Helius Energy announces design of biomass plant it wants to build at Southampton docks

Daily Echo: The marine-inspired design for Helius Energy's proposed biomass plant in Southampton The marine-inspired design for Helius Energy's proposed biomass plant in Southampton

THIS is the design chosen for the controversial giant £300m biomass plant an energy firm wants to bring to Southampton docks.

Helius Energy has today revealed it is moving forward with its “marine” look for the 100MW facility, which has been vocally opposed by residents living nearby and city politicians.

The design has been chosen following the latest round of public consultations on the plan, which finished in August.

More than half of people who responded, 52 per cent, said they preferred the marine style over the “wave” and “high tech” options also put forward by the firm.

Helius said it now plans to finalise details of its plans ahead of lodging an application with the National Infrastructure Directorate of the Planning Inspectorate later this year.

The application will also include an environmental statement, a consultation report setting out the company’s formal response to the comments made during the consultation, and other reports giving detailed information about the project.

Because the Biomass scheme is a “nationally significant infrastructure project” under the Planning Act 2008, the independent planning inspectorate will assess the application rather than Southampton City Council, with the final decision resting with the Government.

As reported, last month civic chiefs abandoned plans to hold a referendum in Millbrook and Freemantle, near to where the giant plant would be built, after costs spiralled from an initial £5,000 to £75,000.

Members of campaign group No Southampton Biomass had called on council leaders to instead spend the cash obtaining expert legal advice to help oppose the project.

Once the planning inspectorate has formally accepted Helius’ application, members of the public can register as interested parties to comment on the scheme.

Comments (34)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:35am Fri 5 Oct 12

MisterGrimsdale says...

looks good. We need it. Build it.
looks good. We need it. Build it. MisterGrimsdale

9:44am Fri 5 Oct 12

Steven Galton says...

Once again it appears Helius' pr machine has been at work. I have written to Helius this morning requesting how many total responses Helius received and how many of these rejected all of the designs, as this was a statistic missing from their release this morning and would put the full and proper "public choice" into perspective.

More worringly is the fact further detail is now being worked up (line from Helius release). My understanding was the final design choice was purely a cosmetic treatment to the project. I am now concerned about what is being added post public consultation as any changes will not have been presented to the public.
Once again it appears Helius' pr machine has been at work. I have written to Helius this morning requesting how many total responses Helius received and how many of these rejected all of the designs, as this was a statistic missing from their release this morning and would put the full and proper "public choice" into perspective. More worringly is the fact further detail is now being worked up (line from Helius release). My understanding was the final design choice was purely a cosmetic treatment to the project. I am now concerned about what is being added post public consultation as any changes will not have been presented to the public. Steven Galton

9:49am Fri 5 Oct 12

Raxx says...

"Marine" lol.

People must be really easily duped by an artist's impression. In looks a bit like a boat in the picture, but when that is converted to reality the only thing it will resemble is a whacking great shed.
"Marine" lol. People must be really easily duped by an artist's impression. In looks a bit like a boat in the picture, but when that is converted to reality the only thing it will resemble is a whacking great shed. Raxx

10:02am Fri 5 Oct 12

News Fanatic says...

It's no worse than the cigarette factory that used to be in Regents Park Road or the tower cranes in the docks. Once the power station is built it will be forgotten and no one will give a **** about it. The UK needs generating capacity like this, otherwise the lights will go out.
It's no worse than the cigarette factory that used to be in Regents Park Road or the tower cranes in the docks. Once the power station is built it will be forgotten and no one will give a **** about it. The UK needs generating capacity like this, otherwise the lights will go out. News Fanatic

10:22am Fri 5 Oct 12

Torchie1 says...

Steven Galton wrote:
Once again it appears Helius' pr machine has been at work. I have written to Helius this morning requesting how many total responses Helius received and how many of these rejected all of the designs, as this was a statistic missing from their release this morning and would put the full and proper "public choice" into perspective.

More worringly is the fact further detail is now being worked up (line from Helius release). My understanding was the final design choice was purely a cosmetic treatment to the project. I am now concerned about what is being added post public consultation as any changes will not have been presented to the public.
You are well aware that a large number of local households will be against the project and those living further away will be in favour. Precise numbers don't really matter and you are hoping to stall the electricity production that all want to use as long as it doesn't impact them personally. However you try to disguise it, it is comes down to being an archetypal NIMBY.
[quote][p][bold]Steven Galton[/bold] wrote: Once again it appears Helius' pr machine has been at work. I have written to Helius this morning requesting how many total responses Helius received and how many of these rejected all of the designs, as this was a statistic missing from their release this morning and would put the full and proper "public choice" into perspective. More worringly is the fact further detail is now being worked up (line from Helius release). My understanding was the final design choice was purely a cosmetic treatment to the project. I am now concerned about what is being added post public consultation as any changes will not have been presented to the public.[/p][/quote]You are well aware that a large number of local households will be against the project and those living further away will be in favour. Precise numbers don't really matter and you are hoping to stall the electricity production that all want to use as long as it doesn't impact them personally. However you try to disguise it, it is comes down to being an archetypal NIMBY. Torchie1

10:41am Fri 5 Oct 12

Steven Galton says...

Torchie1: I would say precise numbers are everything - it allows "the choice" to be put in perspective. Lets assume a theoretical 400 responses, of which 100 chose a design and 300 said we don't want it. Suddenly the 52% who wanted marine becomes 13% choose the marine and the real result is 75% rejected all 3 designs and told Helius to go back to the drawing board...

It just demonstrates Helius are not interested in community consultation and are just railroading ahead with no concern for local residents, just positive, one sided PR.

As is pointed out everytime biomass comes on these forums, this is not just a NIMBY argument - large/industrial scale biomass will create a carbon debt and actually increase GHG (Green House Gas) concentrations in the short to mid term accelerating climate change attributed to man made CHGs. So much for the renewable energy source every bill payer is contributing to...
Torchie1: I would say precise numbers are everything - it allows "the choice" to be put in perspective. Lets assume a theoretical 400 responses, of which 100 chose a design and 300 said we don't want it. Suddenly the 52% who wanted marine becomes 13% choose the marine and the real result is 75% rejected all 3 designs and told Helius to go back to the drawing board... It just demonstrates Helius are not interested in community consultation and are just railroading ahead with no concern for local residents, just positive, one sided PR. As is pointed out everytime biomass comes on these forums, this is not just a NIMBY argument - large/industrial scale biomass will create a carbon debt and actually increase GHG (Green House Gas) concentrations in the short to mid term accelerating climate change attributed to man made CHGs. So much for the renewable energy source every bill payer is contributing to... Steven Galton

10:42am Fri 5 Oct 12

The Wickham Man says...

Steven Galton wrote:
Once again it appears Helius' pr machine has been at work. I have written to Helius this morning requesting how many total responses Helius received and how many of these rejected all of the designs, as this was a statistic missing from their release this morning and would put the full and proper "public choice" into perspective.

More worringly is the fact further detail is now being worked up (line from Helius release). My understanding was the final design choice was purely a cosmetic treatment to the project. I am now concerned about what is being added post public consultation as any changes will not have been presented to the public.
What has that got to do with anything? Anyone who rejects every single proposal should be discounted anyway for reasons that should be obvious to you. People who are brave enough to list their safeguards and satisfaction criteria beforehand should be listened to and their concerns addressed. Those who are just going to say no to everything are just wasting everyone's time. From your sneering "They don't fool me" style of writing we know which camp you fall into.
[quote][p][bold]Steven Galton[/bold] wrote: Once again it appears Helius' pr machine has been at work. I have written to Helius this morning requesting how many total responses Helius received and how many of these rejected all of the designs, as this was a statistic missing from their release this morning and would put the full and proper "public choice" into perspective. More worringly is the fact further detail is now being worked up (line from Helius release). My understanding was the final design choice was purely a cosmetic treatment to the project. I am now concerned about what is being added post public consultation as any changes will not have been presented to the public.[/p][/quote]What has that got to do with anything? Anyone who rejects every single proposal should be discounted anyway for reasons that should be obvious to you. People who are brave enough to list their safeguards and satisfaction criteria beforehand should be listened to and their concerns addressed. Those who are just going to say no to everything are just wasting everyone's time. From your sneering "They don't fool me" style of writing we know which camp you fall into. The Wickham Man

10:45am Fri 5 Oct 12

The Wickham Man says...

Steven Galton wrote:
Torchie1: I would say precise numbers are everything - it allows "the choice" to be put in perspective. Lets assume a theoretical 400 responses, of which 100 chose a design and 300 said we don't want it. Suddenly the 52% who wanted marine becomes 13% choose the marine and the real result is 75% rejected all 3 designs and told Helius to go back to the drawing board...

It just demonstrates Helius are not interested in community consultation and are just railroading ahead with no concern for local residents, just positive, one sided PR.

As is pointed out everytime biomass comes on these forums, this is not just a NIMBY argument - large/industrial scale biomass will create a carbon debt and actually increase GHG (Green House Gas) concentrations in the short to mid term accelerating climate change attributed to man made CHGs. So much for the renewable energy source every bill payer is contributing to...
You are shooting yourself in the foot when you start comparing biomass with renewables. Andy Locks Heath has been through the science and maths before many times on these pages, and will no doubt demolish the inconsistencies and lack of understanding. We do not have to live like the Amish - unless we have to rely on the wind and sun and tides.
[quote][p][bold]Steven Galton[/bold] wrote: Torchie1: I would say precise numbers are everything - it allows "the choice" to be put in perspective. Lets assume a theoretical 400 responses, of which 100 chose a design and 300 said we don't want it. Suddenly the 52% who wanted marine becomes 13% choose the marine and the real result is 75% rejected all 3 designs and told Helius to go back to the drawing board... It just demonstrates Helius are not interested in community consultation and are just railroading ahead with no concern for local residents, just positive, one sided PR. As is pointed out everytime biomass comes on these forums, this is not just a NIMBY argument - large/industrial scale biomass will create a carbon debt and actually increase GHG (Green House Gas) concentrations in the short to mid term accelerating climate change attributed to man made CHGs. So much for the renewable energy source every bill payer is contributing to...[/p][/quote]You are shooting yourself in the foot when you start comparing biomass with renewables. Andy Locks Heath has been through the science and maths before many times on these pages, and will no doubt demolish the inconsistencies and lack of understanding. We do not have to live like the Amish - unless we have to rely on the wind and sun and tides. The Wickham Man

10:57am Fri 5 Oct 12

Torchie1 says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
Steven Galton wrote:
Torchie1: I would say precise numbers are everything - it allows "the choice" to be put in perspective. Lets assume a theoretical 400 responses, of which 100 chose a design and 300 said we don't want it. Suddenly the 52% who wanted marine becomes 13% choose the marine and the real result is 75% rejected all 3 designs and told Helius to go back to the drawing board...

It just demonstrates Helius are not interested in community consultation and are just railroading ahead with no concern for local residents, just positive, one sided PR.

As is pointed out everytime biomass comes on these forums, this is not just a NIMBY argument - large/industrial scale biomass will create a carbon debt and actually increase GHG (Green House Gas) concentrations in the short to mid term accelerating climate change attributed to man made CHGs. So much for the renewable energy source every bill payer is contributing to...
You are shooting yourself in the foot when you start comparing biomass with renewables. Andy Locks Heath has been through the science and maths before many times on these pages, and will no doubt demolish the inconsistencies and lack of understanding. We do not have to live like the Amish - unless we have to rely on the wind and sun and tides.
The far sighted entrepreneur will be looking at ways to power a computer with a candle if Steve 'I'm against everything' Galton gets his way.
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steven Galton[/bold] wrote: Torchie1: I would say precise numbers are everything - it allows "the choice" to be put in perspective. Lets assume a theoretical 400 responses, of which 100 chose a design and 300 said we don't want it. Suddenly the 52% who wanted marine becomes 13% choose the marine and the real result is 75% rejected all 3 designs and told Helius to go back to the drawing board... It just demonstrates Helius are not interested in community consultation and are just railroading ahead with no concern for local residents, just positive, one sided PR. As is pointed out everytime biomass comes on these forums, this is not just a NIMBY argument - large/industrial scale biomass will create a carbon debt and actually increase GHG (Green House Gas) concentrations in the short to mid term accelerating climate change attributed to man made CHGs. So much for the renewable energy source every bill payer is contributing to...[/p][/quote]You are shooting yourself in the foot when you start comparing biomass with renewables. Andy Locks Heath has been through the science and maths before many times on these pages, and will no doubt demolish the inconsistencies and lack of understanding. We do not have to live like the Amish - unless we have to rely on the wind and sun and tides.[/p][/quote]The far sighted entrepreneur will be looking at ways to power a computer with a candle if Steve 'I'm against everything' Galton gets his way. Torchie1

11:09am Fri 5 Oct 12

Linesman says...

I think that this could well be the Iconic building that Southampton has been looking for.

Looks great and will improve the area.
I think that this could well be the Iconic building that Southampton has been looking for. Looks great and will improve the area. Linesman

11:16am Fri 5 Oct 12

southy says...

Torchie1 wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Steven Galton wrote:
Torchie1: I would say precise numbers are everything - it allows "the choice" to be put in perspective. Lets assume a theoretical 400 responses, of which 100 chose a design and 300 said we don't want it. Suddenly the 52% who wanted marine becomes 13% choose the marine and the real result is 75% rejected all 3 designs and told Helius to go back to the drawing board...

It just demonstrates Helius are not interested in community consultation and are just railroading ahead with no concern for local residents, just positive, one sided PR.

As is pointed out everytime biomass comes on these forums, this is not just a NIMBY argument - large/industrial scale biomass will create a carbon debt and actually increase GHG (Green House Gas) concentrations in the short to mid term accelerating climate change attributed to man made CHGs. So much for the renewable energy source every bill payer is contributing to...
You are shooting yourself in the foot when you start comparing biomass with renewables. Andy Locks Heath has been through the science and maths before many times on these pages, and will no doubt demolish the inconsistencies and lack of understanding. We do not have to live like the Amish - unless we have to rely on the wind and sun and tides.
The far sighted entrepreneur will be looking at ways to power a computer with a candle if Steve 'I'm against everything' Galton gets his way.
No there are other ways and one particular way is totally being ignored, one that do not produce any CO2 or any toxic left overs.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steven Galton[/bold] wrote: Torchie1: I would say precise numbers are everything - it allows "the choice" to be put in perspective. Lets assume a theoretical 400 responses, of which 100 chose a design and 300 said we don't want it. Suddenly the 52% who wanted marine becomes 13% choose the marine and the real result is 75% rejected all 3 designs and told Helius to go back to the drawing board... It just demonstrates Helius are not interested in community consultation and are just railroading ahead with no concern for local residents, just positive, one sided PR. As is pointed out everytime biomass comes on these forums, this is not just a NIMBY argument - large/industrial scale biomass will create a carbon debt and actually increase GHG (Green House Gas) concentrations in the short to mid term accelerating climate change attributed to man made CHGs. So much for the renewable energy source every bill payer is contributing to...[/p][/quote]You are shooting yourself in the foot when you start comparing biomass with renewables. Andy Locks Heath has been through the science and maths before many times on these pages, and will no doubt demolish the inconsistencies and lack of understanding. We do not have to live like the Amish - unless we have to rely on the wind and sun and tides.[/p][/quote]The far sighted entrepreneur will be looking at ways to power a computer with a candle if Steve 'I'm against everything' Galton gets his way.[/p][/quote]No there are other ways and one particular way is totally being ignored, one that do not produce any CO2 or any toxic left overs. southy

11:22am Fri 5 Oct 12

southy says...

Steven Galton wrote:
Once again it appears Helius' pr machine has been at work. I have written to Helius this morning requesting how many total responses Helius received and how many of these rejected all of the designs, as this was a statistic missing from their release this morning and would put the full and proper "public choice" into perspective.

More worringly is the fact further detail is now being worked up (line from Helius release). My understanding was the final design choice was purely a cosmetic treatment to the project. I am now concerned about what is being added post public consultation as any changes will not have been presented to the public.
Steve if you collet 150,000 signatures petition or 250,000 e-mail names you can present this to the national government (number 10) and they must have an hearing/debate and vote in the house of commons.
This can give you up to an extra 2 years before any more can be done to the bio-mass.
[quote][p][bold]Steven Galton[/bold] wrote: Once again it appears Helius' pr machine has been at work. I have written to Helius this morning requesting how many total responses Helius received and how many of these rejected all of the designs, as this was a statistic missing from their release this morning and would put the full and proper "public choice" into perspective. More worringly is the fact further detail is now being worked up (line from Helius release). My understanding was the final design choice was purely a cosmetic treatment to the project. I am now concerned about what is being added post public consultation as any changes will not have been presented to the public.[/p][/quote]Steve if you collet 150,000 signatures petition or 250,000 e-mail names you can present this to the national government (number 10) and they must have an hearing/debate and vote in the house of commons. This can give you up to an extra 2 years before any more can be done to the bio-mass. southy

11:53am Fri 5 Oct 12

loosehead says...

What about a Solar array with Wind Turbines using Liquid air as a storage device for the excess energy to be used at night or when the wind doesn't blow would this be acceptable to the NO campaign? would it be acceptable to DPWorld?
What about a Solar array with Wind Turbines using Liquid air as a storage device for the excess energy to be used at night or when the wind doesn't blow would this be acceptable to the NO campaign? would it be acceptable to DPWorld? loosehead

12:48pm Fri 5 Oct 12

Danae says...

One commentator above has referred to the science and maths associated with Helius' idea. Here is some of it:

Health damage from Helius’ wood burning Power Station:

The reality of poor health related to air pollution in Southampton and adjoining areas, as in many UK towns and cities, is disturbing.

The city has eight Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs), introduced by Act of Parliament to monitor air quality, as in these locations it falls below even the UK’s rather low statutory standards.

One AQMA stretches along Millbrook Road next to the 20 acre site where Helius aims to apply for development consent for a physically huge Power Station (though with low electrical output) mainly burning imported wood pellet.

Our city also has a number of Neighbourhood Priority Areas. 110,000 people, almost half Southampton’s population, live in a Priority Area. A small part of Freemantle is in one of these Priority Areas.

Southampton’s June 2012 Health Overview and Scrutiny Panel report states: “Dramatic health inequalities are still a dominant feature of health in Southampton” when comparing Priority and non-priority areas.

For example:
• Lung and respiratory disease, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), is high for all age groups. Deaths from COPD are 120.7% higher in Priority Areas than in non-priority areas.

• Premature deaths, under 75, are 58.7% higher in the Priority Areas

• Heart and cardiovascular disease are higher, for Southampton, than the average for England. While mortality rates from cardiovascular disease, for those aged under 75, are 69% higher than the national rate.

• Southampton early deaths, for under 75s, from cancer are 42.9% higher than the national rate.

• For men, life expectancy is 7.7 years shorter in the Priority Areas than in other parts of the city.
COPD is especially associated with breathing in the small particulates, PM10, and PM2.5 nanoparticles that are emitted by diesel driven vehicles, plant and ships and by wood burning power stations.

It is our children and elders that are particularly exposed to these health hazards, the tiny invisible particles being readily absorbed across the lung tissue.

With our prevailing south west wind Southampton, Chandler’s Ford, West End and other parts of Eastleigh District are especially exposed to this invisible health hazard which would arise from Helius’ chosen wood pellet burning power station site.

The Western Docks Estate is not a good place to build a thermal power station.

On health grounds alone there is very good reason for South Hampshire communities to object to Helius’ idea.
One commentator above has referred to the science and maths associated with Helius' idea. Here is some of it: Health damage from Helius’ wood burning Power Station: The reality of poor health related to air pollution in Southampton and adjoining areas, as in many UK towns and cities, is disturbing. The city has eight Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs), introduced by Act of Parliament to monitor air quality, as in these locations it falls below even the UK’s rather low statutory standards. One AQMA stretches along Millbrook Road next to the 20 acre site where Helius aims to apply for development consent for a physically huge Power Station (though with low electrical output) mainly burning imported wood pellet. Our city also has a number of Neighbourhood Priority Areas. 110,000 people, almost half Southampton’s population, live in a Priority Area. A small part of Freemantle is in one of these Priority Areas. Southampton’s June 2012 Health Overview and Scrutiny Panel report states: “Dramatic health inequalities are still a dominant feature of health in Southampton” when comparing Priority and non-priority areas. For example: • Lung and respiratory disease, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), is high for all age groups. Deaths from COPD are 120.7% higher in Priority Areas than in non-priority areas. • Premature deaths, under 75, are 58.7% higher in the Priority Areas • Heart and cardiovascular disease are higher, for Southampton, than the average for England. While mortality rates from cardiovascular disease, for those aged under 75, are 69% higher than the national rate. • Southampton early deaths, for under 75s, from cancer are 42.9% higher than the national rate. • For men, life expectancy is 7.7 years shorter in the Priority Areas than in other parts of the city. COPD is especially associated with breathing in the small particulates, PM10, and PM2.5 nanoparticles that are emitted by diesel driven vehicles, plant and ships and by wood burning power stations. It is our children and elders that are particularly exposed to these health hazards, the tiny invisible particles being readily absorbed across the lung tissue. With our prevailing south west wind Southampton, Chandler’s Ford, West End and other parts of Eastleigh District are especially exposed to this invisible health hazard which would arise from Helius’ chosen wood pellet burning power station site. The Western Docks Estate is not a good place to build a thermal power station. On health grounds alone there is very good reason for South Hampshire communities to object to Helius’ idea. Danae

12:52pm Fri 5 Oct 12

southy says...

As reported, last month civic chiefs abandoned plans to hold a referendum in Millbrook and Freemantle, near to where the giant plant would be built, after costs spiralled from an initial £5,000 to £75,000.

I have some details on the cost off local referendums from local referendums that have all ready taken place.
The basics of the cost is.
Lewisham in 2007 the estimate then was £300,000 (covering 18 wards) note it was an estimate, and if this was the case whats the point in having local referendums it will just pile the debt on to the council.
Article four of the Planning, gives Councils the power to opt out of government directives.
So this to can become an option for the council to use to stop the Bio-mass being built in the docks.
As reported, last month civic chiefs abandoned plans to hold a referendum in Millbrook and Freemantle, near to where the giant plant would be built, after costs spiralled from an initial £5,000 to £75,000. I have some details on the cost off local referendums from local referendums that have all ready taken place. The basics of the cost is. Lewisham in 2007 the estimate then was £300,000 (covering 18 wards) note it was an estimate, and if this was the case whats the point in having local referendums it will just pile the debt on to the council. Article four of the Planning, gives Councils the power to opt out of government directives. So this to can become an option for the council to use to stop the Bio-mass being built in the docks. southy

12:59pm Fri 5 Oct 12

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
As reported, last month civic chiefs abandoned plans to hold a referendum in Millbrook and Freemantle, near to where the giant plant would be built, after costs spiralled from an initial £5,000 to £75,000.

I have some details on the cost off local referendums from local referendums that have all ready taken place.
The basics of the cost is.
Lewisham in 2007 the estimate then was £300,000 (covering 18 wards) note it was an estimate, and if this was the case whats the point in having local referendums it will just pile the debt on to the council.
Article four of the Planning, gives Councils the power to opt out of government directives.
So this to can become an option for the council to use to stop the Bio-mass being built in the docks.
"Article four of the Planning"???

Could you be a tad more precise?

As written, it means absolutely nothing.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: As reported, last month civic chiefs abandoned plans to hold a referendum in Millbrook and Freemantle, near to where the giant plant would be built, after costs spiralled from an initial £5,000 to £75,000. I have some details on the cost off local referendums from local referendums that have all ready taken place. The basics of the cost is. Lewisham in 2007 the estimate then was £300,000 (covering 18 wards) note it was an estimate, and if this was the case whats the point in having local referendums it will just pile the debt on to the council. Article four of the Planning, gives Councils the power to opt out of government directives. So this to can become an option for the council to use to stop the Bio-mass being built in the docks.[/p][/quote]"Article four of the Planning"??? Could you be a tad more precise? As written, it means absolutely nothing. freefinker

1:03pm Fri 5 Oct 12

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
As reported, last month civic chiefs abandoned plans to hold a referendum in Millbrook and Freemantle, near to where the giant plant would be built, after costs spiralled from an initial £5,000 to £75,000.

I have some details on the cost off local referendums from local referendums that have all ready taken place.
The basics of the cost is.
Lewisham in 2007 the estimate then was £300,000 (covering 18 wards) note it was an estimate, and if this was the case whats the point in having local referendums it will just pile the debt on to the council.
Article four of the Planning, gives Councils the power to opt out of government directives.
So this to can become an option for the council to use to stop the Bio-mass being built in the docks.
"Article four of the Planning"???

Could you be a tad more precise?

As written, it means absolutely nothing.
It means any national government ruling over planning can be over ruled by local government
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: As reported, last month civic chiefs abandoned plans to hold a referendum in Millbrook and Freemantle, near to where the giant plant would be built, after costs spiralled from an initial £5,000 to £75,000. I have some details on the cost off local referendums from local referendums that have all ready taken place. The basics of the cost is. Lewisham in 2007 the estimate then was £300,000 (covering 18 wards) note it was an estimate, and if this was the case whats the point in having local referendums it will just pile the debt on to the council. Article four of the Planning, gives Councils the power to opt out of government directives. So this to can become an option for the council to use to stop the Bio-mass being built in the docks.[/p][/quote]"Article four of the Planning"??? Could you be a tad more precise? As written, it means absolutely nothing.[/p][/quote]It means any national government ruling over planning can be over ruled by local government southy

1:06pm Fri 5 Oct 12

Torchie1 says...

The OFGEM report released today about future energy shortages in the UK is rather inconvenient for this proposal.
The OFGEM report released today about future energy shortages in the UK is rather inconvenient for this proposal. Torchie1

1:13pm Fri 5 Oct 12

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
As reported, last month civic chiefs abandoned plans to hold a referendum in Millbrook and Freemantle, near to where the giant plant would be built, after costs spiralled from an initial £5,000 to £75,000.

I have some details on the cost off local referendums from local referendums that have all ready taken place.
The basics of the cost is.
Lewisham in 2007 the estimate then was £300,000 (covering 18 wards) note it was an estimate, and if this was the case whats the point in having local referendums it will just pile the debt on to the council.
Article four of the Planning, gives Councils the power to opt out of government directives.
So this to can become an option for the council to use to stop the Bio-mass being built in the docks.
"Article four of the Planning"???

Could you be a tad more precise?

As written, it means absolutely nothing.
It means any national government ruling over planning can be over ruled by local government
.. you haven't answered.

I don't want to know what it means.
I want to know what IT IS.

"Article four of the Planning" - wot?

What bit of legislation or regulation are you actually referring to?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: As reported, last month civic chiefs abandoned plans to hold a referendum in Millbrook and Freemantle, near to where the giant plant would be built, after costs spiralled from an initial £5,000 to £75,000. I have some details on the cost off local referendums from local referendums that have all ready taken place. The basics of the cost is. Lewisham in 2007 the estimate then was £300,000 (covering 18 wards) note it was an estimate, and if this was the case whats the point in having local referendums it will just pile the debt on to the council. Article four of the Planning, gives Councils the power to opt out of government directives. So this to can become an option for the council to use to stop the Bio-mass being built in the docks.[/p][/quote]"Article four of the Planning"??? Could you be a tad more precise? As written, it means absolutely nothing.[/p][/quote]It means any national government ruling over planning can be over ruled by local government[/p][/quote].. you haven't answered. I don't want to know what it means. I want to know what IT IS. "Article four of the Planning" - wot? What bit of legislation or regulation are you actually referring to? freefinker

1:42pm Fri 5 Oct 12

Trevrev says...

Linesman wrote:
I think that this could well be the Iconic building that Southampton has been looking for. Looks great and will improve the area.
It's got to look better than that massive heap of scrap metal that is getting bigger by the day in the docks. Now that is an eyesore!
And we need to get our energy from somewhere.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: I think that this could well be the Iconic building that Southampton has been looking for. Looks great and will improve the area.[/p][/quote]It's got to look better than that massive heap of scrap metal that is getting bigger by the day in the docks. Now that is an eyesore! And we need to get our energy from somewhere. Trevrev

1:50pm Fri 5 Oct 12

Jamez3000 says...

Linesman wrote:
I think that this could well be the Iconic building that Southampton has been looking for.

Looks great and will improve the area.
How on earth do you think building an enormous polluting power station will improve the area? It will blight the area for at least 25 years with increased pollution in an area already designated an air quality management area, Also it would lead to increased traffic, increase in noise, vibration, dust, light pollution, not to mention the fire hazards. Its quite simply the wrong location for a massive industrial construction of this type. It certainly is not an iconic building as Southampton City Council city design manager has confirmed - see the council's formal pre-application response here: http://www.southampt
on.gov.uk/s-environm
ent/planning/biomass
.aspx
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: I think that this could well be the Iconic building that Southampton has been looking for. Looks great and will improve the area.[/p][/quote]How on earth do you think building an enormous polluting power station will improve the area? It will blight the area for at least 25 years with increased pollution in an area already designated an air quality management area, Also it would lead to increased traffic, increase in noise, vibration, dust, light pollution, not to mention the fire hazards. Its quite simply the wrong location for a massive industrial construction of this type. It certainly is not an iconic building as Southampton City Council city design manager has confirmed - see the council's formal pre-application response here: http://www.southampt on.gov.uk/s-environm ent/planning/biomass .aspx Jamez3000

1:54pm Fri 5 Oct 12

Jamez3000 says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
Steven Galton wrote:
Torchie1: I would say precise numbers are everything - it allows "the choice" to be put in perspective. Lets assume a theoretical 400 responses, of which 100 chose a design and 300 said we don't want it. Suddenly the 52% who wanted marine becomes 13% choose the marine and the real result is 75% rejected all 3 designs and told Helius to go back to the drawing board...

It just demonstrates Helius are not interested in community consultation and are just railroading ahead with no concern for local residents, just positive, one sided PR.

As is pointed out everytime biomass comes on these forums, this is not just a NIMBY argument - large/industrial scale biomass will create a carbon debt and actually increase GHG (Green House Gas) concentrations in the short to mid term accelerating climate change attributed to man made CHGs. So much for the renewable energy source every bill payer is contributing to...
You are shooting yourself in the foot when you start comparing biomass with renewables. Andy Locks Heath has been through the science and maths before many times on these pages, and will no doubt demolish the inconsistencies and lack of understanding. We do not have to live like the Amish - unless we have to rely on the wind and sun and tides.
But its not even needed - the only reason Helius want to build it is because of the "ROC" benefits they receive from the Government. The power station is only planned to generate 100MW yet in Marchwood the modern gas power station has a generating capacity of 842MW - which more than covers the local areas energy generating needs.
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steven Galton[/bold] wrote: Torchie1: I would say precise numbers are everything - it allows "the choice" to be put in perspective. Lets assume a theoretical 400 responses, of which 100 chose a design and 300 said we don't want it. Suddenly the 52% who wanted marine becomes 13% choose the marine and the real result is 75% rejected all 3 designs and told Helius to go back to the drawing board... It just demonstrates Helius are not interested in community consultation and are just railroading ahead with no concern for local residents, just positive, one sided PR. As is pointed out everytime biomass comes on these forums, this is not just a NIMBY argument - large/industrial scale biomass will create a carbon debt and actually increase GHG (Green House Gas) concentrations in the short to mid term accelerating climate change attributed to man made CHGs. So much for the renewable energy source every bill payer is contributing to...[/p][/quote]You are shooting yourself in the foot when you start comparing biomass with renewables. Andy Locks Heath has been through the science and maths before many times on these pages, and will no doubt demolish the inconsistencies and lack of understanding. We do not have to live like the Amish - unless we have to rely on the wind and sun and tides.[/p][/quote]But its not even needed - the only reason Helius want to build it is because of the "ROC" benefits they receive from the Government. The power station is only planned to generate 100MW yet in Marchwood the modern gas power station has a generating capacity of 842MW - which more than covers the local areas energy generating needs. Jamez3000

1:58pm Fri 5 Oct 12

Trevrev says...

Jamez3000 wrote:
Linesman wrote: I think that this could well be the Iconic building that Southampton has been looking for. Looks great and will improve the area.
How on earth do you think building an enormous polluting power station will improve the area? It will blight the area for at least 25 years with increased pollution in an area already designated an air quality management area, Also it would lead to increased traffic, increase in noise, vibration, dust, light pollution, not to mention the fire hazards. Its quite simply the wrong location for a massive industrial construction of this type. It certainly is not an iconic building as Southampton City Council city design manager has confirmed - see the council's formal pre-application response here: http://www.southampt on.gov.uk/s-environm ent/planning/biomass .aspx
Fire Hazard!!! Wasn't the heap of scrap metal, that i mentioned in an earlier post, on fire for nearly a week not so long back! That was doing wonders for the air quality in the area.
[quote][p][bold]Jamez3000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: I think that this could well be the Iconic building that Southampton has been looking for. Looks great and will improve the area.[/p][/quote]How on earth do you think building an enormous polluting power station will improve the area? It will blight the area for at least 25 years with increased pollution in an area already designated an air quality management area, Also it would lead to increased traffic, increase in noise, vibration, dust, light pollution, not to mention the fire hazards. Its quite simply the wrong location for a massive industrial construction of this type. It certainly is not an iconic building as Southampton City Council city design manager has confirmed - see the council's formal pre-application response here: http://www.southampt on.gov.uk/s-environm ent/planning/biomass .aspx[/p][/quote]Fire Hazard!!! Wasn't the heap of scrap metal, that i mentioned in an earlier post, on fire for nearly a week not so long back! That was doing wonders for the air quality in the area. Trevrev

2:25pm Fri 5 Oct 12

Raxx says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Steven Galton wrote:
Torchie1: I would say precise numbers are everything - it allows "the choice" to be put in perspective. Lets assume a theoretical 400 responses, of which 100 chose a design and 300 said we don't want it. Suddenly the 52% who wanted marine becomes 13% choose the marine and the real result is 75% rejected all 3 designs and told Helius to go back to the drawing board...

It just demonstrates Helius are not interested in community consultation and are just railroading ahead with no concern for local residents, just positive, one sided PR.

As is pointed out everytime biomass comes on these forums, this is not just a NIMBY argument - large/industrial scale biomass will create a carbon debt and actually increase GHG (Green House Gas) concentrations in the short to mid term accelerating climate change attributed to man made CHGs. So much for the renewable energy source every bill payer is contributing to...
You are shooting yourself in the foot when you start comparing biomass with renewables. Andy Locks Heath has been through the science and maths before many times on these pages, and will no doubt demolish the inconsistencies and lack of understanding. We do not have to live like the Amish - unless we have to rely on the wind and sun and tides.
The far sighted entrepreneur will be looking at ways to power a computer with a candle if Steve 'I'm against everything' Galton gets his way.
No there are other ways and one particular way is totally being ignored, one that do not produce any CO2 or any toxic left overs.
If you mean geothermal, then I'm in agreement that it should be the focus of far more development effort.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steven Galton[/bold] wrote: Torchie1: I would say precise numbers are everything - it allows "the choice" to be put in perspective. Lets assume a theoretical 400 responses, of which 100 chose a design and 300 said we don't want it. Suddenly the 52% who wanted marine becomes 13% choose the marine and the real result is 75% rejected all 3 designs and told Helius to go back to the drawing board... It just demonstrates Helius are not interested in community consultation and are just railroading ahead with no concern for local residents, just positive, one sided PR. As is pointed out everytime biomass comes on these forums, this is not just a NIMBY argument - large/industrial scale biomass will create a carbon debt and actually increase GHG (Green House Gas) concentrations in the short to mid term accelerating climate change attributed to man made CHGs. So much for the renewable energy source every bill payer is contributing to...[/p][/quote]You are shooting yourself in the foot when you start comparing biomass with renewables. Andy Locks Heath has been through the science and maths before many times on these pages, and will no doubt demolish the inconsistencies and lack of understanding. We do not have to live like the Amish - unless we have to rely on the wind and sun and tides.[/p][/quote]The far sighted entrepreneur will be looking at ways to power a computer with a candle if Steve 'I'm against everything' Galton gets his way.[/p][/quote]No there are other ways and one particular way is totally being ignored, one that do not produce any CO2 or any toxic left overs.[/p][/quote]If you mean geothermal, then I'm in agreement that it should be the focus of far more development effort. Raxx

2:30pm Fri 5 Oct 12

loosehead says...

Jamez3000 wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Steven Galton wrote:
Torchie1: I would say precise numbers are everything - it allows "the choice" to be put in perspective. Lets assume a theoretical 400 responses, of which 100 chose a design and 300 said we don't want it. Suddenly the 52% who wanted marine becomes 13% choose the marine and the real result is 75% rejected all 3 designs and told Helius to go back to the drawing board...

It just demonstrates Helius are not interested in community consultation and are just railroading ahead with no concern for local residents, just positive, one sided PR.

As is pointed out everytime biomass comes on these forums, this is not just a NIMBY argument - large/industrial scale biomass will create a carbon debt and actually increase GHG (Green House Gas) concentrations in the short to mid term accelerating climate change attributed to man made CHGs. So much for the renewable energy source every bill payer is contributing to...
You are shooting yourself in the foot when you start comparing biomass with renewables. Andy Locks Heath has been through the science and maths before many times on these pages, and will no doubt demolish the inconsistencies and lack of understanding. We do not have to live like the Amish - unless we have to rely on the wind and sun and tides.
But its not even needed - the only reason Helius want to build it is because of the "ROC" benefits they receive from the Government. The power station is only planned to generate 100MW yet in Marchwood the modern gas power station has a generating capacity of 842MW - which more than covers the local areas energy generating needs.
Did you not hear todays report on energy?
Black outs due to energy production shortages?
Coal si not acceptable to the EU but Bio-Chip from a sustainable Forest is so not looking good for any objections to Bio Mass ,Wind Farm & Solar power is it?
We've had the NO campaign objecting to this we have councillors objecting to Solar & wind Farms.
We've had objectors to Wind & Solar power saying it's a waste as we can't store the energy to use it when we most need it & along comes a BRITISH inventor who's invented a way to use liquid air to drive a car & to be used as a storage for said wind & Solar energy.
So far the protestors of Bio,Solar,Wind our losing hands down
What other arguments can they need besides we need the energy?
[quote][p][bold]Jamez3000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steven Galton[/bold] wrote: Torchie1: I would say precise numbers are everything - it allows "the choice" to be put in perspective. Lets assume a theoretical 400 responses, of which 100 chose a design and 300 said we don't want it. Suddenly the 52% who wanted marine becomes 13% choose the marine and the real result is 75% rejected all 3 designs and told Helius to go back to the drawing board... It just demonstrates Helius are not interested in community consultation and are just railroading ahead with no concern for local residents, just positive, one sided PR. As is pointed out everytime biomass comes on these forums, this is not just a NIMBY argument - large/industrial scale biomass will create a carbon debt and actually increase GHG (Green House Gas) concentrations in the short to mid term accelerating climate change attributed to man made CHGs. So much for the renewable energy source every bill payer is contributing to...[/p][/quote]You are shooting yourself in the foot when you start comparing biomass with renewables. Andy Locks Heath has been through the science and maths before many times on these pages, and will no doubt demolish the inconsistencies and lack of understanding. We do not have to live like the Amish - unless we have to rely on the wind and sun and tides.[/p][/quote]But its not even needed - the only reason Helius want to build it is because of the "ROC" benefits they receive from the Government. The power station is only planned to generate 100MW yet in Marchwood the modern gas power station has a generating capacity of 842MW - which more than covers the local areas energy generating needs.[/p][/quote]Did you not hear todays report on energy? Black outs due to energy production shortages? Coal si not acceptable to the EU but Bio-Chip from a sustainable Forest is so not looking good for any objections to Bio Mass ,Wind Farm & Solar power is it? We've had the NO campaign objecting to this we have councillors objecting to Solar & wind Farms. We've had objectors to Wind & Solar power saying it's a waste as we can't store the energy to use it when we most need it & along comes a BRITISH inventor who's invented a way to use liquid air to drive a car & to be used as a storage for said wind & Solar energy. So far the protestors of Bio,Solar,Wind our losing hands down What other arguments can they need besides we need the energy? loosehead

2:42pm Fri 5 Oct 12

freefinker says...

Raxx wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Steven Galton wrote:
Torchie1: I would say precise numbers are everything - it allows "the choice" to be put in perspective. Lets assume a theoretical 400 responses, of which 100 chose a design and 300 said we don't want it. Suddenly the 52% who wanted marine becomes 13% choose the marine and the real result is 75% rejected all 3 designs and told Helius to go back to the drawing board...

It just demonstrates Helius are not interested in community consultation and are just railroading ahead with no concern for local residents, just positive, one sided PR.

As is pointed out everytime biomass comes on these forums, this is not just a NIMBY argument - large/industrial scale biomass will create a carbon debt and actually increase GHG (Green House Gas) concentrations in the short to mid term accelerating climate change attributed to man made CHGs. So much for the renewable energy source every bill payer is contributing to...
You are shooting yourself in the foot when you start comparing biomass with renewables. Andy Locks Heath has been through the science and maths before many times on these pages, and will no doubt demolish the inconsistencies and lack of understanding. We do not have to live like the Amish - unless we have to rely on the wind and sun and tides.
The far sighted entrepreneur will be looking at ways to power a computer with a candle if Steve 'I'm against everything' Galton gets his way.
No there are other ways and one particular way is totally being ignored, one that do not produce any CO2 or any toxic left overs.
If you mean geothermal, then I'm in agreement that it should be the focus of far more development effort.
.. no, I don't think he does.

If you had 'read back' through previous energy threads, he's talking about tapping river flow.

Unfortunately for southy, the generated power he quotes for his scheme brakes the laws of physics.

But, hey. We don't need a silly little inconvenience like that to get in the way. southy has his own very personal science in which everything is possible.

Yes, geo-thermal should be tapped a lot more than it is. Unfortunately, the pioneering Southampton scheme has overexploited the resource and something like 80% of the heat now comes from a gas-fired generator. OK it’s CHP which makes it very efficient; but still uses fossil fuels.
[quote][p][bold]Raxx[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steven Galton[/bold] wrote: Torchie1: I would say precise numbers are everything - it allows "the choice" to be put in perspective. Lets assume a theoretical 400 responses, of which 100 chose a design and 300 said we don't want it. Suddenly the 52% who wanted marine becomes 13% choose the marine and the real result is 75% rejected all 3 designs and told Helius to go back to the drawing board... It just demonstrates Helius are not interested in community consultation and are just railroading ahead with no concern for local residents, just positive, one sided PR. As is pointed out everytime biomass comes on these forums, this is not just a NIMBY argument - large/industrial scale biomass will create a carbon debt and actually increase GHG (Green House Gas) concentrations in the short to mid term accelerating climate change attributed to man made CHGs. So much for the renewable energy source every bill payer is contributing to...[/p][/quote]You are shooting yourself in the foot when you start comparing biomass with renewables. Andy Locks Heath has been through the science and maths before many times on these pages, and will no doubt demolish the inconsistencies and lack of understanding. We do not have to live like the Amish - unless we have to rely on the wind and sun and tides.[/p][/quote]The far sighted entrepreneur will be looking at ways to power a computer with a candle if Steve 'I'm against everything' Galton gets his way.[/p][/quote]No there are other ways and one particular way is totally being ignored, one that do not produce any CO2 or any toxic left overs.[/p][/quote]If you mean geothermal, then I'm in agreement that it should be the focus of far more development effort.[/p][/quote].. no, I don't think he does. If you had 'read back' through previous energy threads, he's talking about tapping river flow. Unfortunately for southy, the generated power he quotes for his scheme brakes the laws of physics. But, hey. We don't need a silly little inconvenience like that to get in the way. southy has his own very personal science in which everything is possible. Yes, geo-thermal should be tapped a lot more than it is. Unfortunately, the pioneering Southampton scheme has overexploited the resource and something like 80% of the heat now comes from a gas-fired generator. OK it’s CHP which makes it very efficient; but still uses fossil fuels. freefinker

2:47pm Fri 5 Oct 12

southy says...

Raxx wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Steven Galton wrote:
Torchie1: I would say precise numbers are everything - it allows "the choice" to be put in perspective. Lets assume a theoretical 400 responses, of which 100 chose a design and 300 said we don't want it. Suddenly the 52% who wanted marine becomes 13% choose the marine and the real result is 75% rejected all 3 designs and told Helius to go back to the drawing board...

It just demonstrates Helius are not interested in community consultation and are just railroading ahead with no concern for local residents, just positive, one sided PR.

As is pointed out everytime biomass comes on these forums, this is not just a NIMBY argument - large/industrial scale biomass will create a carbon debt and actually increase GHG (Green House Gas) concentrations in the short to mid term accelerating climate change attributed to man made CHGs. So much for the renewable energy source every bill payer is contributing to...
You are shooting yourself in the foot when you start comparing biomass with renewables. Andy Locks Heath has been through the science and maths before many times on these pages, and will no doubt demolish the inconsistencies and lack of understanding. We do not have to live like the Amish - unless we have to rely on the wind and sun and tides.
The far sighted entrepreneur will be looking at ways to power a computer with a candle if Steve 'I'm against everything' Galton gets his way.
No there are other ways and one particular way is totally being ignored, one that do not produce any CO2 or any toxic left overs.
If you mean geothermal, then I'm in agreement that it should be the focus of far more development effort.
That sort of energy is not being ignored, the trouble with our type grothermal power is the amount of energy that as to be put in to porduce enough power, for that to work at highest point of production we will need to drill down way pass the record of the deepest bore hole.
But it could be in the right direction just need the technology to be able to drill down close to very edge of the earth crust.
[quote][p][bold]Raxx[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steven Galton[/bold] wrote: Torchie1: I would say precise numbers are everything - it allows "the choice" to be put in perspective. Lets assume a theoretical 400 responses, of which 100 chose a design and 300 said we don't want it. Suddenly the 52% who wanted marine becomes 13% choose the marine and the real result is 75% rejected all 3 designs and told Helius to go back to the drawing board... It just demonstrates Helius are not interested in community consultation and are just railroading ahead with no concern for local residents, just positive, one sided PR. As is pointed out everytime biomass comes on these forums, this is not just a NIMBY argument - large/industrial scale biomass will create a carbon debt and actually increase GHG (Green House Gas) concentrations in the short to mid term accelerating climate change attributed to man made CHGs. So much for the renewable energy source every bill payer is contributing to...[/p][/quote]You are shooting yourself in the foot when you start comparing biomass with renewables. Andy Locks Heath has been through the science and maths before many times on these pages, and will no doubt demolish the inconsistencies and lack of understanding. We do not have to live like the Amish - unless we have to rely on the wind and sun and tides.[/p][/quote]The far sighted entrepreneur will be looking at ways to power a computer with a candle if Steve 'I'm against everything' Galton gets his way.[/p][/quote]No there are other ways and one particular way is totally being ignored, one that do not produce any CO2 or any toxic left overs.[/p][/quote]If you mean geothermal, then I'm in agreement that it should be the focus of far more development effort.[/p][/quote]That sort of energy is not being ignored, the trouble with our type grothermal power is the amount of energy that as to be put in to porduce enough power, for that to work at highest point of production we will need to drill down way pass the record of the deepest bore hole. But it could be in the right direction just need the technology to be able to drill down close to very edge of the earth crust. southy

3:10pm Fri 5 Oct 12

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
Raxx wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Steven Galton wrote:
Torchie1: I would say precise numbers are everything - it allows "the choice" to be put in perspective. Lets assume a theoretical 400 responses, of which 100 chose a design and 300 said we don't want it. Suddenly the 52% who wanted marine becomes 13% choose the marine and the real result is 75% rejected all 3 designs and told Helius to go back to the drawing board...

It just demonstrates Helius are not interested in community consultation and are just railroading ahead with no concern for local residents, just positive, one sided PR.

As is pointed out everytime biomass comes on these forums, this is not just a NIMBY argument - large/industrial scale biomass will create a carbon debt and actually increase GHG (Green House Gas) concentrations in the short to mid term accelerating climate change attributed to man made CHGs. So much for the renewable energy source every bill payer is contributing to...
You are shooting yourself in the foot when you start comparing biomass with renewables. Andy Locks Heath has been through the science and maths before many times on these pages, and will no doubt demolish the inconsistencies and lack of understanding. We do not have to live like the Amish - unless we have to rely on the wind and sun and tides.
The far sighted entrepreneur will be looking at ways to power a computer with a candle if Steve 'I'm against everything' Galton gets his way.
No there are other ways and one particular way is totally being ignored, one that do not produce any CO2 or any toxic left overs.
If you mean geothermal, then I'm in agreement that it should be the focus of far more development effort.
That sort of energy is not being ignored, the trouble with our type grothermal power is the amount of energy that as to be put in to porduce enough power, for that to work at highest point of production we will need to drill down way pass the record of the deepest bore hole.
But it could be in the right direction just need the technology to be able to drill down close to very edge of the earth crust.
.. the very edge of the Earth’s crust is, in fact, the planetary surface.

However, if you are taking about the vague transition between the crust and the mantle we are technically decades away from even attempting it as a commercial energy source.

The crust/mantle transition varies from depths of 8 km (mainly under oceans) to 40 km (under land masses). The deepest experimental drill hole went to about 15 km. By its very nature this transition zone presents technical difficulties for drilling and in particular to keeping any drill-hole open for water pumping in such a hot, pressurised and geologically unstable environment.

Alas, I fear the technical difficulties in producing economically viable quantities of energy may well be beyond our ingenuity for the foreseeable distant future.

Hot geological rocks nearer to the surface, such as the Southampton scheme, are a totally different matter. This is where a lot more research should be concentrated.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Raxx[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Steven Galton[/bold] wrote: Torchie1: I would say precise numbers are everything - it allows "the choice" to be put in perspective. Lets assume a theoretical 400 responses, of which 100 chose a design and 300 said we don't want it. Suddenly the 52% who wanted marine becomes 13% choose the marine and the real result is 75% rejected all 3 designs and told Helius to go back to the drawing board... It just demonstrates Helius are not interested in community consultation and are just railroading ahead with no concern for local residents, just positive, one sided PR. As is pointed out everytime biomass comes on these forums, this is not just a NIMBY argument - large/industrial scale biomass will create a carbon debt and actually increase GHG (Green House Gas) concentrations in the short to mid term accelerating climate change attributed to man made CHGs. So much for the renewable energy source every bill payer is contributing to...[/p][/quote]You are shooting yourself in the foot when you start comparing biomass with renewables. Andy Locks Heath has been through the science and maths before many times on these pages, and will no doubt demolish the inconsistencies and lack of understanding. We do not have to live like the Amish - unless we have to rely on the wind and sun and tides.[/p][/quote]The far sighted entrepreneur will be looking at ways to power a computer with a candle if Steve 'I'm against everything' Galton gets his way.[/p][/quote]No there are other ways and one particular way is totally being ignored, one that do not produce any CO2 or any toxic left overs.[/p][/quote]If you mean geothermal, then I'm in agreement that it should be the focus of far more development effort.[/p][/quote]That sort of energy is not being ignored, the trouble with our type grothermal power is the amount of energy that as to be put in to porduce enough power, for that to work at highest point of production we will need to drill down way pass the record of the deepest bore hole. But it could be in the right direction just need the technology to be able to drill down close to very edge of the earth crust.[/p][/quote].. the very edge of the Earth’s crust is, in fact, the planetary surface. However, if you are taking about the vague transition between the crust and the mantle we are technically decades away from even attempting it as a commercial energy source. The crust/mantle transition varies from depths of 8 km (mainly under oceans) to 40 km (under land masses). The deepest experimental drill hole went to about 15 km. By its very nature this transition zone presents technical difficulties for drilling and in particular to keeping any drill-hole open for water pumping in such a hot, pressurised and geologically unstable environment. Alas, I fear the technical difficulties in producing economically viable quantities of energy may well be beyond our ingenuity for the foreseeable distant future. Hot geological rocks nearer to the surface, such as the Southampton scheme, are a totally different matter. This is where a lot more research should be concentrated. freefinker

5:26pm Fri 5 Oct 12

skin2000 says...

More spin from Helius, it would be interesting how many actual votes this design got.....My guess is about 8
More spin from Helius, it would be interesting how many actual votes this design got.....My guess is about 8 skin2000

5:48pm Fri 5 Oct 12

Jamez3000 says...

Trevrev wrote:
Jamez3000 wrote:
Linesman wrote: I think that this could well be the Iconic building that Southampton has been looking for. Looks great and will improve the area.
How on earth do you think building an enormous polluting power station will improve the area? It will blight the area for at least 25 years with increased pollution in an area already designated an air quality management area, Also it would lead to increased traffic, increase in noise, vibration, dust, light pollution, not to mention the fire hazards. Its quite simply the wrong location for a massive industrial construction of this type. It certainly is not an iconic building as Southampton City Council city design manager has confirmed - see the council's formal pre-application response here: http://www.southampt on.gov.uk/s-environm ent/planning/biomass .aspx
Fire Hazard!!! Wasn't the heap of scrap metal, that i mentioned in an earlier post, on fire for nearly a week not so long back! That was doing wonders for the air quality in the area.
Yes exactly and the scrap metal fire showed just how dangerous it is building a biomass power station so close to a built up residential area. Biomass power stations are a fire hazard and so far Helius have not even carried out a fire risk assessment! There was a large fire at Tilbury Power Station in February: http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
2107082/Tilbury-Fire
-100-firefighters-ta
ckle-huge-blaze-Euro
pes-biggest-biomass-
power-station.html
[quote][p][bold]Trevrev[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jamez3000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: I think that this could well be the Iconic building that Southampton has been looking for. Looks great and will improve the area.[/p][/quote]How on earth do you think building an enormous polluting power station will improve the area? It will blight the area for at least 25 years with increased pollution in an area already designated an air quality management area, Also it would lead to increased traffic, increase in noise, vibration, dust, light pollution, not to mention the fire hazards. Its quite simply the wrong location for a massive industrial construction of this type. It certainly is not an iconic building as Southampton City Council city design manager has confirmed - see the council's formal pre-application response here: http://www.southampt on.gov.uk/s-environm ent/planning/biomass .aspx[/p][/quote]Fire Hazard!!! Wasn't the heap of scrap metal, that i mentioned in an earlier post, on fire for nearly a week not so long back! That was doing wonders for the air quality in the area.[/p][/quote]Yes exactly and the scrap metal fire showed just how dangerous it is building a biomass power station so close to a built up residential area. Biomass power stations are a fire hazard and so far Helius have not even carried out a fire risk assessment! There was a large fire at Tilbury Power Station in February: http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2107082/Tilbury-Fire -100-firefighters-ta ckle-huge-blaze-Euro pes-biggest-biomass- power-station.html Jamez3000

6:27pm Fri 5 Oct 12

skin2000 says...

Jamez3000 wrote:
Trevrev wrote:
Jamez3000 wrote:
Linesman wrote: I think that this could well be the Iconic building that Southampton has been looking for. Looks great and will improve the area.How on earth do you think building an enormous polluting power station will improve the area? It will blight the area for at least 25 years with increased pollution in an area already designated an air quality management area, Also it would lead to increased traffic, increase in noise, vibration, dust, light pollution, not to mention the fire hazards. Its quite simply the wrong location for a massive industrial construction of this type. It certainly is not an iconic building as Southampton City Council city design manager has confirmed - see the council's formal pre-application response here: http://www.southampt on.gov.uk/s-environm ent/planning/biomass .aspxFire Hazard!!! Wasn't the heap of scrap metal, that i mentioned in an earlier post, on fire for nearly a week not so long back! That was doing wonders for the air quality in the area.Yes exactly and the scrap metal fire showed just how dangerous it is building a biomass power station so close to a built up residential area. Biomass power stations are a fire hazard and so far Helius have not even carried out a fire risk assessment! There was a large fire at Tilbury Power Station in February: http://www.dailymail

.co.uk/news/article-
I think ABP are softening residents up, the metal mountains they are building now, makes the Power Station more acceptable to some people than it would be, if they were not there.....Clever ploy.
[quote][p][bold]Jamez3000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Trevrev[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Jamez3000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: I think that this could well be the Iconic building that Southampton has been looking for. Looks great and will improve the area.[/p][/quote]How on earth do you think building an enormous polluting power station will improve the area? It will blight the area for at least 25 years with increased pollution in an area already designated an air quality management area, Also it would lead to increased traffic, increase in noise, vibration, dust, light pollution, not to mention the fire hazards. Its quite simply the wrong location for a massive industrial construction of this type. It certainly is not an iconic building as Southampton City Council city design manager has confirmed - see the council's formal pre-application response here: http://www.southampt on.gov.uk/s-environm ent/planning/biomass .aspx[/p][/quote]Fire Hazard!!! Wasn't the heap of scrap metal, that i mentioned in an earlier post, on fire for nearly a week not so long back! That was doing wonders for the air quality in the area.[/p][/quote]Yes exactly and the scrap metal fire showed just how dangerous it is building a biomass power station so close to a built up residential area. Biomass power stations are a fire hazard and so far Helius have not even carried out a fire risk assessment! There was a large fire at Tilbury Power Station in February: http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- I think ABP are softening residents up, the metal mountains they are building now, makes the Power Station more acceptable to some people than it would be, if they were not there.....Clever ploy. skin2000

6:47pm Fri 5 Oct 12

skin2000 says...

Helius PR company are doing a good job, I have noticed that they post news on this project on the same day, when nationally, there are reports,of the lights going out. I hope that people can see through this, as the result of this vote would have been known months ago.
Helius PR company are doing a good job, I have noticed that they post news on this project on the same day, when nationally, there are reports,of the lights going out. I hope that people can see through this, as the result of this vote would have been known months ago. skin2000

10:01pm Fri 5 Oct 12

Dan Soton says...

skin2000 wrote:
More spin from Helius, it would be interesting how many actual votes this design got.....My guess is about 8
skin...


8 votes suggests Helius's management are in total agreement.
[quote][p][bold]skin2000[/bold] wrote: More spin from Helius, it would be interesting how many actual votes this design got.....My guess is about 8[/p][/quote]skin... 8 votes suggests Helius's management are in total agreement. Dan Soton

5:59pm 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

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