Biomass supported by government (From Daily Echo)

Thats you Government decision in a few months time then

*your* .... tch!

What now? are the people of Millbrook & Freemantle going to refuse to use electricity because they think the buildings ugly?

Down with that sort of thing!

Careful Now

loosehead wrote:
What now? are the people of Millbrook & Freemantle going to refuse to use electricity because they think the buildings ugly?

A new height in gross stupidity? I personally do not look down my wires to see where the juice is coming from, but I am aware that the mess put into the atmosphere was sufficient reason to find other ways of producing lecky than coal fired power stations, despite the inventions of air cleaners in the chimneys. When you and the other very ungreen supporters of this scheme grow up, you will realise the situation is not that different

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:
What now? are the people of Millbrook & Freemantle going to refuse to use electricity because they think the buildings ugly?

A new height in gross stupidity? I personally do not look down my wires to see where the juice is coming from, but I am aware that the mess put into the atmosphere was sufficient reason to find other ways of producing lecky than coal fired power stations, despite the inventions of air cleaners in the chimneys. When you and the other very ungreen supporters of this scheme grow up, you will realise the situation is not that different

Ungreen ? Gross Stupidity?
Why don't you try & read my posts?
I have put alternatives forward but I am in favour of the Bio Mass.
my post was aimed at the people who said they object as it's ugly or couldn't you work that out? Who's stupid?

Do I have to repeat posts?
There are known Carbon capture devices so could Inform Al ( not very informed though)tell me exactly how ungreen this Bio Mass is?

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:
What now? are the people of Millbrook & Freemantle going to refuse to use electricity because they think the buildings ugly?

A new height in gross stupidity? I personally do not look down my wires to see where the juice is coming from, but I am aware that the mess put into the atmosphere was sufficient reason to find other ways of producing lecky than coal fired power stations, despite the inventions of air cleaners in the chimneys. When you and the other very ungreen supporters of this scheme grow up, you will realise the situation is not that different

Ungreen ? Gross Stupidity?
Why don't you try & read my posts?
I have put alternatives forward but I am in favour of the Bio Mass.
my post was aimed at the people who said they object as it's ugly or couldn't you work that out? Who's stupid?

Don't worry, there's an Echo report elsewhere that says there may be a cure coming for you.

A short version of the ministerial statement can be read here:http://www.decc
.gov.uk/en/content/c
ms/news/wms_ro_lm/wm
s_ro_lm.aspx

In fact it is a very mixed bag. One of the clearest themes is a greater emphasis on gas as a power station fuel into the 2020s and beyond.

Recognising gas as a relatively low carbon fuel it is clear that DECC perceive that UK-sourced gas may become available in large quantities.

The hope is also held out that wellhead gas prices will fall (as they have in the USA over the last few years) as the UK becomes gas self-sufficient once again.

This is a very big policy change for the UK Government.

loosehead wrote:
Do I have to repeat posts?
There are known Carbon capture devices so could Inform Al ( not very informed though)tell me exactly how ungreen this Bio Mass is?

Will the transportation of fuel to the proposed power station be carbon neutral? If not, then the power station cannot be regarded as being green.

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:
What now? are the people of Millbrook & Freemantle going to refuse to use electricity because they think the buildings ugly?

A new height in gross stupidity? I personally do not look down my wires to see where the juice is coming from, but I am aware that the mess put into the atmosphere was sufficient reason to find other ways of producing lecky than coal fired power stations, despite the inventions of air cleaners in the chimneys. When you and the other very ungreen supporters of this scheme grow up, you will realise the situation is not that different

Ungreen ? Gross Stupidity?
Why don't you try & read my posts?
I have put alternatives forward but I am in favour of the Bio Mass.
my post was aimed at the people who said they object as it's ugly or couldn't you work that out? Who's stupid?

You

I'm not alone in being unconvinced that global warming is nothing more than a natural cycle over the centuries and I am therefore not sympathetic to carbon preservation. Governments were too quick to back it, for what seemed to me to be a way of constructing a new industry for growth and tax – not a bad purpose in itself but indicative of a big con.

Rob444 wrote:

loosehead wrote:
Do I have to repeat posts?
There are known Carbon capture devices so could Inform Al ( not very informed though)tell me exactly how ungreen this Bio Mass is?

Will the transportation of fuel to the proposed power station be carbon neutral? If not, then the power station cannot be regarded as being green.

So is the transportation of coal from Australia or even from our deep mines okay?
As I've said before these locals should be 1/fighting to have the wood chip resourced from the UK . 2/ have it delivered by rail.
They should also look into Helius supplying the local residents with cheap hot water for either 1/to use as hot water. 2/ use for heating which would make the plant considerably "greener"

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:
What now? are the people of Millbrook & Freemantle going to refuse to use electricity because they think the buildings ugly?

A new height in gross stupidity? I personally do not look down my wires to see where the juice is coming from, but I am aware that the mess put into the atmosphere was sufficient reason to find other ways of producing lecky than coal fired power stations, despite the inventions of air cleaners in the chimneys. When you and the other very ungreen supporters of this scheme grow up, you will realise the situation is not that different

Ungreen ? Gross Stupidity?
Why don't you try & read my posts?
I have put alternatives forward but I am in favour of the Bio Mass.
my post was aimed at the people who said they object as it's ugly or couldn't you work that out? Who's stupid?

Don't worry, there's an Echo report elsewhere that says there may be a cure coming for you.

There was also a report about you but you seem to forget that one don't you?
Why the hell UKIP allows you to have anything to do with them Mr,Keeble I'll never understand as you're the biggest vote loser there is & how many voters looked at UKIP saw your name & decided against it?

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:
What now? are the people of Millbrook & Freemantle going to refuse to use electricity because they think the buildings ugly?

A new height in gross stupidity? I personally do not look down my wires to see where the juice is coming from, but I am aware that the mess put into the atmosphere was sufficient reason to find other ways of producing lecky than coal fired power stations, despite the inventions of air cleaners in the chimneys. When you and the other very ungreen supporters of this scheme grow up, you will realise the situation is not that different

Ungreen ? Gross Stupidity?
Why don't you try & read my posts?
I have put alternatives forward but I am in favour of the Bio Mass.
my post was aimed at the people who said they object as it's ugly or couldn't you work that out? Who's stupid?

Don't worry, there's an Echo report elsewhere that says there may be a cure coming for you.

There was also a report about you but you seem to forget that one don't you?
Why the hell UKIP allows you to have anything to do with them Mr,Keeble I'll never understand as you're the biggest vote loser there is & how many voters looked at UKIP saw your name & decided against it?

That cure will probably be too late, you seem to have already lost all contact with reality.

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:
What now? are the people of Millbrook & Freemantle going to refuse to use electricity because they think the buildings ugly?

A new height in gross stupidity? I personally do not look down my wires to see where the juice is coming from, but I am aware that the mess put into the atmosphere was sufficient reason to find other ways of producing lecky than coal fired power stations, despite the inventions of air cleaners in the chimneys. When you and the other very ungreen supporters of this scheme grow up, you will realise the situation is not that different

Ungreen ? Gross Stupidity?
Why don't you try & read my posts?
I have put alternatives forward but I am in favour of the Bio Mass.
my post was aimed at the people who said they object as it's ugly or couldn't you work that out? Who's stupid?

Don't worry, there's an Echo report elsewhere that says there may be a cure coming for you.

There was also a report about you but you seem to forget that one don't you?
Why the hell UKIP allows you to have anything to do with them Mr,Keeble I'll never understand as you're the biggest vote loser there is & how many voters looked at UKIP saw your name & decided against it?

That cure will probably be too late, you seem to have already lost all contact with reality.

Sorry but my system seems to be CORRUPT & you a pond life are trying to say I had Dementia?
Saw you once on telly & I thought what a poor deluded fool you were now I know it.
Sorry just wiped you off the bottom of my shoe or was it some other low life but I forget WHO ARE YOU?

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:
What now? are the people of Millbrook & Freemantle going to refuse to use electricity because they think the buildings ugly?

A new height in gross stupidity? I personally do not look down my wires to see where the juice is coming from, but I am aware that the mess put into the atmosphere was sufficient reason to find other ways of producing lecky than coal fired power stations, despite the inventions of air cleaners in the chimneys. When you and the other very ungreen supporters of this scheme grow up, you will realise the situation is not that different

Ungreen ? Gross Stupidity?
Why don't you try & read my posts?
I have put alternatives forward but I am in favour of the Bio Mass.
my post was aimed at the people who said they object as it's ugly or couldn't you work that out? Who's stupid?

Don't worry, there's an Echo report elsewhere that says there may be a cure coming for you.

There was also a report about you but you seem to forget that one don't you?
Why the hell UKIP allows you to have anything to do with them Mr,Keeble I'll never understand as you're the biggest vote loser there is & how many voters looked at UKIP saw your name & decided against it?

That cure will probably be too late, you seem to have already lost all contact with reality.

Sorry but my system seems to be CORRUPT & you a pond life are trying to say I had Dementia?
Saw you once on telly & I thought what a poor deluded fool you were now I know it.
Sorry just wiped you off the bottom of my shoe or was it some other low life but I forget WHO ARE YOU?

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:
What now? are the people of Millbrook & Freemantle going to refuse to use electricity because they think the buildings ugly?

A new height in gross stupidity? I personally do not look down my wires to see where the juice is coming from, but I am aware that the mess put into the atmosphere was sufficient reason to find other ways of producing lecky than coal fired power stations, despite the inventions of air cleaners in the chimneys. When you and the other very ungreen supporters of this scheme grow up, you will realise the situation is not that different

Ungreen ? Gross Stupidity?
Why don't you try & read my posts?
I have put alternatives forward but I am in favour of the Bio Mass.
my post was aimed at the people who said they object as it's ugly or couldn't you work that out? Who's stupid?

Don't worry, there's an Echo report elsewhere that says there may be a cure coming for you.

There was also a report about you but you seem to forget that one don't you?
Why the hell UKIP allows you to have anything to do with them Mr,Keeble I'll never understand as you're the biggest vote loser there is & how many voters looked at UKIP saw your name & decided against it?

That cure will probably be too late, you seem to have already lost all contact with reality.

Sorry but my system seems to be CORRUPT & you a pond life are trying to say I had Dementia?
Saw you once on telly & I thought what a poor deluded fool you were now I know it.
Sorry just wiped you off the bottom of my shoe or was it some other low life but I forget WHO ARE YOU?

Too late or not, keep taking the pills.

If the Coalition says it's OK then it's OK by me, start building now.

loosehead wrote:
Do I have to repeat posts?
There are known Carbon capture devices so could Inform Al ( not very informed though)tell me exactly how ungreen this Bio Mass is?

I was reading about a new one just develope, only problem is the cost and they say it would not be any cheaper than 2/3 of the cost of developing to manufactoring. shame because it sounded real good in the wright up.

And yes your right about what a building looks like, what counts is how well it works

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:
What now? are the people of Millbrook & Freemantle going to refuse to use electricity because they think the buildings ugly?

A new height in gross stupidity? I personally do not look down my wires to see where the juice is coming from, but I am aware that the mess put into the atmosphere was sufficient reason to find other ways of producing lecky than coal fired power stations, despite the inventions of air cleaners in the chimneys. When you and the other very ungreen supporters of this scheme grow up, you will realise the situation is not that different

"Green-ness" does not have a definition or a scale; It is simply an invented political attribute, by which some groups claim to reserve the exclusive rights to define what is "green" and what is not, a little like the priests in an old religion exercising control using mysticism. I won't ask you how you measure the "green-ness" of this scheme because your subsequent posts indicate that your reply would be worthless; however if you want to redeem yourself on these pages just explain how you would deliver 42GW of consistent continuous reliable predictable controllable electricity.If you can't answer then what makes you think you can criticise any scheme, never mind this one?

loosehead wrote:
Do I have to repeat posts?
There are known Carbon capture devices so could Inform Al ( not very informed though)tell me exactly how ungreen this Bio Mass is?

NO !!!! PLEASE dont repeat your posts.
.
They are bad enough first time around

Danae wrote:
A short version of the ministerial statement can be read here:http://www.decc

.gov.uk/en/content/c

ms/news/wms_ro_lm/wm

s_ro_lm.aspx

In fact it is a very mixed bag. One of the clearest themes is a greater emphasis on gas as a power station fuel into the 2020s and beyond.

Recognising gas as a relatively low carbon fuel it is clear that DECC perceive that UK-sourced gas may become available in large quantities.

The hope is also held out that wellhead gas prices will fall (as they have in the USA over the last few years) as the UK becomes gas self-sufficient once again.

This is a very big policy change for the UK Government.

Interesting that the plug is at last starting to be pulled on the subsidies for wind power Danae, which has been a colossal waste of taxpayers money,where we get situations of the Governments paying overseas owners of windfarms firstly to build them (using windmills produced overseas) and then paying them not to actually produce electricity by guaranteeing payments whether the wind blew or not. This is the sort of nonsense that "green-ness" has delivered when in the hands of political activists. However Marland does seem to endorse the expansion of gas fracking though as usual the report is vague on detail so we can look forward to the same army of "greens" appearing in another location opposing another source of power generation while happily and hypoctritically consuming electricity in their homes every day.

Lone Ranger. wrote:

loosehead wrote:
Do I have to repeat posts?
There are known Carbon capture devices so could Inform Al ( not very informed though)tell me exactly how ungreen this Bio Mass is?

NO !!!! PLEASE dont repeat your posts.
.
They are bad enough first time around

Bit under the belt that one! I was actually agreeing with you on the Bio Mass & then you post this?

Lone Ranger. wrote:

loosehead wrote:
Do I have to repeat posts?
There are known Carbon capture devices so could Inform Al ( not very informed though)tell me exactly how ungreen this Bio Mass is?

NO !!!! PLEASE dont repeat your posts.
.
They are bad enough first time around

Bit under the belt that one! I was actually agreeing with you on the Bio Mass & then you post this?

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:
What now? are the people of Millbrook & Freemantle going to refuse to use electricity because they think the buildings ugly?

A new height in gross stupidity? I personally do not look down my wires to see where the juice is coming from, but I am aware that the mess put into the atmosphere was sufficient reason to find other ways of producing lecky than coal fired power stations, despite the inventions of air cleaners in the chimneys. When you and the other very ungreen supporters of this scheme grow up, you will realise the situation is not that different

"Green-ness" does not have a definition or a scale; It is simply an invented political attribute, by which some groups claim to reserve the exclusive rights to define what is "green" and what is not, a little like the priests in an old religion exercising control using mysticism. I won't ask you how you measure the "green-ness" of this scheme because your subsequent posts indicate that your reply would be worthless; however if you want to redeem yourself on these pages just explain how you would deliver 42GW of consistent continuous reliable predictable controllable electricity.If you can't answer then what makes you think you can criticise any scheme, never mind this one?

I could if bothered give methods of providing more than 42GW but suspect that due to your intransigent stupid attitude they will be decried. Personally I have no problem with nuclear fission as a form of energy, especially now that the boffins have finally woken up to the fact that emissions from spent fuel rods are in fact still usable energy and that the rods can be 'used up' to make them safe. I would not however want a nuclear power station on my doorstep, no more than the residents of Millbrooke would like to live with what could become a nightmare for them. The most interesting issue for me however will be when ABP need more dock room and use the sudden lack of room at Millbrook thanks to the power station as the main excuse to despoil Dibden Bay. As there is already an incinerator at Marchwood burning rubbish and producing a little energy it would make sense to incorporate any more fossilburning schemes with that, but that will not suit ABP with their future plans for Dibden.

Inform Al wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:
What now? are the people of Millbrook & Freemantle going to refuse to use electricity because they think the buildings ugly?

A new height in gross stupidity? I personally do not look down my wires to see where the juice is coming from, but I am aware that the mess put into the atmosphere was sufficient reason to find other ways of producing lecky than coal fired power stations, despite the inventions of air cleaners in the chimneys. When you and the other very ungreen supporters of this scheme grow up, you will realise the situation is not that different

"Green-ness" does not have a definition or a scale; It is simply an invented political attribute, by which some groups claim to reserve the exclusive rights to define what is "green" and what is not, a little like the priests in an old religion exercising control using mysticism. I won't ask you how you measure the "green-ness" of this scheme because your subsequent posts indicate that your reply would be worthless; however if you want to redeem yourself on these pages just explain how you would deliver 42GW of consistent continuous reliable predictable controllable electricity.If you can't answer then what makes you think you can criticise any scheme, never mind this one?

I could if bothered give methods of providing more than 42GW but suspect that due to your intransigent stupid attitude they will be decried. Personally I have no problem with nuclear fission as a form of energy, especially now that the boffins have finally woken up to the fact that emissions from spent fuel rods are in fact still usable energy and that the rods can be 'used up' to make them safe. I would not however want a nuclear power station on my doorstep, no more than the residents of Millbrooke would like to live with what could become a nightmare for them. The most interesting issue for me however will be when ABP need more dock room and use the sudden lack of room at Millbrook thanks to the power station as the main excuse to despoil Dibden Bay. As there is already an incinerator at Marchwood burning rubbish and producing a little energy it would make sense to incorporate any more fossilburning schemes with that, but that will not suit ABP with their future plans for Dibden.

You will find that having worked at the NPL while at Imperial and then for the AEA at Winfrith I can tell you a lot more about the processing of spent fuel than you can tell me. I can also tell from your use of the phrase "woken up to the fact" that you are a typical pontificating autodidact whose sudden expertise in the reprocessing of spent fuel has come from google and not from 20 years hard graft of actually developing the technology to perform this kind of separation. Do you know how to go about separating U235 from U238? Thought not. I don't think you can actually articulate why you don't want this power station; it is more a matter of googling whatever tenuous data supports your pre-existing prejudice. Tell me, are you really a local politician, because I'd like to see how much actual data you have used in your decision making.

The Wickham Man wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:
What now? are the people of Millbrook & Freemantle going to refuse to use electricity because they think the buildings ugly?

A new height in gross stupidity? I personally do not look down my wires to see where the juice is coming from, but I am aware that the mess put into the atmosphere was sufficient reason to find other ways of producing lecky than coal fired power stations, despite the inventions of air cleaners in the chimneys. When you and the other very ungreen supporters of this scheme grow up, you will realise the situation is not that different

"Green-ness" does not have a definition or a scale; It is simply an invented political attribute, by which some groups claim to reserve the exclusive rights to define what is "green" and what is not, a little like the priests in an old religion exercising control using mysticism. I won't ask you how you measure the "green-ness" of this scheme because your subsequent posts indicate that your reply would be worthless; however if you want to redeem yourself on these pages just explain how you would deliver 42GW of consistent continuous reliable predictable controllable electricity.If you can't answer then what makes you think you can criticise any scheme, never mind this one?

I could if bothered give methods of providing more than 42GW but suspect that due to your intransigent stupid attitude they will be decried. Personally I have no problem with nuclear fission as a form of energy, especially now that the boffins have finally woken up to the fact that emissions from spent fuel rods are in fact still usable energy and that the rods can be 'used up' to make them safe. I would not however want a nuclear power station on my doorstep, no more than the residents of Millbrooke would like to live with what could become a nightmare for them. The most interesting issue for me however will be when ABP need more dock room and use the sudden lack of room at Millbrook thanks to the power station as the main excuse to despoil Dibden Bay. As there is already an incinerator at Marchwood burning rubbish and producing a little energy it would make sense to incorporate any more fossilburning schemes with that, but that will not suit ABP with their future plans for Dibden.

You will find that having worked at the NPL while at Imperial and then for the AEA at Winfrith I can tell you a lot more about the processing of spent fuel than you can tell me. I can also tell from your use of the phrase "woken up to the fact" that you are a typical pontificating autodidact whose sudden expertise in the reprocessing of spent fuel has come from google and not from 20 years hard graft of actually developing the technology to perform this kind of separation. Do you know how to go about separating U235 from U238? Thought not. I don't think you can actually articulate why you don't want this power station; it is more a matter of googling whatever tenuous data supports your pre-existing prejudice. Tell me, are you really a local politician, because I'd like to see how much actual data you have used in your decision making.

Hmmm I don't think I can add to that!

The Wickham Man wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:
What now? are the people of Millbrook & Freemantle going to refuse to use electricity because they think the buildings ugly?

A new height in gross stupidity? I personally do not look down my wires to see where the juice is coming from, but I am aware that the mess put into the atmosphere was sufficient reason to find other ways of producing lecky than coal fired power stations, despite the inventions of air cleaners in the chimneys. When you and the other very ungreen supporters of this scheme grow up, you will realise the situation is not that different

"Green-ness" does not have a definition or a scale; It is simply an invented political attribute, by which some groups claim to reserve the exclusive rights to define what is "green" and what is not, a little like the priests in an old religion exercising control using mysticism. I won't ask you how you measure the "green-ness" of this scheme because your subsequent posts indicate that your reply would be worthless; however if you want to redeem yourself on these pages just explain how you would deliver 42GW of consistent continuous reliable predictable controllable electricity.If you can't answer then what makes you think you can criticise any scheme, never mind this one?

I could if bothered give methods of providing more than 42GW but suspect that due to your intransigent stupid attitude they will be decried. Personally I have no problem with nuclear fission as a form of energy, especially now that the boffins have finally woken up to the fact that emissions from spent fuel rods are in fact still usable energy and that the rods can be 'used up' to make them safe. I would not however want a nuclear power station on my doorstep, no more than the residents of Millbrooke would like to live with what could become a nightmare for them. The most interesting issue for me however will be when ABP need more dock room and use the sudden lack of room at Millbrook thanks to the power station as the main excuse to despoil Dibden Bay. As there is already an incinerator at Marchwood burning rubbish and producing a little energy it would make sense to incorporate any more fossilburning schemes with that, but that will not suit ABP with their future plans for Dibden.

You will find that having worked at the NPL while at Imperial and then for the AEA at Winfrith I can tell you a lot more about the processing of spent fuel than you can tell me. I can also tell from your use of the phrase "woken up to the fact" that you are a typical pontificating autodidact whose sudden expertise in the reprocessing of spent fuel has come from google and not from 20 years hard graft of actually developing the technology to perform this kind of separation. Do you know how to go about separating U235 from U238? Thought not. I don't think you can actually articulate why you don't want this power station; it is more a matter of googling whatever tenuous data supports your pre-existing prejudice. Tell me, are you really a local politician, because I'd like to see how much actual data you have used in your decision making.

I first gained an interest in the total use of nuclear materials in the 1960s and again in the 1970s when I too was at Imperial, don't think googling was invented then but Bill Penney probably had a lot to do with it.

Inform Al wrote:

The Wickham Man wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:
What now? are the people of Millbrook & Freemantle going to refuse to use electricity because they think the buildings ugly?

A new height in gross stupidity? I personally do not look down my wires to see where the juice is coming from, but I am aware that the mess put into the atmosphere was sufficient reason to find other ways of producing lecky than coal fired power stations, despite the inventions of air cleaners in the chimneys. When you and the other very ungreen supporters of this scheme grow up, you will realise the situation is not that different

"Green-ness" does not have a definition or a scale; It is simply an invented political attribute, by which some groups claim to reserve the exclusive rights to define what is "green" and what is not, a little like the priests in an old religion exercising control using mysticism. I won't ask you how you measure the "green-ness" of this scheme because your subsequent posts indicate that your reply would be worthless; however if you want to redeem yourself on these pages just explain how you would deliver 42GW of consistent continuous reliable predictable controllable electricity.If you can't answer then what makes you think you can criticise any scheme, never mind this one?

I could if bothered give methods of providing more than 42GW but suspect that due to your intransigent stupid attitude they will be decried. Personally I have no problem with nuclear fission as a form of energy, especially now that the boffins have finally woken up to the fact that emissions from spent fuel rods are in fact still usable energy and that the rods can be 'used up' to make them safe. I would not however want a nuclear power station on my doorstep, no more than the residents of Millbrooke would like to live with what could become a nightmare for them. The most interesting issue for me however will be when ABP need more dock room and use the sudden lack of room at Millbrook thanks to the power station as the main excuse to despoil Dibden Bay. As there is already an incinerator at Marchwood burning rubbish and producing a little energy it would make sense to incorporate any more fossilburning schemes with that, but that will not suit ABP with their future plans for Dibden.

You will find that having worked at the NPL while at Imperial and then for the AEA at Winfrith I can tell you a lot more about the processing of spent fuel than you can tell me. I can also tell from your use of the phrase "woken up to the fact" that you are a typical pontificating autodidact whose sudden expertise in the reprocessing of spent fuel has come from google and not from 20 years hard graft of actually developing the technology to perform this kind of separation. Do you know how to go about separating U235 from U238? Thought not. I don't think you can actually articulate why you don't want this power station; it is more a matter of googling whatever tenuous data supports your pre-existing prejudice. Tell me, are you really a local politician, because I'd like to see how much actual data you have used in your decision making.

I first gained an interest in the total use of nuclear materials in the 1960s and again in the 1970s when I too was at Imperial, don't think googling was invented then but Bill Penney probably had a lot to do with it.

Just to clear up a point.
I was born & bred in Millbrook not Millbrooke.
You talk about Dibden Bay? could you tell me exactly where the bay is now that it's been filled in with dredging's & is now reclaimed land?
Would you be happy to see it returned to a bay?
This reclamation was for dock use not for people to walk their dogs.
As for your other point of view ask the People of Japan or even Germany what they now think of Nuclear power I think you'll find your in a very small minority & many especially in Germany would prefer Bio Mass but then you wouldn't want to hear that & you would suggest they all are stupid & have Dementia wouldn't you Mr.Keeble?

Inform Al wrote:

The Wickham Man wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Andy Locks Heath wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:
What now? are the people of Millbrook & Freemantle going to refuse to use electricity because they think the buildings ugly?

A new height in gross stupidity? I personally do not look down my wires to see where the juice is coming from, but I am aware that the mess put into the atmosphere was sufficient reason to find other ways of producing lecky than coal fired power stations, despite the inventions of air cleaners in the chimneys. When you and the other very ungreen supporters of this scheme grow up, you will realise the situation is not that different

"Green-ness" does not have a definition or a scale; It is simply an invented political attribute, by which some groups claim to reserve the exclusive rights to define what is "green" and what is not, a little like the priests in an old religion exercising control using mysticism. I won't ask you how you measure the "green-ness" of this scheme because your subsequent posts indicate that your reply would be worthless; however if you want to redeem yourself on these pages just explain how you would deliver 42GW of consistent continuous reliable predictable controllable electricity.If you can't answer then what makes you think you can criticise any scheme, never mind this one?

I could if bothered give methods of providing more than 42GW but suspect that due to your intransigent stupid attitude they will be decried. Personally I have no problem with nuclear fission as a form of energy, especially now that the boffins have finally woken up to the fact that emissions from spent fuel rods are in fact still usable energy and that the rods can be 'used up' to make them safe. I would not however want a nuclear power station on my doorstep, no more than the residents of Millbrooke would like to live with what could become a nightmare for them. The most interesting issue for me however will be when ABP need more dock room and use the sudden lack of room at Millbrook thanks to the power station as the main excuse to despoil Dibden Bay. As there is already an incinerator at Marchwood burning rubbish and producing a little energy it would make sense to incorporate any more fossilburning schemes with that, but that will not suit ABP with their future plans for Dibden.

You will find that having worked at the NPL while at Imperial and then for the AEA at Winfrith I can tell you a lot more about the processing of spent fuel than you can tell me. I can also tell from your use of the phrase "woken up to the fact" that you are a typical pontificating autodidact whose sudden expertise in the reprocessing of spent fuel has come from google and not from 20 years hard graft of actually developing the technology to perform this kind of separation. Do you know how to go about separating U235 from U238? Thought not. I don't think you can actually articulate why you don't want this power station; it is more a matter of googling whatever tenuous data supports your pre-existing prejudice. Tell me, are you really a local politician, because I'd like to see how much actual data you have used in your decision making.

I first gained an interest in the total use of nuclear materials in the 1960s and again in the 1970s when I too was at Imperial, don't think googling was invented then but Bill Penney probably had a lot to do with it.

Just to clear up a point.
I was born & bred in Millbrook not Millbrooke.
You talk about Dibden Bay? could you tell me exactly where the bay is now that it's been filled in with dredging's & is now reclaimed land?
Would you be happy to see it returned to a bay?
This reclamation was for dock use not for people to walk their dogs.
As for your other point of view ask the People of Japan or even Germany what they now think of Nuclear power I think you'll find your in a very small minority & many especially in Germany would prefer Bio Mass but then you wouldn't want to hear that & you would suggest they all are stupid & have Dementia wouldn't you Mr.Keeble?

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

-

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

Six Acres of solar panels can power 199 homes.

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

-



Daily Echo.. Estate creates huge solar panel farm.

9:37am Friday 13th July 2012.

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

-

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

Dan Soton wrote:
Today Bells peeled across Southampton to welcome Olympics.. cover your ear's here's the Biomas Alarm Bells.

-

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

Six Acres of solar panels can power 199 homes.

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

-



Daily Echo.. Estate creates huge solar panel farm.

9:37am Friday 13th July 2012.

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

-

http://www.dailyecho

.co.uk/business/9815

892.Estate_creates_h

uge_solar_panel_farm

/

Maybe a wind or Solar powered farm at Dibden then?

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:
Today Bells peeled across Southampton to welcome Olympics.. cover your ear's here's the Biomas Alarm Bells.

-

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

Six Acres of solar panels can power 199 homes.

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

-



Daily Echo.. Estate creates huge solar panel farm.

9:37am Friday 13th July 2012.

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

-

http://www.dailyecho


.co.uk/business/9815


892.Estate_creates_h


uge_solar_panel_farm


/

Maybe a wind or Solar powered farm at Dibden then?

loosehead, put solar panels wherever wherever you like better that than a world trying to survive without food.

-

preferably all Southampton's offices and homes.. see Manchester’s solar clad Co-operative Insurance Tower was chosen by the DTI as one of the "10 best green energy projects" of 2005.

-

http://tinyurl.com/c
9bcgsp

-


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

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

when it comes to profits incinerating tall grass wins out over timber it's that simple but there's no point in me ribbing Helius powering Southampton with grass unless there are other viable alternatives... solar/wind/tidal/alg
ae biofuel etc.

I fully support algae biofuel as a sustainable energy source, algae can be grown on the poorest/desert land.. not competing with food crops.


-



Algae moves to the head of the sustainable energy class.

Jun 27, 2012.

Global energy use is going to grow 53% by 2035, DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) predicts, and algae-based technology is the best candidate to provide a sustainable energy source to meet that growing demand.

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

"An acre of corn can be used to generate 300 gallons of ethanol per year, while an acre of algae can produce 6,000 to 10,000 gallons of light sweet crude oil annually,"

-

http://tinyurl.com/c
lhe58k


-



this Government or I should say the EU's support for biomass/biofuel centred on incinerating timber or grass but Helius's Southampton plans are.

environmentally Helius is 20 years behind the times.


Helius is the wrong company at the wrong time.

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:
Today Bells peeled across Southampton to welcome Olympics.. cover your ear's here's the Biomas Alarm Bells.

-

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

Six Acres of solar panels can power 199 homes.

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

-



Daily Echo.. Estate creates huge solar panel farm.

9:37am Friday 13th July 2012.

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

-

http://www.dailyecho


.co.uk/business/9815


892.Estate_creates_h


uge_solar_panel_farm


/

Maybe a wind or Solar powered farm at Dibden then?

loosehead, put solar panels wherever you like better that than a world trying to survive without food.

-

preferably clad all Southampton's offices and homes.. see Manchester’s solar clad Co-operative Insurance Tower was chosen by the DTI as one of the "10 best green energy projects" of 2005.

-

http://tinyurl.com/c
9bcgsp

-


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

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

when it comes to profits incinerating tall grass wins out over timber it's that simple but there's no point in me ribbing Helius powering Southampton with grass unless there are other viable alternatives... solar/wind/tidal/alg
ae biofuel etc.

I fully support algae biofuel as a sustainable energy source, algae can be grown on the poorest/desert land.. not competing with food crops.


-



Algae moves to the head of the sustainable energy class.

Jun 27, 2012.

Global energy use is going to grow 53% by 2035, DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) predicts, and algae-based technology is the best candidate to provide a sustainable energy source to meet that growing demand.

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

"An acre of corn can be used to generate 300 gallons of ethanol per year, while an acre of algae can produce 6,000 to 10,000 gallons of light sweet crude oil annually,"

-

http://tinyurl.com/c
lhe58k


-



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

environmentally Helius is 20 years behind the times.


Helius is the wrong company at the wrong time.

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

-
　

Algae Biofuel is getting to the point where it will be commercially viable and not to soon after Taxable.

　
If the below news can be trusted, a £300m, 119 acre Algae Plant can produce over 15m gallons of biofuel per year.. 20,000 homes x 750 gallons.


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


-



Austrian algae biofuel-production technology to debut in Brazil.

By Antonio Pasolini.

10:53 July 20, 2012.

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

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

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

-

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


-


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

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

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

-


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

-

YouTube Video.. Robert Llewellyn.


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


-



The Energy Efficient House | Fully Charged

Published on 25 Jul 2012 by

Robert Llewellyn visits an energy efficient house in Berlin.

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

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

An inquiry headed by David Attenborough ?


-
　

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

-

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


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


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

-



UK Renewable Energy Roadmap.

July 2011.

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

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

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

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


Plant Biomass

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-


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

Helius is competing with agricultural land. - Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means EU/Helius could be incinerating 4.5 million acres/7,031 square miles of Miscanthus grass/Elephant grass per year..


-


Greens warn biomass plan could reduce food supplies.

Sunday 05 August 2012 by Tony Patey.

Its report Fuelling a BioMess questioned assertions that biomass fuel is clean and carbon neutral - in fact using forests for energy could be worse for the climate than burning coal.

"This will mean more deforestation, more carbon emissions and land-grabbing overseas."

Farmers are realising they can made big profits out of growing miscanthus - elephant grass - for biomass use as well as getting grants for a half of start-up costs.

-

http://www.morningst
aronline.co.uk/news/
content/view/full/12
2307?

Dan Soton wrote:
Helius is competing with agricultural land. - Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means EU/Helius could be incinerating 4.5 million acres/7,031 square miles of Miscanthus grass/Elephant grass per year..


-


Greens warn biomass plan could reduce food supplies.

Sunday 05 August 2012 by Tony Patey.

Its report Fuelling a BioMess questioned assertions that biomass fuel is clean and carbon neutral - in fact using forests for energy could be worse for the climate than burning coal.

"This will mean more deforestation, more carbon emissions and land-grabbing overseas."

Farmers are realising they can made big profits out of growing miscanthus - elephant grass - for biomass use as well as getting grants for a half of start-up costs.

-

http://www.morningst

aronline.co.uk/news/

content/view/full/12

2307?

So you must be of the opinion the more times you say it the better chance of someone believing it?

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:
Helius is competing with agricultural land. - Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means EU/Helius could be incinerating 4.5 million acres/7,031 square miles of Miscanthus grass/Elephant grass per year..


-


Greens warn biomass plan could reduce food supplies.

Sunday 05 August 2012 by Tony Patey.

Its report Fuelling a BioMess questioned assertions that biomass fuel is clean and carbon neutral - in fact using forests for energy could be worse for the climate than burning coal.

"This will mean more deforestation, more carbon emissions and land-grabbing overseas."

Farmers are realising they can made big profits out of growing miscanthus - elephant grass - for biomass use as well as getting grants for a half of start-up costs.

-

http://www.morningst


aronline.co.uk/news/


content/view/full/12


2307?

So you must be of the opinion the more times you say it the better chance of someone believing it?

Pot, kettle, black?

Oxfam calls for an end to biofuel subsidies.. almost a billion go hungry worldwide

-

loosehead, Helius will be fried crispy and disappear up its own flue if David Cameron takes heed of Oxfam, Unicef and Save the Children


-


Almost a billion go hungry worldwide

SARAH MORRISON SUNDAY 05 AUGUST 2012.

An unparalleled number of severe food shortages has added 43 million to the number of people going hungry worldwide this year. And millions of children are now at risk of acute malnutrition, charities are warning. One week ahead of David Cameron's "hunger summit", they say that unless action is taken urgently, many more could fall victim.

Barbara Stocking, Oxfam GB's chief executive, called the summit "a positive step forward", but stressed: "It must be the start of concerted action to address the shocking fact that while we produce enough food to feed everyone on the planet, about a billion will tonight go to bed hungry.

"Dwindling natural resources and the gathering pace of climate change mean that without urgent action, things will only get worse, and multiple major crises could quickly move from being an exception to being the norm."

She added that Mr Cameron should call for increased investment in small farmers, greater transparency in commodity markets and an end to biofuel subsidies.

-

http://www.independe
nt.co.uk/news/world/
politics/almost-a-bi
llion-go-hungry-worl
dwide-8007759.html

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:
Helius is competing with agricultural land. - Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means EU/Helius could be incinerating 4.5 million acres/7,031 square miles of Miscanthus grass/Elephant grass per year..


-


Greens warn biomass plan could reduce food supplies.

Sunday 05 August 2012 by Tony Patey.

Its report Fuelling a BioMess questioned assertions that biomass fuel is clean and carbon neutral - in fact using forests for energy could be worse for the climate than burning coal.

"This will mean more deforestation, more carbon emissions and land-grabbing overseas."

Farmers are realising they can made big profits out of growing miscanthus - elephant grass - for biomass use as well as getting grants for a half of start-up costs.

-

http://www.morningst



aronline.co.uk/news/



content/view/full/12



2307?

So you must be of the opinion the more times you say it the better chance of someone believing it?

Pot, kettle, black?

Sorry was a lying toe rag talking to me?
get back into the hole you crawled out of Alan of the gang of 5

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:
Helius is competing with agricultural land. - Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means EU/Helius could be incinerating 4.5 million acres/7,031 square miles of Miscanthus grass/Elephant grass per year..


-


Greens warn biomass plan could reduce food supplies.

Sunday 05 August 2012 by Tony Patey.

Its report Fuelling a BioMess questioned assertions that biomass fuel is clean and carbon neutral - in fact using forests for energy could be worse for the climate than burning coal.

"This will mean more deforestation, more carbon emissions and land-grabbing overseas."

Farmers are realising they can made big profits out of growing miscanthus - elephant grass - for biomass use as well as getting grants for a half of start-up costs.

-

http://www.morningst




aronline.co.uk/news/




content/view/full/12




2307?

So you must be of the opinion the more times you say it the better chance of someone believing it?

Pot, kettle, black?

Sorry was a lying toe rag talking to me?
get back into the hole you crawled out of Alan of the gang of 5

Unlike you I actually do not tell porkies, not even little ones.

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:
Helius is competing with agricultural land. - Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means EU/Helius could be incinerating 4.5 million acres/7,031 square miles of Miscanthus grass/Elephant grass per year..


-


Greens warn biomass plan could reduce food supplies.

Sunday 05 August 2012 by Tony Patey.

Its report Fuelling a BioMess questioned assertions that biomass fuel is clean and carbon neutral - in fact using forests for energy could be worse for the climate than burning coal.

"This will mean more deforestation, more carbon emissions and land-grabbing overseas."

Farmers are realising they can made big profits out of growing miscanthus - elephant grass - for biomass use as well as getting grants for a half of start-up costs.

-

http://www.morningst





aronline.co.uk/news/





content/view/full/12





2307?

So you must be of the opinion the more times you say it the better chance of someone believing it?

Pot, kettle, black?

Sorry was a lying toe rag talking to me?
get back into the hole you crawled out of Alan of the gang of 5

Unlike you I actually do not tell porkies, not even little ones.

Like the Lie you're telling now?

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:
Helius is competing with agricultural land. - Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means EU/Helius could be incinerating 4.5 million acres/7,031 square miles of Miscanthus grass/Elephant grass per year..


-


Greens warn biomass plan could reduce food supplies.

Sunday 05 August 2012 by Tony Patey.

Its report Fuelling a BioMess questioned assertions that biomass fuel is clean and carbon neutral - in fact using forests for energy could be worse for the climate than burning coal.

"This will mean more deforestation, more carbon emissions and land-grabbing overseas."

Farmers are realising they can made big profits out of growing miscanthus - elephant grass - for biomass use as well as getting grants for a half of start-up costs.

-

http://www.morningst






aronline.co.uk/news/






content/view/full/12






2307?

So you must be of the opinion the more times you say it the better chance of someone believing it?

Pot, kettle, black?

Sorry was a lying toe rag talking to me?
get back into the hole you crawled out of Alan of the gang of 5

Unlike you I actually do not tell porkies, not even little ones.

Like the Lie you're telling now?

Suggest you try getting your facts right, you may not seem quite so stupid then.

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:
Helius is competing with agricultural land. - Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means EU/Helius could be incinerating 4.5 million acres/7,031 square miles of Miscanthus grass/Elephant grass per year..


-


Greens warn biomass plan could reduce food supplies.

Sunday 05 August 2012 by Tony Patey.

Its report Fuelling a BioMess questioned assertions that biomass fuel is clean and carbon neutral - in fact using forests for energy could be worse for the climate than burning coal.

"This will mean more deforestation, more carbon emissions and land-grabbing overseas."

Farmers are realising they can made big profits out of growing miscanthus - elephant grass - for biomass use as well as getting grants for a half of start-up costs.

-

http://www.morningst







aronline.co.uk/news/







content/view/full/12







2307?

So you must be of the opinion the more times you say it the better chance of someone believing it?

Pot, kettle, black?

Sorry was a lying toe rag talking to me?
get back into the hole you crawled out of Alan of the gang of 5

Unlike you I actually do not tell porkies, not even little ones.

Like the Lie you're telling now?

Suggest you try getting your facts right, you may not seem quite so stupid then.

Were you tried for corruption?
a Simple YES or NO will suffice

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:
Helius is competing with agricultural land. - Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means EU/Helius could be incinerating 4.5 million acres/7,031 square miles of Miscanthus grass/Elephant grass per year..


-


Greens warn biomass plan could reduce food supplies.

Sunday 05 August 2012 by Tony Patey.

Its report Fuelling a BioMess questioned assertions that biomass fuel is clean and carbon neutral - in fact using forests for energy could be worse for the climate than burning coal.

"This will mean more deforestation, more carbon emissions and land-grabbing overseas."

Farmers are realising they can made big profits out of growing miscanthus - elephant grass - for biomass use as well as getting grants for a half of start-up costs.

-

http://www.morningst








aronline.co.uk/news/








content/view/full/12








2307?

So you must be of the opinion the more times you say it the better chance of someone believing it?

Pot, kettle, black?

Sorry was a lying toe rag talking to me?
get back into the hole you crawled out of Alan of the gang of 5

Unlike you I actually do not tell porkies, not even little ones.

Like the Lie you're telling now?

Suggest you try getting your facts right, you may not seem quite so stupid then.

Were you tried for corruption?
a Simple YES or NO will suffice

No, got it now, no

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:
Helius is competing with agricultural land. - Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means EU/Helius could be incinerating 4.5 million acres/7,031 square miles of Miscanthus grass/Elephant grass per year..


-


Greens warn biomass plan could reduce food supplies.

Sunday 05 August 2012 by Tony Patey.

Its report Fuelling a BioMess questioned assertions that biomass fuel is clean and carbon neutral - in fact using forests for energy could be worse for the climate than burning coal.

"This will mean more deforestation, more carbon emissions and land-grabbing overseas."

Farmers are realising they can made big profits out of growing miscanthus - elephant grass - for biomass use as well as getting grants for a half of start-up costs.

-

http://www.morningst









aronline.co.uk/news/









content/view/full/12









2307?

So you must be of the opinion the more times you say it the better chance of someone believing it?

Pot, kettle, black?

Sorry was a lying toe rag talking to me?
get back into the hole you crawled out of Alan of the gang of 5

Unlike you I actually do not tell porkies, not even little ones.

Like the Lie you're telling now?

Suggest you try getting your facts right, you may not seem quite so stupid then.

Were you tried for corruption?
a Simple YES or NO will suffice

No, got it now, no

If you weren't why were you in the Echo? why have so many posters accused you of it?
prove them wrong & on this subject I will apologise to you!

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

loosehead wrote:

Dan Soton wrote:
Helius is competing with agricultural land. - Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means EU/Helius could be incinerating 4.5 million acres/7,031 square miles of Miscanthus grass/Elephant grass per year..


-


Greens warn biomass plan could reduce food supplies.

Sunday 05 August 2012 by Tony Patey.

Its report Fuelling a BioMess questioned assertions that biomass fuel is clean and carbon neutral - in fact using forests for energy could be worse for the climate than burning coal.

"This will mean more deforestation, more carbon emissions and land-grabbing overseas."

Farmers are realising they can made big profits out of growing miscanthus - elephant grass - for biomass use as well as getting grants for a half of start-up costs.

-

http://www.morningst










aronline.co.uk/news/










content/view/full/12










2307?

So you must be of the opinion the more times you say it the better chance of someone believing it?

Pot, kettle, black?

Sorry was a lying toe rag talking to me?
get back into the hole you crawled out of Alan of the gang of 5

Unlike you I actually do not tell porkies, not even little ones.

Like the Lie you're telling now?

Suggest you try getting your facts right, you may not seem quite so stupid then.

Were you tried for corruption?
a Simple YES or NO will suffice

No, got it now, no

If you weren't why were you in the Echo? why have so many posters accused you of it?
prove them wrong & on this subject I will apologise to you!

The only articles I'm aware of in the Echo about me have been mainly complimentary about the work in the community I am involved with. Don't know if other posters have repeated lies about me as you are the only one I have noticed. However as one of the slugs is computer literate I would not be surprised if she hasn't had a go. If there has been a derogatory article in the Echo about me I would love to know when.