax, Tilbury and soon Ironbridge each burning up to 7 million tons a year, or a bit more, of imported wood pellet. Several other stations, including Didcot (till all but the gas fired station on site closes) and Kingsnorth (Kent) are co-firing with imported wood pellet as well. Projected c 2018 UK power station imported wood pellet consumption is in the 60 million to 80 million tons pa range. Certainly unsustainable. The world market for wood pellet could get well out of hand, especially when one considers that we are in competition with many other European, American, Australasian and even Far Eastern nations for the stuff. This competitive world market suggests high prices for wood pellet and unreliable supply. These considerations, among others, lie behind Banks' and other investors' reluctance to fund Helius' other planned 100Mw wood burning power station project at Avonmouth.[/p][/quote]Spot on Dan, there is certainly many questions to be answered over the substainabilty of Biomass Plants of this size.[/p][/quote]It isn't spot on, and you are only saying this because it happens to fit your preexisting prejudice,but it's a reasonable post. The benefit of biomass as a fuel is that it does not have to be a primary crop. Danae have made the mistake (again) of citing primary production figures and not considering secondary. The second major miscalculation in Danae's figures is that do not consider supplies growing to meet demand. UK primary timber production stands at around 8m tonnes, but is delimited by economic not physical limits, and could be lifted to 12m tonnes pa within 5 years without too much effort if domestic demand warants this. But the significance of this is not the 4m tonnes of additional timber but the 25-40% of the tree that is currently wasted which is the best example of beneficial biomass - roots branches and tops currently wasted. (Hay and straw are also biomass by products, and the waste from biofuel (biodiesel) production is currently used only as animal feed). I agree with Danae that there is very little chance that this plant will run 24x7. The energy pricing market (subsidising renewables more than any other supply despite erroneous claims in the column) suggests it will run 4-6 hours per day and as standby for other demand surges and other peak times (half time in Televised football matches is a typical headache) . The 800kt pa demand figure is flying a kite for investors. I suspect this plant would actually consume around 200kt pa though that is immaterial to closed minds.[/p][/quote]You say that is not spot on because of your preexisting prejudice. In my opinion it is spot on. skin2000

5:15pm Sun 7 Oct 12

freefinker says...

Linesman wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Fawley Power Station no brainer.
Your right. A no brainer. Only someone with no brain would consider it.

The power station produced power by gas, not solid fuel.

For this reason, it would not be economic sense to convert it to solid fuel.

It is sited about half a mile from the banks of the Southampton Water, and as it was gas powered, there was no requirement for berthing facilities.

The cost of building berthing facilities to unload the fuel for a biomass facility, across a large area of marshland would be prohibitive.

Like you say.

A NO BRAINER.
.. er, actually, it was oil-fired.

But, your reasoning is still OK - gas and oil are both pumped through pipes.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: Fawley Power Station no brainer.[/p][/quote]Your right. A no brainer. Only someone with no brain would consider it. The power station produced power by gas, not solid fuel. For this reason, it would not be economic sense to convert it to solid fuel. It is sited about half a mile from the banks of the Southampton Water, and as it was gas powered, there was no requirement for berthing facilities. The cost of building berthing facilities to unload the fuel for a biomass facility, across a large area of marshland would be prohibitive. Like you say. A NO BRAINER.[/p][/quote].. er, actually, it was oil-fired. But, your reasoning is still OK - gas and oil are both pumped through pipes. freefinker

5:36pm Sun 7 Oct 12

freefinker says...

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
skin2000 wrote:
Danae wrote:
Only really quite small power generation plants can be supported by local timber sourcing.

They may be appropriate up to about 7Kwh in remote off grid locations (for example at a Whisky distillery).

This is a scenario which Scotland seems to be moving towards while discouraging large power stations
reliant on imported wood pellet.

The UK only produces 10 million tons a year of timber overall, which goes for construction, furniture making and other uses. We have in addition always imported very much more timber than this; for similar uses.

Already, with the rather uncontrolled expansion of wood burning in English power stations we have Drax, Tilbury and soon Ironbridge each burning up to 7 million tons a year, or a bit more, of imported wood pellet.

Several other stations, including Didcot (till all but the gas fired station on site closes) and Kingsnorth (Kent) are co-firing with imported wood pellet as well.

Projected c 2018 UK power station imported wood pellet consumption is in the 60 million to 80 million tons pa range. Certainly unsustainable.

The world market for wood pellet could get well out of hand, especially when one considers that we are in competition with many other European, American, Australasian and even Far Eastern nations for the stuff.

This competitive world market suggests high prices for wood pellet and unreliable supply.

These considerations, among others, lie behind Banks' and other investors' reluctance to fund Helius' other planned 100Mw wood burning power station project at Avonmouth.
Spot on Dan, there is certainly many questions to be answered over the substainabilty of Biomass Plants of this size.
It isn't spot on, and you are only saying this because it happens to fit your preexisting prejudice,but it's a reasonable post. The benefit of biomass as a fuel is that it does not have to be a primary crop. Danae have made the mistake (again) of citing primary production figures and not considering secondary. The second major miscalculation in Danae's figures is that do not consider supplies growing to meet demand. UK primary timber production stands at around 8m tonnes, but is delimited by economic not physical limits, and could be lifted to 12m tonnes pa within 5 years without too much effort if domestic demand warants this. But the significance of this is not the 4m tonnes of additional timber but the 25-40% of the tree that is currently wasted which is the best example of beneficial biomass - roots branches and tops currently wasted. (Hay and straw are also biomass by products, and the waste from biofuel (biodiesel) production is currently used only as animal feed).
I agree with Danae that there is very little chance that this plant will run 24x7. The energy pricing market (subsidising renewables more than any other supply despite erroneous claims in the column) suggests it will run 4-6 hours per day and as standby for other demand surges and other peak times (half time in Televised football matches is a typical headache) . The 800kt pa demand figure is flying a kite for investors. I suspect this plant would actually consume around 200kt pa though that is immaterial to closed minds.
We have been through this before, haven’t we?

The UK has been a timber importer for probably at least the last century. That is, there has consistently been MORE domestic demand for timber than our native forestry industry has been able to supply.

So, when you say domestic production “could be lifted to 12m tonnes pa within 5 years without too much effort if domestic demand warants this” you are yet again living in cloud cuckoo land. It has not happened in the past, despite the ever present demand.

Your consistent pro-industry ‘business as usual’ attitude is no help or solution to the real problems this planet faces. In fact it is the powerful and influential industry lobbyists that consistently pressurises governments from taking the necessary actions that the scientific evidence clearly demonstrates are essential if we are to save this planet from the effects of serious and debilitating climate change.
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]skin2000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Danae[/bold] wrote: Only really quite small power generation plants can be supported by local timber sourcing. They may be appropriate up to about 7Kwh in remote off grid locations (for example at a Whisky distillery). This is a scenario which Scotland seems to be moving towards while discouraging large power stations reliant on imported wood pellet. The UK only produces 10 million tons a year of timber overall, which goes for construction, furniture making and other uses. We have in addition always imported very much more timber than this; for similar uses. Already, with the rather uncontrolled expansion of wood burning in English power stations we have Drax, Tilbury and soon Ironbridge each burning up to 7 million tons a year, or a bit more, of imported wood pellet. Several other stations, including Didcot (till all but the gas fired station on site closes) and Kingsnorth (Kent) are co-firing with imported wood pellet as well. Projected c 2018 UK power station imported wood pellet consumption is in the 60 million to 80 million tons pa range. Certainly unsustainable. The world market for wood pellet could get well out of hand, especially when one considers that we are in competition with many other European, American, Australasian and even Far Eastern nations for the stuff. This competitive world market suggests high prices for wood pellet and unreliable supply. These considerations, among others, lie behind Banks' and other investors' reluctance to fund Helius' other planned 100Mw wood burning power station project at Avonmouth.[/p][/quote]Spot on Dan, there is certainly many questions to be answered over the substainabilty of Biomass Plants of this size.[/p][/quote]It isn't spot on, and you are only saying this because it happens to fit your preexisting prejudice,but it's a reasonable post. The benefit of biomass as a fuel is that it does not have to be a primary crop. Danae have made the mistake (again) of citing primary production figures and not considering secondary. The second major miscalculation in Danae's figures is that do not consider supplies growing to meet demand. UK primary timber production stands at around 8m tonnes, but is delimited by economic not physical limits, and could be lifted to 12m tonnes pa within 5 years without too much effort if domestic demand warants this. But the significance of this is not the 4m tonnes of additional timber but the 25-40% of the tree that is currently wasted which is the best example of beneficial biomass - roots branches and tops currently wasted. (Hay and straw are also biomass by products, and the waste from biofuel (biodiesel) production is currently used only as animal feed). I agree with Danae that there is very little chance that this plant will run 24x7. The energy pricing market (subsidising renewables more than any other supply despite erroneous claims in the column) suggests it will run 4-6 hours per day and as standby for other demand surges and other peak times (half time in Televised football matches is a typical headache) . The 800kt pa demand figure is flying a kite for investors. I suspect this plant would actually consume around 200kt pa though that is immaterial to closed minds.[/p][/quote]We have been through this before, haven’t we? The UK has been a timber importer for probably at least the last century. That is, there has consistently been MORE domestic demand for timber than our native forestry industry has been able to supply. So, when you say domestic production “could be lifted to 12m tonnes pa within 5 years without too much effort if domestic demand warants this” you are yet again living in cloud cuckoo land. It has not happened in the past, despite the ever present demand. Your consistent pro-industry ‘business as usual’ attitude is no help or solution to the real problems this planet faces. In fact it is the powerful and influential industry lobbyists that consistently pressurises governments from taking the necessary actions that the scientific evidence clearly demonstrates are essential if we are to save this planet from the effects of serious and debilitating climate change. freefinker

5:39pm Sun 7 Oct 12

Stillness says...

geoff51 wrote:
Stillness wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Fatty x Ford Worker wrote:
Dibden Bay a ideal site !
We dont want your crap on the Waterside just because you dont wan it in your backyard, we are fed up of being the dumping ground for Southampton's rubbish.
If you want it build it in your backyard not ours!
I thought it was our backyard ;-)
No its not your backyard, its Hampshire County not Southampton city and as such you have no legal right to it.
Just because you filled your backyard with rubbish you are not goingto start on ours.
When you seperated Southampton from Hampshire by becoming a unitary authority you forfeited any rights to control anything outside your boundaries so if you want, it stick your biomass in your rear yard
Blimey! Touchy or what?
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fatty x Ford Worker[/bold] wrote: Dibden Bay a ideal site ![/p][/quote]We dont want your crap on the Waterside just because you dont wan it in your backyard, we are fed up of being the dumping ground for Southampton's rubbish. If you want it build it in your backyard not ours![/p][/quote]I thought it was our backyard ;-)[/p][/quote]No its not your backyard, its Hampshire County not Southampton city and as such you have no legal right to it. Just because you filled your backyard with rubbish you are not goingto start on ours. When you seperated Southampton from Hampshire by becoming a unitary authority you forfeited any rights to control anything outside your boundaries so if you want, it stick your biomass in your rear yard[/p][/quote]Blimey! Touchy or what? Stillness

5:50pm Sun 7 Oct 12

Niel says...

Bio-Mass needs a deep water berth for fuel delivery, plus good rail and road network access as well, so 'the waterside' isn't really an option, Southampton dock's fit's the bill perfectly as it has all three. It seems playing politics's is more important, and even IF it was on the waterside any pollution, which is unlikely, would still affect the city anyway!
It's not like they want to build another coal-fired chain-grate and very dirty power station, like the council ran in the past...
Bio-Mass needs a deep water berth for fuel delivery, plus good rail and road network access as well, so 'the waterside' isn't really an option, Southampton dock's fit's the bill perfectly as it has all three. It seems playing politics's is more important, and even IF it was on the waterside any pollution, which is unlikely, would still affect the city anyway! It's not like they want to build another coal-fired chain-grate and very dirty power station, like the council ran in the past... Niel

7:19pm Sun 7 Oct 12

Sir Ad E Noid says...

southy wrote:
G0Rf wrote:
does the plant benefit to local residents?
If not build it a little further east down the M27
No benefits to locals or to the people of Southampton, it would have the same amount of benefit if it was built in york, when built it will be tied into the national grid
That single comment about it being built in Southampton or York shows to me you do not under stand what you are talking about. Why was Marchwood Built (The old and new stations)? Why the new ones at Marchwood? Why the newish station in Fawley Refinery? Why build Fawley Power Station in the 60s and 70s? Any ideas Southy?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G0Rf[/bold] wrote: does the plant benefit to local residents? If not build it a little further east down the M27[/p][/quote]No benefits to locals or to the people of Southampton, it would have the same amount of benefit if it was built in york, when built it will be tied into the national grid[/p][/quote]That single comment about it being built in Southampton or York shows to me you do not under stand what you are talking about. Why was Marchwood Built (The old and new stations)? Why the new ones at Marchwood? Why the newish station in Fawley Refinery? Why build Fawley Power Station in the 60s and 70s? Any ideas Southy? Sir Ad E Noid

7:25pm Sun 7 Oct 12

Sir Ad E Noid says...

Fatty x Ford Worker wrote:
Dibden Bay a ideal site !
This site is reserved for the much needed Docks expansion for the prosperity and employment in the region.. Do you really think that they would allow a power Station to be built on it? I don't think so.
[quote][p][bold]Fatty x Ford Worker[/bold] wrote: Dibden Bay a ideal site ![/p][/quote]This site is reserved for the much needed Docks expansion for the prosperity and employment in the region.. Do you really think that they would allow a power Station to be built on it? I don't think so. Sir Ad E Noid

7:31pm Sun 7 Oct 12

geoff51 says...

Stillness wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Stillness wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Fatty x Ford Worker wrote:
Dibden Bay a ideal site !
We dont want your crap on the Waterside just because you dont wan it in your backyard, we are fed up of being the dumping ground for Southampton's rubbish.
If you want it build it in your backyard not ours!
I thought it was our backyard ;-)
No its not your backyard, its Hampshire County not Southampton city and as such you have no legal right to it.
Just because you filled your backyard with rubbish you are not goingto start on ours.
When you seperated Southampton from Hampshire by becoming a unitary authority you forfeited any rights to control anything outside your boundaries so if you want, it stick your biomass in your rear yard
Blimey! Touchy or what?
Not touchy, just fed up with every time the nimbys in Southampton decide they dont want it in their City, its a case of 'Lets dump it in the Waterside'
The Waterside has enough of its own industry with Fawley and Marchwood, we dont want your biomass and we definitely dont want Dibden bay developed as part of the Docks.
Put your rubbish in your back yard, Try Lordhill or Thornhill they are both dumps already!
[quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fatty x Ford Worker[/bold] wrote: Dibden Bay a ideal site ![/p][/quote]We dont want your crap on the Waterside just because you dont wan it in your backyard, we are fed up of being the dumping ground for Southampton's rubbish. If you want it build it in your backyard not ours![/p][/quote]I thought it was our backyard ;-)[/p][/quote]No its not your backyard, its Hampshire County not Southampton city and as such you have no legal right to it. Just because you filled your backyard with rubbish you are not goingto start on ours. When you seperated Southampton from Hampshire by becoming a unitary authority you forfeited any rights to control anything outside your boundaries so if you want, it stick your biomass in your rear yard[/p][/quote]Blimey! Touchy or what?[/p][/quote]Not touchy, just fed up with every time the nimbys in Southampton decide they dont want it in their City, its a case of 'Lets dump it in the Waterside' The Waterside has enough of its own industry with Fawley and Marchwood, we dont want your biomass and we definitely dont want Dibden bay developed as part of the Docks. Put your rubbish in your back yard, Try Lordhill or Thornhill they are both dumps already! geoff51

7:40pm Sun 7 Oct 12

Sir Ad E Noid says...

geoff51 wrote:
Stillness wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Stillness wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Fatty x Ford Worker wrote:
Dibden Bay a ideal site !
We dont want your crap on the Waterside just because you dont wan it in your backyard, we are fed up of being the dumping ground for Southampton's rubbish.
If you want it build it in your backyard not ours!
I thought it was our backyard ;-)
No its not your backyard, its Hampshire County not Southampton city and as such you have no legal right to it.
Just because you filled your backyard with rubbish you are not goingto start on ours.
When you seperated Southampton from Hampshire by becoming a unitary authority you forfeited any rights to control anything outside your boundaries so if you want, it stick your biomass in your rear yard
Blimey! Touchy or what?
Not touchy, just fed up with every time the nimbys in Southampton decide they dont want it in their City, its a case of 'Lets dump it in the Waterside'
The Waterside has enough of its own industry with Fawley and Marchwood, we dont want your biomass and we definitely dont want Dibden bay developed as part of the Docks.
Put your rubbish in your back yard, Try Lordhill or Thornhill they are both dumps already!
I live and work on the Waterside. Bring on Dibden Bay, the area needs the employment. If you don't like it, move somewhere else.
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fatty x Ford Worker[/bold] wrote: Dibden Bay a ideal site ![/p][/quote]We dont want your crap on the Waterside just because you dont wan it in your backyard, we are fed up of being the dumping ground for Southampton's rubbish. If you want it build it in your backyard not ours![/p][/quote]I thought it was our backyard ;-)[/p][/quote]No its not your backyard, its Hampshire County not Southampton city and as such you have no legal right to it. Just because you filled your backyard with rubbish you are not goingto start on ours. When you seperated Southampton from Hampshire by becoming a unitary authority you forfeited any rights to control anything outside your boundaries so if you want, it stick your biomass in your rear yard[/p][/quote]Blimey! Touchy or what?[/p][/quote]Not touchy, just fed up with every time the nimbys in Southampton decide they dont want it in their City, its a case of 'Lets dump it in the Waterside' The Waterside has enough of its own industry with Fawley and Marchwood, we dont want your biomass and we definitely dont want Dibden bay developed as part of the Docks. Put your rubbish in your back yard, Try Lordhill or Thornhill they are both dumps already![/p][/quote]I live and work on the Waterside. Bring on Dibden Bay, the area needs the employment. If you don't like it, move somewhere else. Sir Ad E Noid

8:00pm Sun 7 Oct 12

Stillness says...

geoff51 wrote:
Stillness wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Stillness wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Fatty x Ford Worker wrote:
Dibden Bay a ideal site !
We dont want your crap on the Waterside just because you dont wan it in your backyard, we are fed up of being the dumping ground for Southampton's rubbish.
If you want it build it in your backyard not ours!
I thought it was our backyard ;-)
No its not your backyard, its Hampshire County not Southampton city and as such you have no legal right to it.
Just because you filled your backyard with rubbish you are not goingto start on ours.
When you seperated Southampton from Hampshire by becoming a unitary authority you forfeited any rights to control anything outside your boundaries so if you want, it stick your biomass in your rear yard
Blimey! Touchy or what?
Not touchy, just fed up with every time the nimbys in Southampton decide they dont want it in their City, its a case of 'Lets dump it in the Waterside'
The Waterside has enough of its own industry with Fawley and Marchwood, we dont want your biomass and we definitely dont want Dibden bay developed as part of the Docks.
Put your rubbish in your back yard, Try Lordhill or Thornhill they are both dumps already!
Can we compromise and stick it in Hythe?
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fatty x Ford Worker[/bold] wrote: Dibden Bay a ideal site ![/p][/quote]We dont want your crap on the Waterside just because you dont wan it in your backyard, we are fed up of being the dumping ground for Southampton's rubbish. If you want it build it in your backyard not ours![/p][/quote]I thought it was our backyard ;-)[/p][/quote]No its not your backyard, its Hampshire County not Southampton city and as such you have no legal right to it. Just because you filled your backyard with rubbish you are not goingto start on ours. When you seperated Southampton from Hampshire by becoming a unitary authority you forfeited any rights to control anything outside your boundaries so if you want, it stick your biomass in your rear yard[/p][/quote]Blimey! Touchy or what?[/p][/quote]Not touchy, just fed up with every time the nimbys in Southampton decide they dont want it in their City, its a case of 'Lets dump it in the Waterside' The Waterside has enough of its own industry with Fawley and Marchwood, we dont want your biomass and we definitely dont want Dibden bay developed as part of the Docks. Put your rubbish in your back yard, Try Lordhill or Thornhill they are both dumps already![/p][/quote]Can we compromise and stick it in Hythe? Stillness

8:22pm Sun 7 Oct 12

geoff51 says...

Sir Ad E Noid wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Stillness wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Stillness wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Fatty x Ford Worker wrote:
Dibden Bay a ideal site !
We dont want your crap on the Waterside just because you dont wan it in your backyard, we are fed up of being the dumping ground for Southampton's rubbish.
If you want it build it in your backyard not ours!
I thought it was our backyard ;-)
No its not your backyard, its Hampshire County not Southampton city and as such you have no legal right to it.
Just because you filled your backyard with rubbish you are not goingto start on ours.
When you seperated Southampton from Hampshire by becoming a unitary authority you forfeited any rights to control anything outside your boundaries so if you want, it stick your biomass in your rear yard
Blimey! Touchy or what?
Not touchy, just fed up with every time the nimbys in Southampton decide they dont want it in their City, its a case of 'Lets dump it in the Waterside'
The Waterside has enough of its own industry with Fawley and Marchwood, we dont want your biomass and we definitely dont want Dibden bay developed as part of the Docks.
Put your rubbish in your back yard, Try Lordhill or Thornhill they are both dumps already!
I live and work on the Waterside. Bring on Dibden Bay, the area needs the employment. If you don't like it, move somewhere else.
I do and I dont!
[quote][p][bold]Sir Ad E Noid[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fatty x Ford Worker[/bold] wrote: Dibden Bay a ideal site ![/p][/quote]We dont want your crap on the Waterside just because you dont wan it in your backyard, we are fed up of being the dumping ground for Southampton's rubbish. If you want it build it in your backyard not ours![/p][/quote]I thought it was our backyard ;-)[/p][/quote]No its not your backyard, its Hampshire County not Southampton city and as such you have no legal right to it. Just because you filled your backyard with rubbish you are not goingto start on ours. When you seperated Southampton from Hampshire by becoming a unitary authority you forfeited any rights to control anything outside your boundaries so if you want, it stick your biomass in your rear yard[/p][/quote]Blimey! Touchy or what?[/p][/quote]Not touchy, just fed up with every time the nimbys in Southampton decide they dont want it in their City, its a case of 'Lets dump it in the Waterside' The Waterside has enough of its own industry with Fawley and Marchwood, we dont want your biomass and we definitely dont want Dibden bay developed as part of the Docks. Put your rubbish in your back yard, Try Lordhill or Thornhill they are both dumps already![/p][/quote]I live and work on the Waterside. Bring on Dibden Bay, the area needs the employment. If you don't like it, move somewhere else.[/p][/quote]I do and I dont! geoff51

8:26pm Sun 7 Oct 12

geoff51 says...

Stillness wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Stillness wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Stillness wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Fatty x Ford Worker wrote:
Dibden Bay a ideal site !
We dont want your crap on the Waterside just because you dont wan it in your backyard, we are fed up of being the dumping ground for Southampton's rubbish.
If you want it build it in your backyard not ours!
I thought it was our backyard ;-)
No its not your backyard, its Hampshire County not Southampton city and as such you have no legal right to it.
Just because you filled your backyard with rubbish you are not goingto start on ours.
When you seperated Southampton from Hampshire by becoming a unitary authority you forfeited any rights to control anything outside your boundaries so if you want, it stick your biomass in your rear yard
Blimey! Touchy or what?
Not touchy, just fed up with every time the nimbys in Southampton decide they dont want it in their City, its a case of 'Lets dump it in the Waterside'
The Waterside has enough of its own industry with Fawley and Marchwood, we dont want your biomass and we definitely dont want Dibden bay developed as part of the Docks.
Put your rubbish in your back yard, Try Lordhill or Thornhill they are both dumps already!
Can we compromise and stick it in Hythe?
We can compromise and stick it where the sun dont shine! namely Woolston!
[quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fatty x Ford Worker[/bold] wrote: Dibden Bay a ideal site ![/p][/quote]We dont want your crap on the Waterside just because you dont wan it in your backyard, we are fed up of being the dumping ground for Southampton's rubbish. If you want it build it in your backyard not ours![/p][/quote]I thought it was our backyard ;-)[/p][/quote]No its not your backyard, its Hampshire County not Southampton city and as such you have no legal right to it. Just because you filled your backyard with rubbish you are not goingto start on ours. When you seperated Southampton from Hampshire by becoming a unitary authority you forfeited any rights to control anything outside your boundaries so if you want, it stick your biomass in your rear yard[/p][/quote]Blimey! Touchy or what?[/p][/quote]Not touchy, just fed up with every time the nimbys in Southampton decide they dont want it in their City, its a case of 'Lets dump it in the Waterside' The Waterside has enough of its own industry with Fawley and Marchwood, we dont want your biomass and we definitely dont want Dibden bay developed as part of the Docks. Put your rubbish in your back yard, Try Lordhill or Thornhill they are both dumps already![/p][/quote]Can we compromise and stick it in Hythe?[/p][/quote]We can compromise and stick it where the sun dont shine! namely Woolston! geoff51

8:45pm Sun 7 Oct 12

Sir Ad E Noid says...

geoff51 wrote:
Sir Ad E Noid wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Stillness wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Stillness wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Fatty x Ford Worker wrote:
Dibden Bay a ideal site !
We dont want your crap on the Waterside just because you dont wan it in your backyard, we are fed up of being the dumping ground for Southampton's rubbish.
If you want it build it in your backyard not ours!
I thought it was our backyard ;-)
No its not your backyard, its Hampshire County not Southampton city and as such you have no legal right to it.
Just because you filled your backyard with rubbish you are not goingto start on ours.
When you seperated Southampton from Hampshire by becoming a unitary authority you forfeited any rights to control anything outside your boundaries so if you want, it stick your biomass in your rear yard
Blimey! Touchy or what?
Not touchy, just fed up with every time the nimbys in Southampton decide they dont want it in their City, its a case of 'Lets dump it in the Waterside'
The Waterside has enough of its own industry with Fawley and Marchwood, we dont want your biomass and we definitely dont want Dibden bay developed as part of the Docks.
Put your rubbish in your back yard, Try Lordhill or Thornhill they are both dumps already!
I live and work on the Waterside. Bring on Dibden Bay, the area needs the employment. If you don't like it, move somewhere else.
I do and I dont!
I thought it would take longer to get that nugget. Thanks.
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sir Ad E Noid[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fatty x Ford Worker[/bold] wrote: Dibden Bay a ideal site ![/p][/quote]We dont want your crap on the Waterside just because you dont wan it in your backyard, we are fed up of being the dumping ground for Southampton's rubbish. If you want it build it in your backyard not ours![/p][/quote]I thought it was our backyard ;-)[/p][/quote]No its not your backyard, its Hampshire County not Southampton city and as such you have no legal right to it. Just because you filled your backyard with rubbish you are not goingto start on ours. When you seperated Southampton from Hampshire by becoming a unitary authority you forfeited any rights to control anything outside your boundaries so if you want, it stick your biomass in your rear yard[/p][/quote]Blimey! Touchy or what?[/p][/quote]Not touchy, just fed up with every time the nimbys in Southampton decide they dont want it in their City, its a case of 'Lets dump it in the Waterside' The Waterside has enough of its own industry with Fawley and Marchwood, we dont want your biomass and we definitely dont want Dibden bay developed as part of the Docks. Put your rubbish in your back yard, Try Lordhill or Thornhill they are both dumps already![/p][/quote]I live and work on the Waterside. Bring on Dibden Bay, the area needs the employment. If you don't like it, move somewhere else.[/p][/quote]I do and I dont![/p][/quote]I thought it would take longer to get that nugget. Thanks. Sir Ad E Noid

8:55pm Sun 7 Oct 12

Stillness says...

geoff51 wrote:
Stillness wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Stillness wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Stillness wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Fatty x Ford Worker wrote:
Dibden Bay a ideal site !
We dont want your crap on the Waterside just because you dont wan it in your backyard, we are fed up of being the dumping ground for Southampton's rubbish.
If you want it build it in your backyard not ours!
I thought it was our backyard ;-)
No its not your backyard, its Hampshire County not Southampton city and as such you have no legal right to it.
Just because you filled your backyard with rubbish you are not goingto start on ours.
When you seperated Southampton from Hampshire by becoming a unitary authority you forfeited any rights to control anything outside your boundaries so if you want, it stick your biomass in your rear yard
Blimey! Touchy or what?
Not touchy, just fed up with every time the nimbys in Southampton decide they dont want it in their City, its a case of 'Lets dump it in the Waterside'
The Waterside has enough of its own industry with Fawley and Marchwood, we dont want your biomass and we definitely dont want Dibden bay developed as part of the Docks.
Put your rubbish in your back yard, Try Lordhill or Thornhill they are both dumps already!
Can we compromise and stick it in Hythe?
We can compromise and stick it where the sun dont shine! namely Woolston!
Fine by me. I live in Swanwick.
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fatty x Ford Worker[/bold] wrote: Dibden Bay a ideal site ![/p][/quote]We dont want your crap on the Waterside just because you dont wan it in your backyard, we are fed up of being the dumping ground for Southampton's rubbish. If you want it build it in your backyard not ours![/p][/quote]I thought it was our backyard ;-)[/p][/quote]No its not your backyard, its Hampshire County not Southampton city and as such you have no legal right to it. Just because you filled your backyard with rubbish you are not goingto start on ours. When you seperated Southampton from Hampshire by becoming a unitary authority you forfeited any rights to control anything outside your boundaries so if you want, it stick your biomass in your rear yard[/p][/quote]Blimey! Touchy or what?[/p][/quote]Not touchy, just fed up with every time the nimbys in Southampton decide they dont want it in their City, its a case of 'Lets dump it in the Waterside' The Waterside has enough of its own industry with Fawley and Marchwood, we dont want your biomass and we definitely dont want Dibden bay developed as part of the Docks. Put your rubbish in your back yard, Try Lordhill or Thornhill they are both dumps already![/p][/quote]Can we compromise and stick it in Hythe?[/p][/quote]We can compromise and stick it where the sun dont shine! namely Woolston![/p][/quote]Fine by me. I live in Swanwick. Stillness

9:03pm Sun 7 Oct 12

geoff51 says...

Stillness wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Stillness wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Stillness wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Stillness wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Fatty x Ford Worker wrote:
Dibden Bay a ideal site !
We dont want your crap on the Waterside just because you dont wan it in your backyard, we are fed up of being the dumping ground for Southampton's rubbish.
If you want it build it in your backyard not ours!
I thought it was our backyard ;-)
No its not your backyard, its Hampshire County not Southampton city and as such you have no legal right to it.
Just because you filled your backyard with rubbish you are not goingto start on ours.
When you seperated Southampton from Hampshire by becoming a unitary authority you forfeited any rights to control anything outside your boundaries so if you want, it stick your biomass in your rear yard
Blimey! Touchy or what?
Not touchy, just fed up with every time the nimbys in Southampton decide they dont want it in their City, its a case of 'Lets dump it in the Waterside'
The Waterside has enough of its own industry with Fawley and Marchwood, we dont want your biomass and we definitely dont want Dibden bay developed as part of the Docks.
Put your rubbish in your back yard, Try Lordhill or Thornhill they are both dumps already!
Can we compromise and stick it in Hythe?
We can compromise and stick it where the sun dont shine! namely Woolston!
Fine by me. I live in Swanwick.
Which is nearer to Woolston than Hythe
[quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fatty x Ford Worker[/bold] wrote: Dibden Bay a ideal site ![/p][/quote]We dont want your crap on the Waterside just because you dont wan it in your backyard, we are fed up of being the dumping ground for Southampton's rubbish. If you want it build it in your backyard not ours![/p][/quote]I thought it was our backyard ;-)[/p][/quote]No its not your backyard, its Hampshire County not Southampton city and as such you have no legal right to it. Just because you filled your backyard with rubbish you are not goingto start on ours. When you seperated Southampton from Hampshire by becoming a unitary authority you forfeited any rights to control anything outside your boundaries so if you want, it stick your biomass in your rear yard[/p][/quote]Blimey! Touchy or what?[/p][/quote]Not touchy, just fed up with every time the nimbys in Southampton decide they dont want it in their City, its a case of 'Lets dump it in the Waterside' The Waterside has enough of its own industry with Fawley and Marchwood, we dont want your biomass and we definitely dont want Dibden bay developed as part of the Docks. Put your rubbish in your back yard, Try Lordhill or Thornhill they are both dumps already![/p][/quote]Can we compromise and stick it in Hythe?[/p][/quote]We can compromise and stick it where the sun dont shine! namely Woolston![/p][/quote]Fine by me. I live in Swanwick.[/p][/quote]Which is nearer to Woolston than Hythe geoff51

9:06pm Sun 7 Oct 12

loosehead says...

skin2000 wrote:
loosehead wrote:
So exactly what's Williams saying?
We Want it.it's a good thing but not in my back yard ?
How can you say the position of it's proposed site is residential?
6 lanes of Traffic rail lines & a station then empty ground then the Site hardly comes under residential does it?
Is there a deep enough berth at Dibden?
Maybe build it on that piece of land as the locals don't want a dock built there?
No if it's okay to be built then why not on industrial land?
The port is industrial & I for one would rather see this building than a mountain of scrap metal
It is residential because there are houses near to the proposed plant.
NEAR?
6 lanes of traffic at least two rail way tracks how are they near when even after the pathway running alongside the tracks the proposed development is closer to the dock walls than the railway tracks?
Skin no way is this being built in a residential area or let's shut the docks as this must be in a residential area?
We here all the rubbish about wood & possible fires?
Were there the same complaints about the massive site Montague Le Meyers wood yard took up?
It was in the same docks as this proposal so why no complaints?
[quote][p][bold]skin2000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: So exactly what's Williams saying? We Want it.it's a good thing but not in my back yard ? How can you say the position of it's proposed site is residential? 6 lanes of Traffic rail lines & a station then empty ground then the Site hardly comes under residential does it? Is there a deep enough berth at Dibden? Maybe build it on that piece of land as the locals don't want a dock built there? No if it's okay to be built then why not on industrial land? The port is industrial & I for one would rather see this building than a mountain of scrap metal[/p][/quote]It is residential because there are houses near to the proposed plant.[/p][/quote]NEAR? 6 lanes of traffic at least two rail way tracks how are they near when even after the pathway running alongside the tracks the proposed development is closer to the dock walls than the railway tracks? Skin no way is this being built in a residential area or let's shut the docks as this must be in a residential area? We here all the rubbish about wood & possible fires? Were there the same complaints about the massive site Montague Le Meyers wood yard took up? It was in the same docks as this proposal so why no complaints? loosehead

9:19pm Sun 7 Oct 12

loosehead says...

geoff51 wrote:
Stillness wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Stillness wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Stillness wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Stillness wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Fatty x Ford Worker wrote:
Dibden Bay a ideal site !
We dont want your crap on the Waterside just because you dont wan it in your backyard, we are fed up of being the dumping ground for Southampton's rubbish.
If you want it build it in your backyard not ours!
I thought it was our backyard ;-)
No its not your backyard, its Hampshire County not Southampton city and as such you have no legal right to it.
Just because you filled your backyard with rubbish you are not goingto start on ours.
When you seperated Southampton from Hampshire by becoming a unitary authority you forfeited any rights to control anything outside your boundaries so if you want, it stick your biomass in your rear yard
Blimey! Touchy or what?
Not touchy, just fed up with every time the nimbys in Southampton decide they dont want it in their City, its a case of 'Lets dump it in the Waterside'
The Waterside has enough of its own industry with Fawley and Marchwood, we dont want your biomass and we definitely dont want Dibden bay developed as part of the Docks.
Put your rubbish in your back yard, Try Lordhill or Thornhill they are both dumps already!
Can we compromise and stick it in Hythe?
We can compromise and stick it where the sun dont shine! namely Woolston!
Fine by me. I live in Swanwick.
Which is nearer to Woolston than Hythe
I was only taking a swipe at Williams when I said put it at Dibden as theres no Bay now & the reclaimed land belongs to? Have you guessed? Southampton. or ABP Southampton docks.
so exactly how's it your's?
It was a bay & isn't anymore the same way most of you're housing was the New forest with a few small villages but isn't anymore.
It's been a long time the sprawl of housing that is now the Waterside could actually be called the new forest.
Totton was once a Village then the largest village what is it now?
Southampton was a Borough but is now a city.
You say we broke from Hampshire?
you mean Southampton & Portsmouth broke from Hampshire as the tax was so high because these two major city's were subsidising watersiders?
You still have a beef about that?
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fatty x Ford Worker[/bold] wrote: Dibden Bay a ideal site ![/p][/quote]We dont want your crap on the Waterside just because you dont wan it in your backyard, we are fed up of being the dumping ground for Southampton's rubbish. If you want it build it in your backyard not ours![/p][/quote]I thought it was our backyard ;-)[/p][/quote]No its not your backyard, its Hampshire County not Southampton city and as such you have no legal right to it. Just because you filled your backyard with rubbish you are not goingto start on ours. When you seperated Southampton from Hampshire by becoming a unitary authority you forfeited any rights to control anything outside your boundaries so if you want, it stick your biomass in your rear yard[/p][/quote]Blimey! Touchy or what?[/p][/quote]Not touchy, just fed up with every time the nimbys in Southampton decide they dont want it in their City, its a case of 'Lets dump it in the Waterside' The Waterside has enough of its own industry with Fawley and Marchwood, we dont want your biomass and we definitely dont want Dibden bay developed as part of the Docks. Put your rubbish in your back yard, Try Lordhill or Thornhill they are both dumps already![/p][/quote]Can we compromise and stick it in Hythe?[/p][/quote]We can compromise and stick it where the sun dont shine! namely Woolston![/p][/quote]Fine by me. I live in Swanwick.[/p][/quote]Which is nearer to Woolston than Hythe[/p][/quote]I was only taking a swipe at Williams when I said put it at Dibden as theres no Bay now & the reclaimed land belongs to? Have you guessed? Southampton. or ABP Southampton docks. so exactly how's it your's? It was a bay & isn't anymore the same way most of you're housing was the New forest with a few small villages but isn't anymore. It's been a long time the sprawl of housing that is now the Waterside could actually be called the new forest. Totton was once a Village then the largest village what is it now? Southampton was a Borough but is now a city. You say we broke from Hampshire? you mean Southampton & Portsmouth broke from Hampshire as the tax was so high because these two major city's were subsidising watersiders? You still have a beef about that? loosehead

10:11pm Sun 7 Oct 12

geoff51 says...

loosehead wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Stillness wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Stillness wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Stillness wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Stillness wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Fatty x Ford Worker wrote:
Dibden Bay a ideal site !
We dont want your crap on the Waterside just because you dont wan it in your backyard, we are fed up of being the dumping ground for Southampton's rubbish.
If you want it build it in your backyard not ours!
I thought it was our backyard ;-)
No its not your backyard, its Hampshire County not Southampton city and as such you have no legal right to it.
Just because you filled your backyard with rubbish you are not goingto start on ours.
When you seperated Southampton from Hampshire by becoming a unitary authority you forfeited any rights to control anything outside your boundaries so if you want, it stick your biomass in your rear yard
Blimey! Touchy or what?
Not touchy, just fed up with every time the nimbys in Southampton decide they dont want it in their City, its a case of 'Lets dump it in the Waterside'
The Waterside has enough of its own industry with Fawley and Marchwood, we dont want your biomass and we definitely dont want Dibden bay developed as part of the Docks.
Put your rubbish in your back yard, Try Lordhill or Thornhill they are both dumps already!
Can we compromise and stick it in Hythe?
We can compromise and stick it where the sun dont shine! namely Woolston!
Fine by me. I live in Swanwick.
Which is nearer to Woolston than Hythe
I was only taking a swipe at Williams when I said put it at Dibden as theres no Bay now & the reclaimed land belongs to? Have you guessed? Southampton. or ABP Southampton docks.
so exactly how's it your's?
It was a bay & isn't anymore the same way most of you're housing was the New forest with a few small villages but isn't anymore.
It's been a long time the sprawl of housing that is now the Waterside could actually be called the new forest.
Totton was once a Village then the largest village what is it now?
Southampton was a Borough but is now a city.
You say we broke from Hampshire?
you mean Southampton & Portsmouth broke from Hampshire as the tax was so high because these two major city's were subsidising watersiders?
You still have a beef about that?
My beef is that the big City bullies the small towns and villages on the opposite bank of the river.
Most of us moved here to get away from Southampton and its crap infrastructure and poor planning structure.
Keep your rubbish in your own area we dont want it!
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fatty x Ford Worker[/bold] wrote: Dibden Bay a ideal site ![/p][/quote]We dont want your crap on the Waterside just because you dont wan it in your backyard, we are fed up of being the dumping ground for Southampton's rubbish. If you want it build it in your backyard not ours![/p][/quote]I thought it was our backyard ;-)[/p][/quote]No its not your backyard, its Hampshire County not Southampton city and as such you have no legal right to it. Just because you filled your backyard with rubbish you are not goingto start on ours. When you seperated Southampton from Hampshire by becoming a unitary authority you forfeited any rights to control anything outside your boundaries so if you want, it stick your biomass in your rear yard[/p][/quote]Blimey! Touchy or what?[/p][/quote]Not touchy, just fed up with every time the nimbys in Southampton decide they dont want it in their City, its a case of 'Lets dump it in the Waterside' The Waterside has enough of its own industry with Fawley and Marchwood, we dont want your biomass and we definitely dont want Dibden bay developed as part of the Docks. Put your rubbish in your back yard, Try Lordhill or Thornhill they are both dumps already![/p][/quote]Can we compromise and stick it in Hythe?[/p][/quote]We can compromise and stick it where the sun dont shine! namely Woolston![/p][/quote]Fine by me. I live in Swanwick.[/p][/quote]Which is nearer to Woolston than Hythe[/p][/quote]I was only taking a swipe at Williams when I said put it at Dibden as theres no Bay now & the reclaimed land belongs to? Have you guessed? Southampton. or ABP Southampton docks. so exactly how's it your's? It was a bay & isn't anymore the same way most of you're housing was the New forest with a few small villages but isn't anymore. It's been a long time the sprawl of housing that is now the Waterside could actually be called the new forest. Totton was once a Village then the largest village what is it now? Southampton was a Borough but is now a city. You say we broke from Hampshire? you mean Southampton & Portsmouth broke from Hampshire as the tax was so high because these two major city's were subsidising watersiders? You still have a beef about that?[/p][/quote]My beef is that the big City bullies the small towns and villages on the opposite bank of the river. Most of us moved here to get away from Southampton and its crap infrastructure and poor planning structure. Keep your rubbish in your own area we dont want it! geoff51

11:59pm Sun 7 Oct 12

freefinker says...

.. oh well, I see southy has done a runner again.

The mystery of what on earth "section 4 of planning" actually is will just have to be kept for next time.
.. oh well, I see southy has done a runner again. The mystery of what on earth "section 4 of planning" actually is will just have to be kept for next time. freefinker

8:45am Mon 8 Oct 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

freefinker wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
skin2000 wrote:
Danae wrote:
Only really quite small power generation plants can be supported by local timber sourcing.

They may be appropriate up to about 7Kwh in remote off grid locations (for example at a Whisky distillery).

This is a scenario which Scotland seems to be moving towards while discouraging large power stations
reliant on imported wood pellet.

The UK only produces 10 million tons a year of timber overall, which goes for construction, furniture making and other uses. We have in addition always imported very much more timber than this; for similar uses.

Already, with the rather uncontrolled expansion of wood burning in English power stations we have Drax, Tilbury and soon Ironbridge each burning up to 7 million tons a year, or a bit more, of imported wood pellet.

Several other stations, including Didcot (till all but the gas fired station on site closes) and Kingsnorth (Kent) are co-firing with imported wood pellet as well.

Projected c 2018 UK power station imported wood pellet consumption is in the 60 million to 80 million tons pa range. Certainly unsustainable.

The world market for wood pellet could get well out of hand, especially when one considers that we are in competition with many other European, American, Australasian and even Far Eastern nations for the stuff.

This competitive world market suggests high prices for wood pellet and unreliable supply.

These considerations, among others, lie behind Banks' and other investors' reluctance to fund Helius' other planned 100Mw wood burning power station project at Avonmouth.
Spot on Dan, there is certainly many questions to be answered over the substainabilty of Biomass Plants of this size.
It isn't spot on, and you are only saying this because it happens to fit your preexisting prejudice,but it's a reasonable post. The benefit of biomass as a fuel is that it does not have to be a primary crop. Danae have made the mistake (again) of citing primary production figures and not considering secondary. The second major miscalculation in Danae's figures is that do not consider supplies growing to meet demand. UK primary timber production stands at around 8m tonnes, but is delimited by economic not physical limits, and could be lifted to 12m tonnes pa within 5 years without too much effort if domestic demand warants this. But the significance of this is not the 4m tonnes of additional timber but the 25-40% of the tree that is currently wasted which is the best example of beneficial biomass - roots branches and tops currently wasted. (Hay and straw are also biomass by products, and the waste from biofuel (biodiesel) production is currently used only as animal feed).
I agree with Danae that there is very little chance that this plant will run 24x7. The energy pricing market (subsidising renewables more than any other supply despite erroneous claims in the column) suggests it will run 4-6 hours per day and as standby for other demand surges and other peak times (half time in Televised football matches is a typical headache) . The 800kt pa demand figure is flying a kite for investors. I suspect this plant would actually consume around 200kt pa though that is immaterial to closed minds.
We have been through this before, haven’t we?

The UK has been a timber importer for probably at least the last century. That is, there has consistently been MORE domestic demand for timber than our native forestry industry has been able to supply.

So, when you say domestic production “could be lifted to 12m tonnes pa within 5 years without too much effort if domestic demand warants this” you are yet again living in cloud cuckoo land. It has not happened in the past, despite the ever present demand.

Your consistent pro-industry ‘business as usual’ attitude is no help or solution to the real problems this planet faces. In fact it is the powerful and influential industry lobbyists that consistently pressurises governments from taking the necessary actions that the scientific evidence clearly demonstrates are essential if we are to save this planet from the effects of serious and debilitating climate change.
I know something of the industry having prepared statistics for it professionallly. You as far as I can tell, sit at home googling. I made the point quite clearly. "Production" is limited by factors such as market prices, not by physical capability to supply. It is a simple point that you do not seem to understand even though I showed you an industry method to verify it for yourself. All this scope creep sophistry about climate change is just what we always we see when objectors points are defeated by hard data and reason. Are you advocating that the UK has a 100% renewable-sourced power supply? Yes or No? If yes, what are you going to do during a dark January anticyclone when low temperature, no wind and no sun mean mass blackouts? You have to find 40TW+ from somewhere or people die in huge numbers from your green stupidity. Vulnerable people will die in their hundreds of thousands from hypothermia - the rest have to sit and shiver eating cold food under candlelight because idiots like you wanted to "save the planet". Britain's contribution to global warning is so microscopic as to be undetectable but thanks to idiotic green policies we would be a third world nation. So let's just visit that first point again shall we? Scandinavian timber is currently cheaper to import than Britain's domestic supply, so only the UK's most economic woodland can compete currently. Coincidentlally I was surveying some timber woodlands in Wales over the weekend with a view to purchasing it myself so believe me I know the markets. What "scientific research" were you doing. Googling using your own search terms is not scientific and it definitely isn't research.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]skin2000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Danae[/bold] wrote: Only really quite small power generation plants can be supported by local timber sourcing. They may be appropriate up to about 7Kwh in remote off grid locations (for example at a Whisky distillery). This is a scenario which Scotland seems to be moving towards while discouraging large power stations reliant on imported wood pellet. The UK only produces 10 million tons a year of timber overall, which goes for construction, furniture making and other uses. We have in addition always imported very much more timber than this; for similar uses. Already, with the rather uncontrolled expansion of wood burning in English power stations we have Drax, Tilbury and soon Ironbridge each burning up to 7 million tons a year, or a bit more, of imported wood pellet. Several other stations, including Didcot (till all but the gas fired station on site closes) and Kingsnorth (Kent) are co-firing with imported wood pellet as well. Projected c 2018 UK power station imported wood pellet consumption is in the 60 million to 80 million tons pa range. Certainly unsustainable. The world market for wood pellet could get well out of hand, especially when one considers that we are in competition with many other European, American, Australasian and even Far Eastern nations for the stuff. This competitive world market suggests high prices for wood pellet and unreliable supply. These considerations, among others, lie behind Banks' and other investors' reluctance to fund Helius' other planned 100Mw wood burning power station project at Avonmouth.[/p][/quote]Spot on Dan, there is certainly many questions to be answered over the substainabilty of Biomass Plants of this size.[/p][/quote]It isn't spot on, and you are only saying this because it happens to fit your preexisting prejudice,but it's a reasonable post. The benefit of biomass as a fuel is that it does not have to be a primary crop. Danae have made the mistake (again) of citing primary production figures and not considering secondary. The second major miscalculation in Danae's figures is that do not consider supplies growing to meet demand. UK primary timber production stands at around 8m tonnes, but is delimited by economic not physical limits, and could be lifted to 12m tonnes pa within 5 years without too much effort if domestic demand warants this. But the significance of this is not the 4m tonnes of additional timber but the 25-40% of the tree that is currently wasted which is the best example of beneficial biomass - roots branches and tops currently wasted. (Hay and straw are also biomass by products, and the waste from biofuel (biodiesel) production is currently used only as animal feed). I agree with Danae that there is very little chance that this plant will run 24x7. The energy pricing market (subsidising renewables more than any other supply despite erroneous claims in the column) suggests it will run 4-6 hours per day and as standby for other demand surges and other peak times (half time in Televised football matches is a typical headache) . The 800kt pa demand figure is flying a kite for investors. I suspect this plant would actually consume around 200kt pa though that is immaterial to closed minds.[/p][/quote]We have been through this before, haven’t we? The UK has been a timber importer for probably at least the last century. That is, there has consistently been MORE domestic demand for timber than our native forestry industry has been able to supply. So, when you say domestic production “could be lifted to 12m tonnes pa within 5 years without too much effort if domestic demand warants this” you are yet again living in cloud cuckoo land. It has not happened in the past, despite the ever present demand. Your consistent pro-industry ‘business as usual’ attitude is no help or solution to the real problems this planet faces. In fact it is the powerful and influential industry lobbyists that consistently pressurises governments from taking the necessary actions that the scientific evidence clearly demonstrates are essential if we are to save this planet from the effects of serious and debilitating climate change.[/p][/quote]I know something of the industry having prepared statistics for it professionallly. You as far as I can tell, sit at home googling. I made the point quite clearly. "Production" is limited by factors such as market prices, not by physical capability to supply. It is a simple point that you do not seem to understand even though I showed you an industry method to verify it for yourself. All this scope creep sophistry about climate change is just what we always we see when objectors points are defeated by hard data and reason. Are you advocating that the UK has a 100% renewable-sourced power supply? Yes or No? If yes, what are you going to do during a dark January anticyclone when low temperature, no wind and no sun mean mass blackouts? You have to find 40TW+ from somewhere or people die in huge numbers from your green stupidity. Vulnerable people will die in their hundreds of thousands from hypothermia - the rest have to sit and shiver eating cold food under candlelight because idiots like you wanted to "save the planet". Britain's contribution to global warning is so microscopic as to be undetectable but thanks to idiotic green policies we would be a third world nation. So let's just visit that first point again shall we? Scandinavian timber is currently cheaper to import than Britain's domestic supply, so only the UK's most economic woodland can compete currently. Coincidentlally I was surveying some timber woodlands in Wales over the weekend with a view to purchasing it myself so believe me I know the markets. What "scientific research" were you doing. Googling using your own search terms is not scientific and it definitely isn't research. Andy Locks Heath

8:49am Mon 8 Oct 12

loosehead says...

geoff51 wrote:
loosehead wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Stillness wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Stillness wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Stillness wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Stillness wrote:
geoff51 wrote:
Fatty x Ford Worker wrote:
Dibden Bay a ideal site !
We dont want your crap on the Waterside just because you dont wan it in your backyard, we are fed up of being the dumping ground for Southampton's rubbish.
If you want it build it in your backyard not ours!
I thought it was our backyard ;-)
No its not your backyard, its Hampshire County not Southampton city and as such you have no legal right to it.
Just because you filled your backyard with rubbish you are not goingto start on ours.
When you seperated Southampton from Hampshire by becoming a unitary authority you forfeited any rights to control anything outside your boundaries so if you want, it stick your biomass in your rear yard
Blimey! Touchy or what?
Not touchy, just fed up with every time the nimbys in Southampton decide they dont want it in their City, its a case of 'Lets dump it in the Waterside'
The Waterside has enough of its own industry with Fawley and Marchwood, we dont want your biomass and we definitely dont want Dibden bay developed as part of the Docks.
Put your rubbish in your back yard, Try Lordhill or Thornhill they are both dumps already!
Can we compromise and stick it in Hythe?
We can compromise and stick it where the sun dont shine! namely Woolston!
Fine by me. I live in Swanwick.
Which is nearer to Woolston than Hythe
I was only taking a swipe at Williams when I said put it at Dibden as theres no Bay now & the reclaimed land belongs to? Have you guessed? Southampton. or ABP Southampton docks.
so exactly how's it your's?
It was a bay & isn't anymore the same way most of you're housing was the New forest with a few small villages but isn't anymore.
It's been a long time the sprawl of housing that is now the Waterside could actually be called the new forest.
Totton was once a Village then the largest village what is it now?
Southampton was a Borough but is now a city.
You say we broke from Hampshire?
you mean Southampton & Portsmouth broke from Hampshire as the tax was so high because these two major city's were subsidising watersiders?
You still have a beef about that?
My beef is that the big City bullies the small towns and villages on the opposite bank of the river.
Most of us moved here to get away from Southampton and its crap infrastructure and poor planning structure.
Keep your rubbish in your own area we dont want it!
So you moved here to get away from Southampton?
Then you say keep your rubbish?
Was that a reference to yourself?
[quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stillness[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]geoff51[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fatty x Ford Worker[/bold] wrote: Dibden Bay a ideal site ![/p][/quote]We dont want your crap on the Waterside just because you dont wan it in your backyard, we are fed up of being the dumping ground for Southampton's rubbish. If you want it build it in your backyard not ours![/p][/quote]I thought it was our backyard ;-)[/p][/quote]No its not your backyard, its Hampshire County not Southampton city and as such you have no legal right to it. Just because you filled your backyard with rubbish you are not goingto start on ours. When you seperated Southampton from Hampshire by becoming a unitary authority you forfeited any rights to control anything outside your boundaries so if you want, it stick your biomass in your rear yard[/p][/quote]Blimey! Touchy or what?[/p][/quote]Not touchy, just fed up with every time the nimbys in Southampton decide they dont want it in their City, its a case of 'Lets dump it in the Waterside' The Waterside has enough of its own industry with Fawley and Marchwood, we dont want your biomass and we definitely dont want Dibden bay developed as part of the Docks. Put your rubbish in your back yard, Try Lordhill or Thornhill they are both dumps already![/p][/quote]Can we compromise and stick it in Hythe?[/p][/quote]We can compromise and stick it where the sun dont shine! namely Woolston![/p][/quote]Fine by me. I live in Swanwick.[/p][/quote]Which is nearer to Woolston than Hythe[/p][/quote]I was only taking a swipe at Williams when I said put it at Dibden as theres no Bay now & the reclaimed land belongs to? Have you guessed? Southampton. or ABP Southampton docks. so exactly how's it your's? It was a bay & isn't anymore the same way most of you're housing was the New forest with a few small villages but isn't anymore. It's been a long time the sprawl of housing that is now the Waterside could actually be called the new forest. Totton was once a Village then the largest village what is it now? Southampton was a Borough but is now a city. You say we broke from Hampshire? you mean Southampton & Portsmouth broke from Hampshire as the tax was so high because these two major city's were subsidising watersiders? You still have a beef about that?[/p][/quote]My beef is that the big City bullies the small towns and villages on the opposite bank of the river. Most of us moved here to get away from Southampton and its crap infrastructure and poor planning structure. Keep your rubbish in your own area we dont want it![/p][/quote]So you moved here to get away from Southampton? Then you say keep your rubbish? Was that a reference to yourself? loosehead

8:52am Mon 8 Oct 12

FoysCornerBoy says...

freefinker wrote:
My problem with the line taken by leader Williams is that he is failing to address the environmental stupidity of this proposal.

The No Southampton Biomass campaign make it quite clear that this proposal is unwanted on many grounds and one of their main lines of argument is the lack of green credentials.

Moving it elsewhere will not address this. This proposal and other such proposed large Biomass schemes that will rely on the worldwide importation of fuel make no green sense what-so-ever and are only economically viable due to the rigged market on electricity supply.

However, biomass generation using local sources should become a most welcome addition to our electricity supply balance. It is essential we wean ourselves off of our addiction to fossil fuels.
It seems as if there are two issues here: (1) that this proposed development is in an inappropriate location from the point of view of residents and (2) that it is unacceptable from an environmental sustainability angle.

I am sympathetic to both arguments but I think the City Council needs to adopt a position that puts the interests of citizens first. Locating a new biomass-fuelled power station to where an existing plant exists and which is soon to be de-commissioned, strikes me as a sensible solution - if all the technical requirements and adjustments can be reasonably made.

Richard Williams seems to be suggesting this approach and I will be interested to know if his line is supported by residents in the area most affected by the planned development in the docks and by the political parties purporting to support them.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: My problem with the line taken by leader Williams is that he is failing to address the environmental stupidity of this proposal. The No Southampton Biomass campaign make it quite clear that this proposal is unwanted on many grounds and one of their main lines of argument is the lack of green credentials. Moving it elsewhere will not address this. This proposal and other such proposed large Biomass schemes that will rely on the worldwide importation of fuel make no green sense what-so-ever and are only economically viable due to the rigged market on electricity supply. However, biomass generation using local sources should become a most welcome addition to our electricity supply balance. It is essential we wean ourselves off of our addiction to fossil fuels.[/p][/quote]It seems as if there are two issues here: (1) that this proposed development is in an inappropriate location from the point of view of residents and (2) that it is unacceptable from an environmental sustainability angle. I am sympathetic to both arguments but I think the City Council needs to adopt a position that puts the interests of citizens first. Locating a new biomass-fuelled power station to where an existing plant exists and which is soon to be de-commissioned, strikes me as a sensible solution - if all the technical requirements and adjustments can be reasonably made. Richard Williams seems to be suggesting this approach and I will be interested to know if his line is supported by residents in the area most affected by the planned development in the docks and by the political parties purporting to support them. FoysCornerBoy

9:02am Mon 8 Oct 12

loosehead says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
My problem with the line taken by leader Williams is that he is failing to address the environmental stupidity of this proposal.

The No Southampton Biomass campaign make it quite clear that this proposal is unwanted on many grounds and one of their main lines of argument is the lack of green credentials.

Moving it elsewhere will not address this. This proposal and other such proposed large Biomass schemes that will rely on the worldwide importation of fuel make no green sense what-so-ever and are only economically viable due to the rigged market on electricity supply.

However, biomass generation using local sources should become a most welcome addition to our electricity supply balance. It is essential we wean ourselves off of our addiction to fossil fuels.
It seems as if there are two issues here: (1) that this proposed development is in an inappropriate location from the point of view of residents and (2) that it is unacceptable from an environmental sustainability angle.

I am sympathetic to both arguments but I think the City Council needs to adopt a position that puts the interests of citizens first. Locating a new biomass-fuelled power station to where an existing plant exists and which is soon to be de-commissioned, strikes me as a sensible solution - if all the technical requirements and adjustments can be reasonably made.

Richard Williams seems to be suggesting this approach and I will be interested to know if his line is supported by residents in the area most affected by the planned development in the docks and by the political parties purporting to support them.
What about the berth needed to unload the wood chip?
Fawley doesn't have one deep enough.
Williams the NO campaign & the Tory's have all been saying about the health risks from this plant.
if they're telling the truth ( i don't believe them) then how's it okay to put it any where or is this just a case of Not In My BackYard ? but it's okay in your's?
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: My problem with the line taken by leader Williams is that he is failing to address the environmental stupidity of this proposal. The No Southampton Biomass campaign make it quite clear that this proposal is unwanted on many grounds and one of their main lines of argument is the lack of green credentials. Moving it elsewhere will not address this. This proposal and other such proposed large Biomass schemes that will rely on the worldwide importation of fuel make no green sense what-so-ever and are only economically viable due to the rigged market on electricity supply. However, biomass generation using local sources should become a most welcome addition to our electricity supply balance. It is essential we wean ourselves off of our addiction to fossil fuels.[/p][/quote]It seems as if there are two issues here: (1) that this proposed development is in an inappropriate location from the point of view of residents and (2) that it is unacceptable from an environmental sustainability angle. I am sympathetic to both arguments but I think the City Council needs to adopt a position that puts the interests of citizens first. Locating a new biomass-fuelled power station to where an existing plant exists and which is soon to be de-commissioned, strikes me as a sensible solution - if all the technical requirements and adjustments can be reasonably made. Richard Williams seems to be suggesting this approach and I will be interested to know if his line is supported by residents in the area most affected by the planned development in the docks and by the political parties purporting to support them.[/p][/quote]What about the berth needed to unload the wood chip? Fawley doesn't have one deep enough. Williams the NO campaign & the Tory's have all been saying about the health risks from this plant. if they're telling the truth ( i don't believe them) then how's it okay to put it any where or is this just a case of Not In My BackYard ? but it's okay in your's? loosehead

10:27am Mon 8 Oct 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

If we do away with a reliable power supply and many thousands die as a result in what possible way that can be deemed a "healthy" solution? The problem with nonsensical pie in the sky "green" policies is that they are a myth, a sham and a con. Reliable and plentiful electricity supply for all is what lifted us out of the smoky industrial age, and here the emotive and misleading use of "the environment" by Greens is trying to infer the opposite. I drove past the steelworks at Port Talbot where electricity has largely replaced coal and coke, and the result is an immense benefit to all especially those living in South Wales , but you can't have that if you cannot rely and guarantee the supply of large amounts of electricity all the time. Not a few unreliable windmills and solar panels, but large scale sustained, reliable supply of gigawatts of power. Burning wood is the oldest industrial process known to man, something we have done since the stone age and yet Greens on here are behaving as though it is some new and frightening phenomenon. Southampton has lost most of its major industrial plants and factories in the last 25 years. Now here is a relatively clean plant that will provide a few new jobs in the port and help guarantee a lot more, and it is being hounded by people whose stupidity misunderstanding and ignorance will see the UK go back to living in yurts.
If we do away with a reliable power supply and many thousands die as a result in what possible way that can be deemed a "healthy" solution? The problem with nonsensical pie in the sky "green" policies is that they are a myth, a sham and a con. Reliable and plentiful electricity supply for all is what lifted us out of the smoky industrial age, and here the emotive and misleading use of "the environment" by Greens is trying to infer the opposite. I drove past the steelworks at Port Talbot where electricity has largely replaced coal and coke, and the result is an immense benefit to all especially those living in South Wales , but you can't have that if you cannot rely and guarantee the supply of large amounts of electricity all the time. Not a few unreliable windmills and solar panels, but large scale sustained, reliable supply of gigawatts of power. Burning wood is the oldest industrial process known to man, something we have done since the stone age and yet Greens on here are behaving as though it is some new and frightening phenomenon. Southampton has lost most of its major industrial plants and factories in the last 25 years. Now here is a relatively clean plant that will provide a few new jobs in the port and help guarantee a lot more, and it is being hounded by people whose stupidity misunderstanding and ignorance will see the UK go back to living in yurts. Andy Locks Heath

11:01am Mon 8 Oct 12

freefinker says...

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
skin2000 wrote:
Danae wrote:
Only really quite small power generation plants can be supported by local timber sourcing.

They may be appropriate up to about 7Kwh in remote off grid locations (for example at a Whisky distillery).

This is a scenario which Scotland seems to be moving towards while discouraging large power stations
reliant on imported wood pellet.

The UK only produces 10 million tons a year of timber overall, which goes for construction, furniture making and other uses. We have in addition always imported very much more timber than this; for similar uses.

Already, with the rather uncontrolled expansion of wood burning in English power stations we have Drax, Tilbury and soon Ironbridge each burning up to 7 million tons a year, or a bit more, of imported wood pellet.

Several other stations, including Didcot (till all but the gas fired station on site closes) and Kingsnorth (Kent) are co-firing with imported wood pellet as well.

Projected c 2018 UK power station imported wood pellet consumption is in the 60 million to 80 million tons pa range. Certainly unsustainable.

The world market for wood pellet could get well out of hand, especially when one considers that we are in competition with many other European, American, Australasian and even Far Eastern nations for the stuff.

This competitive world market suggests high prices for wood pellet and unreliable supply.

These considerations, among others, lie behind Banks' and other investors' reluctance to fund Helius' other planned 100Mw wood burning power station project at Avonmouth.
Spot on Dan, there is certainly many questions to be answered over the substainabilty of Biomass Plants of this size.
It isn't spot on, and you are only saying this because it happens to fit your preexisting prejudice,but it's a reasonable post. The benefit of biomass as a fuel is that it does not have to be a primary crop. Danae have made the mistake (again) of citing primary production figures and not considering secondary. The second major miscalculation in Danae's figures is that do not consider supplies growing to meet demand. UK primary timber production stands at around 8m tonnes, but is delimited by economic not physical limits, and could be lifted to 12m tonnes pa within 5 years without too much effort if domestic demand warants this. But the significance of this is not the 4m tonnes of additional timber but the 25-40% of the tree that is currently wasted which is the best example of beneficial biomass - roots branches and tops currently wasted. (Hay and straw are also biomass by products, and the waste from biofuel (biodiesel) production is currently used only as animal feed).
I agree with Danae that there is very little chance that this plant will run 24x7. The energy pricing market (subsidising renewables more than any other supply despite erroneous claims in the column) suggests it will run 4-6 hours per day and as standby for other demand surges and other peak times (half time in Televised football matches is a typical headache) . The 800kt pa demand figure is flying a kite for investors. I suspect this plant would actually consume around 200kt pa though that is immaterial to closed minds.
We have been through this before, haven’t we?

The UK has been a timber importer for probably at least the last century. That is, there has consistently been MORE domestic demand for timber than our native forestry industry has been able to supply.

So, when you say domestic production “could be lifted to 12m tonnes pa within 5 years without too much effort if domestic demand warants this” you are yet again living in cloud cuckoo land. It has not happened in the past, despite the ever present demand.

Your consistent pro-industry ‘business as usual’ attitude is no help or solution to the real problems this planet faces. In fact it is the powerful and influential industry lobbyists that consistently pressurises governments from taking the necessary actions that the scientific evidence clearly demonstrates are essential if we are to save this planet from the effects of serious and debilitating climate change.
I know something of the industry having prepared statistics for it professionallly. You as far as I can tell, sit at home googling. I made the point quite clearly. "Production" is limited by factors such as market prices, not by physical capability to supply. It is a simple point that you do not seem to understand even though I showed you an industry method to verify it for yourself. All this scope creep sophistry about climate change is just what we always we see when objectors points are defeated by hard data and reason. Are you advocating that the UK has a 100% renewable-sourced power supply? Yes or No? If yes, what are you going to do during a dark January anticyclone when low temperature, no wind and no sun mean mass blackouts? You have to find 40TW+ from somewhere or people die in huge numbers from your green stupidity. Vulnerable people will die in their hundreds of thousands from hypothermia - the rest have to sit and shiver eating cold food under candlelight because idiots like you wanted to "save the planet". Britain's contribution to global warning is so microscopic as to be undetectable but thanks to idiotic green policies we would be a third world nation. So let's just visit that first point again shall we? Scandinavian timber is currently cheaper to import than Britain's domestic supply, so only the UK's most economic woodland can compete currently. Coincidentlally I was surveying some timber woodlands in Wales over the weekend with a view to purchasing it myself so believe me I know the markets. What "scientific research" were you doing. Googling using your own search terms is not scientific and it definitely isn't research.
.. well, I rest my case. Industry scaremongering yet again. Any excuse for business as usual.

I have not, anywhere, at any time, ever said I'm "advocating that the UK has a 100% renewable-sourced power supply" So the answer to your pathetic question is a big "No", making all the following scaremongering nonsense totally irrelevant. Quite frankly it's only apologists for big business, the very organisations that have got this planet into our current mess, with their absolute greed and total disregard for the consequences of their planetary exploitation, that could come out with such diversionary, don’t face up to the real issues, nonsense.

Your “Britain's contribution to global warning (sic) is so microscopic as to be undetectable” further demonstrates your inability to see the picture through anything other than industry glazed ‘let’s continue exploiting the planet and to hell with the consequences’ spectacles. That the same could also be (wrongly) said of France, Poland, Thailand, Paraguay, South Africa, Korea, New Zealand, etc. ad infinitum, clearly demonstrates your industry-centric attitude that the overwhelming and neo-unanimous data and considered opinion of the relevant scientific disciplines in compiling the IPCC Reports can be totally disregarded. Yes, let’s fiddle while Rome burns – there’s a still pile of cash to be made.

Your attempt to classify anyone who disagrees with your ‘I’m always right because I’m an industrial scientist persona’ as a sit at home googler is pathetic, insulting and very far from the truth. It is, in fact, you and your ilk who are suffering from scientific myopia, with deliberately skewed presentation of ‘evidence’ as you do the bidding of the destructive big businesses that ultimately are your paymasters. Seen it time and time again as otherwise good and rational scientists sell out for the corporate dollar.
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]skin2000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Danae[/bold] wrote: Only really quite small power generation plants can be supported by local timber sourcing. They may be appropriate up to about 7Kwh in remote off grid locations (for example at a Whisky distillery). This is a scenario which Scotland seems to be moving towards while discouraging large power stations reliant on imported wood pellet. The UK only produces 10 million tons a year of timber overall, which goes for construction, furniture making and other uses. We have in addition always imported very much more timber than this; for similar uses. Already, with the rather uncontrolled expansion of wood burning in English power stations we have Drax, Tilbury and soon Ironbridge each burning up to 7 million tons a year, or a bit more, of imported wood pellet. Several other stations, including Didcot (till all but the gas fired station on site closes) and Kingsnorth (Kent) are co-firing with imported wood pellet as well. Projected c 2018 UK power station imported wood pellet consumption is in the 60 million to 80 million tons pa range. Certainly unsustainable. The world market for wood pellet could get well out of hand, especially when one considers that we are in competition with many other European, American, Australasian and even Far Eastern nations for the stuff. This competitive world market suggests high prices for wood pellet and unreliable supply. These considerations, among others, lie behind Banks' and other investors' reluctance to fund Helius' other planned 100Mw wood burning power station project at Avonmouth.[/p][/quote]Spot on Dan, there is certainly many questions to be answered over the substainabilty of Biomass Plants of this size.[/p][/quote]It isn't spot on, and you are only saying this because it happens to fit your preexisting prejudice,but it's a reasonable post. The benefit of biomass as a fuel is that it does not have to be a primary crop. Danae have made the mistake (again) of citing primary production figures and not considering secondary. The second major miscalculation in Danae's figures is that do not consider supplies growing to meet demand. UK primary timber production stands at around 8m tonnes, but is delimited by economic not physical limits, and could be lifted to 12m tonnes pa within 5 years without too much effort if domestic demand warants this. But the significance of this is not the 4m tonnes of additional timber but the 25-40% of the tree that is currently wasted which is the best example of beneficial biomass - roots branches and tops currently wasted. (Hay and straw are also biomass by products, and the waste from biofuel (biodiesel) production is currently used only as animal feed). I agree with Danae that there is very little chance that this plant will run 24x7. The energy pricing market (subsidising renewables more than any other supply despite erroneous claims in the column) suggests it will run 4-6 hours per day and as standby for other demand surges and other peak times (half time in Televised football matches is a typical headache) . The 800kt pa demand figure is flying a kite for investors. I suspect this plant would actually consume around 200kt pa though that is immaterial to closed minds.[/p][/quote]We have been through this before, haven’t we? The UK has been a timber importer for probably at least the last century. That is, there has consistently been MORE domestic demand for timber than our native forestry industry has been able to supply. So, when you say domestic production “could be lifted to 12m tonnes pa within 5 years without too much effort if domestic demand warants this” you are yet again living in cloud cuckoo land. It has not happened in the past, despite the ever present demand. Your consistent pro-industry ‘business as usual’ attitude is no help or solution to the real problems this planet faces. In fact it is the powerful and influential industry lobbyists that consistently pressurises governments from taking the necessary actions that the scientific evidence clearly demonstrates are essential if we are to save this planet from the effects of serious and debilitating climate change.[/p][/quote]I know something of the industry having prepared statistics for it professionallly. You as far as I can tell, sit at home googling. I made the point quite clearly. "Production" is limited by factors such as market prices, not by physical capability to supply. It is a simple point that you do not seem to understand even though I showed you an industry method to verify it for yourself. All this scope creep sophistry about climate change is just what we always we see when objectors points are defeated by hard data and reason. Are you advocating that the UK has a 100% renewable-sourced power supply? Yes or No? If yes, what are you going to do during a dark January anticyclone when low temperature, no wind and no sun mean mass blackouts? You have to find 40TW+ from somewhere or people die in huge numbers from your green stupidity. Vulnerable people will die in their hundreds of thousands from hypothermia - the rest have to sit and shiver eating cold food under candlelight because idiots like you wanted to "save the planet". Britain's contribution to global warning is so microscopic as to be undetectable but thanks to idiotic green policies we would be a third world nation. So let's just visit that first point again shall we? Scandinavian timber is currently cheaper to import than Britain's domestic supply, so only the UK's most economic woodland can compete currently. Coincidentlally I was surveying some timber woodlands in Wales over the weekend with a view to purchasing it myself so believe me I know the markets. What "scientific research" were you doing. Googling using your own search terms is not scientific and it definitely isn't research.[/p][/quote].. well, I rest my case. Industry scaremongering yet again. Any excuse for business as usual. I have not, anywhere, at any time, ever said I'm "advocating that the UK has a 100% renewable-sourced power supply" So the answer to your pathetic question is a big "No", making all the following scaremongering nonsense totally irrelevant. Quite frankly it's only apologists for big business, the very organisations that have got this planet into our current mess, with their absolute greed and total disregard for the consequences of their planetary exploitation, that could come out with such diversionary, don’t face up to the real issues, nonsense. Your “Britain's contribution to global warning (sic) is so microscopic as to be undetectable” further demonstrates your inability to see the picture through anything other than industry glazed ‘let’s continue exploiting the planet and to hell with the consequences’ spectacles. That the same could also be (wrongly) said of France, Poland, Thailand, Paraguay, South Africa, Korea, New Zealand, etc. ad infinitum, clearly demonstrates your industry-centric attitude that the overwhelming and neo-unanimous data and considered opinion of the relevant scientific disciplines in compiling the IPCC Reports can be totally disregarded. Yes, let’s fiddle while Rome burns – there’s a still pile of cash to be made. Your attempt to classify anyone who disagrees with your ‘I’m always right because I’m an industrial scientist persona’ as a sit at home googler is pathetic, insulting and very far from the truth. It is, in fact, you and your ilk who are suffering from scientific myopia, with deliberately skewed presentation of ‘evidence’ as you do the bidding of the destructive big businesses that ultimately are your paymasters. Seen it time and time again as otherwise good and rational scientists sell out for the corporate dollar. freefinker

11:40am Mon 8 Oct 12

Torchie1 says...

freefinker wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
skin2000 wrote:
Danae wrote:
Only really quite small power generation plants can be supported by local timber sourcing.

They may be appropriate up to about 7Kwh in remote off grid locations (for example at a Whisky distillery).

This is a scenario which Scotland seems to be moving towards while discouraging large power stations
reliant on imported wood pellet.

The UK only produces 10 million tons a year of timber overall, which goes for construction, furniture making and other uses. We have in addition always imported very much more timber than this; for similar uses.

Already, with the rather uncontrolled expansion of wood burning in English power stations we have Drax, Tilbury and soon Ironbridge each burning up to 7 million tons a year, or a bit more, of imported wood pellet.

Several other stations, including Didcot (till all but the gas fired station on site closes) and Kingsnorth (Kent) are co-firing with imported wood pellet as well.

Projected c 2018 UK power station imported wood pellet consumption is in the 60 million to 80 million tons pa range. Certainly unsustainable.

The world market for wood pellet could get well out of hand, especially when one considers that we are in competition with many other European, American, Australasian and even Far Eastern nations for the stuff.

This competitive world market suggests high prices for wood pellet and unreliable supply.

These considerations, among others, lie behind Banks' and other investors' reluctance to fund Helius' other planned 100Mw wood burning power station project at Avonmouth.
Spot on Dan, there is certainly many questions to be answered over the substainabilty of Biomass Plants of this size.
It isn't spot on, and you are only saying this because it happens to fit your preexisting prejudice,but it's a reasonable post. The benefit of biomass as a fuel is that it does not have to be a primary crop. Danae have made the mistake (again) of citing primary production figures and not considering secondary. The second major miscalculation in Danae's figures is that do not consider supplies growing to meet demand. UK primary timber production stands at around 8m tonnes, but is delimited by economic not physical limits, and could be lifted to 12m tonnes pa within 5 years without too much effort if domestic demand warants this. But the significance of this is not the 4m tonnes of additional timber but the 25-40% of the tree that is currently wasted which is the best example of beneficial biomass - roots branches and tops currently wasted. (Hay and straw are also biomass by products, and the waste from biofuel (biodiesel) production is currently used only as animal feed).
I agree with Danae that there is very little chance that this plant will run 24x7. The energy pricing market (subsidising renewables more than any other supply despite erroneous claims in the column) suggests it will run 4-6 hours per day and as standby for other demand surges and other peak times (half time in Televised football matches is a typical headache) . The 800kt pa demand figure is flying a kite for investors. I suspect this plant would actually consume around 200kt pa though that is immaterial to closed minds.
We have been through this before, haven’t we?

The UK has been a timber importer for probably at least the last century. That is, there has consistently been MORE domestic demand for timber than our native forestry industry has been able to supply.

So, when you say domestic production “could be lifted to 12m tonnes pa within 5 years without too much effort if domestic demand warants this” you are yet again living in cloud cuckoo land. It has not happened in the past, despite the ever present demand.

Your consistent pro-industry ‘business as usual’ attitude is no help or solution to the real problems this planet faces. In fact it is the powerful and influential industry lobbyists that consistently pressurises governments from taking the necessary actions that the scientific evidence clearly demonstrates are essential if we are to save this planet from the effects of serious and debilitating climate change.
I know something of the industry having prepared statistics for it professionallly. You as far as I can tell, sit at home googling. I made the point quite clearly. "Production" is limited by factors such as market prices, not by physical capability to supply. It is a simple point that you do not seem to understand even though I showed you an industry method to verify it for yourself. All this scope creep sophistry about climate change is just what we always we see when objectors points are defeated by hard data and reason. Are you advocating that the UK has a 100% renewable-sourced power supply? Yes or No? If yes, what are you going to do during a dark January anticyclone when low temperature, no wind and no sun mean mass blackouts? You have to find 40TW+ from somewhere or people die in huge numbers from your green stupidity. Vulnerable people will die in their hundreds of thousands from hypothermia - the rest have to sit and shiver eating cold food under candlelight because idiots like you wanted to "save the planet". Britain's contribution to global warning is so microscopic as to be undetectable but thanks to idiotic green policies we would be a third world nation. So let's just visit that first point again shall we? Scandinavian timber is currently cheaper to import than Britain's domestic supply, so only the UK's most economic woodland can compete currently. Coincidentlally I was surveying some timber woodlands in Wales over the weekend with a view to purchasing it myself so believe me I know the markets. What "scientific research" were you doing. Googling using your own search terms is not scientific and it definitely isn't research.
.. well, I rest my case. Industry scaremongering yet again. Any excuse for business as usual.

I have not, anywhere, at any time, ever said I'm "advocating that the UK has a 100% renewable-sourced power supply" So the answer to your pathetic question is a big "No", making all the following scaremongering nonsense totally irrelevant. Quite frankly it's only apologists for big business, the very organisations that have got this planet into our current mess, with their absolute greed and total disregard for the consequences of their planetary exploitation, that could come out with such diversionary, don’t face up to the real issues, nonsense.

Your “Britain's contribution to global warning (sic) is so microscopic as to be undetectable” further demonstrates your inability to see the picture through anything other than industry glazed ‘let’s continue exploiting the planet and to hell with the consequences’ spectacles. That the same could also be (wrongly) said of France, Poland, Thailand, Paraguay, South Africa, Korea, New Zealand, etc. ad infinitum, clearly demonstrates your industry-centric attitude that the overwhelming and neo-unanimous data and considered opinion of the relevant scientific disciplines in compiling the IPCC Reports can be totally disregarded. Yes, let’s fiddle while Rome burns – there’s a still pile of cash to be made.

Your attempt to classify anyone who disagrees with your ‘I’m always right because I’m an industrial scientist persona’ as a sit at home googler is pathetic, insulting and very far from the truth. It is, in fact, you and your ilk who are suffering from scientific myopia, with deliberately skewed presentation of ‘evidence’ as you do the bidding of the destructive big businesses that ultimately are your paymasters. Seen it time and time again as otherwise good and rational scientists sell out for the corporate dollar.
Perhaps its brinkmanship but if the OFGEM report on the fragility of the UKs electricity supply does result in blackouts, no-one will be interested in anyone's Green agenda. First and foremost there needs to be power from a reliable source to keep the country operating, and arguing about what might happen in two hundred years time if you don't build windmills will be an argument that will interest a tiny handful of people at best. The EU has successfully stopped a worrying number of power stations from continuing to generate, there isn't enough time to build new resources on a major scale, consumers complain about the high cost of imported energy supplied by more far-sighted countries and the NIMBYs protest about everything that is proposed that might help. Buy candles now because they will only go up in price.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]skin2000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Danae[/bold] wrote: Only really quite small power generation plants can be supported by local timber sourcing. They may be appropriate up to about 7Kwh in remote off grid locations (for example at a Whisky distillery). This is a scenario which Scotland seems to be moving towards while discouraging large power stations reliant on imported wood pellet. The UK only produces 10 million tons a year of timber overall, which goes for construction, furniture making and other uses. We have in addition always imported very much more timber than this; for similar uses. Already, with the rather uncontrolled expansion of wood burning in English power stations we have Drax, Tilbury and soon Ironbridge each burning up to 7 million tons a year, or a bit more, of imported wood pellet. Several other stations, including Didcot (till all but the gas fired station on site closes) and Kingsnorth (Kent) are co-firing with imported wood pellet as well. Projected c 2018 UK power station imported wood pellet consumption is in the 60 million to 80 million tons pa range. Certainly unsustainable. The world market for wood pellet could get well out of hand, especially when one considers that we are in competition with many other European, American, Australasian and even Far Eastern nations for the stuff. This competitive world market suggests high prices for wood pellet and unreliable supply. These considerations, among others, lie behind Banks' and other investors' reluctance to fund Helius' other planned 100Mw wood burning power station project at Avonmouth.[/p][/quote]Spot on Dan, there is certainly many questions to be answered over the substainabilty of Biomass Plants of this size.[/p][/quote]It isn't spot on, and you are only saying this because it happens to fit your preexisting prejudice,but it's a reasonable post. The benefit of biomass as a fuel is that it does not have to be a primary crop. Danae have made the mistake (again) of citing primary production figures and not considering secondary. The second major miscalculation in Danae's figures is that do not consider supplies growing to meet demand. UK primary timber production stands at around 8m tonnes, but is delimited by economic not physical limits, and could be lifted to 12m tonnes pa within 5 years without too much effort if domestic demand warants this. But the significance of this is not the 4m tonnes of additional timber but the 25-40% of the tree that is currently wasted which is the best example of beneficial biomass - roots branches and tops currently wasted. (Hay and straw are also biomass by products, and the waste from biofuel (biodiesel) production is currently used only as animal feed). I agree with Danae that there is very little chance that this plant will run 24x7. The energy pricing market (subsidising renewables more than any other supply despite erroneous claims in the column) suggests it will run 4-6 hours per day and as standby for other demand surges and other peak times (half time in Televised football matches is a typical headache) . The 800kt pa demand figure is flying a kite for investors. I suspect this plant would actually consume around 200kt pa though that is immaterial to closed minds.[/p][/quote]We have been through this before, haven’t we? The UK has been a timber importer for probably at least the last century. That is, there has consistently been MORE domestic demand for timber than our native forestry industry has been able to supply. So, when you say domestic production “could be lifted to 12m tonnes pa within 5 years without too much effort if domestic demand warants this” you are yet again living in cloud cuckoo land. It has not happened in the past, despite the ever present demand. Your consistent pro-industry ‘business as usual’ attitude is no help or solution to the real problems this planet faces. In fact it is the powerful and influential industry lobbyists that consistently pressurises governments from taking the necessary actions that the scientific evidence clearly demonstrates are essential if we are to save this planet from the effects of serious and debilitating climate change.[/p][/quote]I know something of the industry having prepared statistics for it professionallly. You as far as I can tell, sit at home googling. I made the point quite clearly. "Production" is limited by factors such as market prices, not by physical capability to supply. It is a simple point that you do not seem to understand even though I showed you an industry method to verify it for yourself. All this scope creep sophistry about climate change is just what we always we see when objectors points are defeated by hard data and reason. Are you advocating that the UK has a 100% renewable-sourced power supply? Yes or No? If yes, what are you going to do during a dark January anticyclone when low temperature, no wind and no sun mean mass blackouts? You have to find 40TW+ from somewhere or people die in huge numbers from your green stupidity. Vulnerable people will die in their hundreds of thousands from hypothermia - the rest have to sit and shiver eating cold food under candlelight because idiots like you wanted to "save the planet". Britain's contribution to global warning is so microscopic as to be undetectable but thanks to idiotic green policies we would be a third world nation. So let's just visit that first point again shall we? Scandinavian timber is currently cheaper to import than Britain's domestic supply, so only the UK's most economic woodland can compete currently. Coincidentlally I was surveying some timber woodlands in Wales over the weekend with a view to purchasing it myself so believe me I know the markets. What "scientific research" were you doing. Googling using your own search terms is not scientific and it definitely isn't research.[/p][/quote].. well, I rest my case. Industry scaremongering yet again. Any excuse for business as usual. I have not, anywhere, at any time, ever said I'm "advocating that the UK has a 100% renewable-sourced power supply" So the answer to your pathetic question is a big "No", making all the following scaremongering nonsense totally irrelevant. Quite frankly it's only apologists for big business, the very organisations that have got this planet into our current mess, with their absolute greed and total disregard for the consequences of their planetary exploitation, that could come out with such diversionary, don’t face up to the real issues, nonsense. Your “Britain's contribution to global warning (sic) is so microscopic as to be undetectable” further demonstrates your inability to see the picture through anything other than industry glazed ‘let’s continue exploiting the planet and to hell with the consequences’ spectacles. That the same could also be (wrongly) said of France, Poland, Thailand, Paraguay, South Africa, Korea, New Zealand, etc. ad infinitum, clearly demonstrates your industry-centric attitude that the overwhelming and neo-unanimous data and considered opinion of the relevant scientific disciplines in compiling the IPCC Reports can be totally disregarded. Yes, let’s fiddle while Rome burns – there’s a still pile of cash to be made. Your attempt to classify anyone who disagrees with your ‘I’m always right because I’m an industrial scientist persona’ as a sit at home googler is pathetic, insulting and very far from the truth. It is, in fact, you and your ilk who are suffering from scientific myopia, with deliberately skewed presentation of ‘evidence’ as you do the bidding of the destructive big businesses that ultimately are your paymasters. Seen it time and time again as otherwise good and rational scientists sell out for the corporate dollar.[/p][/quote]Perhaps its brinkmanship but if the OFGEM report on the fragility of the UKs electricity supply does result in blackouts, no-one will be interested in anyone's Green agenda. First and foremost there needs to be power from a reliable source to keep the country operating, and arguing about what might happen in two hundred years time if you don't build windmills will be an argument that will interest a tiny handful of people at best. The EU has successfully stopped a worrying number of power stations from continuing to generate, there isn't enough time to build new resources on a major scale, consumers complain about the high cost of imported energy supplied by more far-sighted countries and the NIMBYs protest about everything that is proposed that might help. Buy candles now because they will only go up in price. Torchie1

11:49am Mon 8 Oct 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

I'm pleased to see that you have pushed your lack of a rational approach and your lack of qualification to the fore. Your switch to attacking "Big Business" whatever that is and attaching it to some vague notion of planetary destruction is the kind of comic book preamble that does your credibility no good at all. My background was nuclear energywhich is still one of the best and cleanest solutions we have, but thanks to Labour's indecision over the last 15 years we have an energy gap that new build cannot fill so we need other thermal solutions. Your rant about "big business" exploitation and coporate dollars is irrelevant to the simple equations of supply and demand, but it is quite useful in placing the basis of your argument where it belongs. So forget about timber supply - unless you are a shareholder that is not your concern Does your objection to this particular plant centre on its location, its size or its design, or do you favour an alternative fuel such as shale gas?
I'm pleased to see that you have pushed your lack of a rational approach and your lack of qualification to the fore. Your switch to attacking "Big Business" whatever that is and attaching it to some vague notion of planetary destruction is the kind of comic book preamble that does your credibility no good at all. My background was nuclear energywhich is still one of the best and cleanest solutions we have, but thanks to Labour's indecision over the last 15 years we have an energy gap that new build cannot fill so we need other thermal solutions. Your rant about "big business" exploitation and coporate dollars is irrelevant to the simple equations of supply and demand, but it is quite useful in placing the basis of your argument where it belongs. So forget about timber supply - unless you are a shareholder that is not your concern Does your objection to this particular plant centre on its location, its size or its design, or do you favour an alternative fuel such as shale gas? Andy Locks Heath

11:55am Mon 8 Oct 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

I forgot to point out to Freefinker that a massive expansion in timber production has happened, contrary to her assertions, during World War 2, when production rose by over 100% within 12 months, and imports of timber were almost halted for obvious reasons. Commercially planted timber requires thinning every 10 years so this would typically be the interval before a change in market conditions was reflected in the balance of domestic supply and demand.
I forgot to point out to Freefinker that a massive expansion in timber production has happened, contrary to her assertions, during World War 2, when production rose by over 100% within 12 months, and imports of timber were almost halted for obvious reasons. Commercially planted timber requires thinning every 10 years so this would typically be the interval before a change in market conditions was reflected in the balance of domestic supply and demand. Andy Locks Heath

5:54pm Thu 25 Oct 12

Dan Soton says...

Centrica pulls the plug on Barrow biomass after the government clarifies its position on ( Helius ) dedicated biomass projects.


-

Summary: Future government policy will favour Wood Biomass and Coal burned together rather than dedicated ( Helius ) Biomass Projects.

-


Centrica pulls the plug on Barrow biomass.

Last updated at 16:52, Thursday, 25 October 2012.

CENTRICA has announced it is scrapping plans for a biomass plant in Barrow and withdrawing its existing gas plant from service.

The energy company announced yesterday afternoon it will not be proceeding with plans for an 80MW biomass power station at Roosecote.

Centrica have said the decision was taken after the government clarified its position on biomass.

“Throughout this time, we have also been talking to the government to clarify energy policy. Our understanding is that future policy will favour co-firing (biomass and coal burned together) and conversion of coal fired power stations rather than dedicated biomass projects, so we have made the difficult decision not to proceed with this proposal.

-

http://tinyurl.com/d
78ddr4

-



Why the change of heart?.


Why is the government favouring Wood biomass & Coal co-firing ?.


Possibly something to do with the below news.

-



Leith Wood Biomass Produces 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://tinyurl.com/c
dsrpft
Centrica pulls the plug on Barrow biomass after the government clarifies its position on ( Helius ) dedicated biomass projects. - Summary: Future government policy will favour Wood Biomass and Coal burned together rather than dedicated ( Helius ) Biomass Projects. - Centrica pulls the plug on Barrow biomass. Last updated at 16:52, Thursday, 25 October 2012. CENTRICA has announced it is scrapping plans for a biomass plant in Barrow and withdrawing its existing gas plant from service. The energy company announced yesterday afternoon it will not be proceeding with plans for an 80MW biomass power station at Roosecote. Centrica have said the decision was taken after the government clarified its position on biomass. “Throughout this time, we have also been talking to the government to clarify energy policy. Our understanding is that future policy will favour co-firing (biomass and coal burned together) and conversion of coal fired power stations rather than dedicated biomass projects, so we have made the difficult decision not to proceed with this proposal. - http://tinyurl.com/d 78ddr4 - Why the change of heart?. Why is the government favouring Wood biomass & Coal co-firing ?. Possibly something to do with the below news. - Leith Wood Biomass Produces 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://tinyurl.com/c dsrpft Dan Soton

9:19pm Thu 25 Oct 12

loosehead says...

well I think the government have got this wrong.
We are suppose to be cutting our Carbon Footprint Coal will not do this but Wood chip from a sustainable source will so why insist on both together?
well I think the government have got this wrong. We are suppose to be cutting our Carbon Footprint Coal will not do this but Wood chip from a sustainable source will so why insist on both together? loosehead

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree