Helius Energy to start public consultations on plans for power plant at Southampton docks

Revised biomass plans go on show

The new marine inspired design for a biomass plant

How the new look biomass plant wood be seen from Foundry Lane

The view of the originally planned biomass plant from Foundry Lane

First published in New Forest Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Politics and business reporter

A SERIES of five public exhibitions on proposals for a controversial new £300m power plant at Southampton docks begins today.

Proposals for the 100-mega-watt energy station in the eastern docks have been met with stiff opposition from many residents and city politicians of all parties.

However developers Helius Energy hope to win support for revised plans by meeting the public face to face to explain the scheme in detail.

Helius went back to the drawing board after angry protests last year at the prospect of a “monstrous” power station being built just 125m away from the nearest homes in Millbrook.

The proposed site has now been moved back a further 125m nearer to the water next to the King George V Dry Dock, and many of the buildings have been reduced in height. Gaps have also been designed between the buildings to give views of port activity and shipping beyond. But a chimney stack will still rise up to 100m.

As previously revealed, architects have prepared three different themed designs – marine, wave, and hi-tech – for residents to have their say on.

The Helius project team also hope to allay fears over pollution, noise and lorry traffic. Most of the wood fuel will be shipped in through the docks.

Leaflets have been sent out to 25,000 households detailing the changes that Helius says shows it has listened to residents’ concerns and addressed them.

The exhibitions, to be held at community locations across Southampton and Marchwood, are part of a fresh 12-week consultation ahead of a planning application that is expected to be submitted later this year.

Last year’s consultation was criticised for being poorly advertised and one exhibition in Shirley had to be cut short when it clashed with a dance class. City politicians and the No Southampton Biomass campaign group remain opposed to the development.

New Labour city council leader Richard Williams called the new plans “green wash” and said the changes were “cosmetic”.

He said: “It is environmentally wrong, it’s socially wrong and it’s a purely opportunistic development.”

It is estimated that up to 450 jobs will be created during its 30 months of construction with about 40 more at the plant and 60 related jobs in Southampton once it is up and running.

Helius says it will bring about £10m every year to the city’s economy. The electricity generated, enough to power 200,000 homes, will be sold back into the grid.

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

“We believe this project has significant benefits not only for Southampton, in terms of jobs and investment, but also for the environment by helping meet the growing demand for energy with clean and sustainable power.”

Public exhibitions (all running from 2pm to 8pm):

• Today: Holy Trinity Church Parish Hall, Millbrook Road West, Southampton

• June 20: Marchwood Village Hall, Marchwood Village Centre, Marchwood

• June 26: Freemantle United Reform Church Hall, 257 Shirley Road, Freemantle, Southampton

• July 3: Marchwood Village Hall, Marchwood Village Centre, Marchwood

• July 5: Blighmont TA Centre, Millbrook Road West, Southampton Consultation documents can also be viewed at:

Southampton City Council Gateway, One Guildhall Square, Southampton

• Shirley Library, Shirley Precinct, Shirley High Street , Southampton

• Marchwood Village Hall, Marchwood Village Centre, Marchwood

Consultation documents can also be viewed at:

• Southampton City Council Gateway, One Guildhall Square, Southampton

• Shirley Library, Shirley Precinct, Shirley High Street , Southampton

• Marchwood Village Hall, Marchwood Village Centre, Marchwood

Comments (22)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:19am Tue 12 Jun 12

dango says...

here we go again, more arguments and opinions to follow, not forgetting the obligatory 'who can quote the most quotes' game. Get ready, on your marks, and ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,GO!
here we go again, more arguments and opinions to follow, not forgetting the obligatory 'who can quote the most quotes' game. Get ready, on your marks, and ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,GO! dango
  • Score: 0

10:28am Tue 12 Jun 12

The Salv says...

Looks great, and what a great opportunity for jobs. This will really get the economy rolling again and not only provide jobs building it but also more jobs for locals running it. Good location too as already in a working dock so lets get this approved and get Southampton prosporus.
Looks great, and what a great opportunity for jobs. This will really get the economy rolling again and not only provide jobs building it but also more jobs for locals running it. Good location too as already in a working dock so lets get this approved and get Southampton prosporus. The Salv
  • Score: 0

10:42am Tue 12 Jun 12

southy says...

Salv in real terms it will mean only about 3 to 5 new jobs when the place is up and running, all other jobs are all ready there and will mean extra work load for those employed
Salv in real terms it will mean only about 3 to 5 new jobs when the place is up and running, all other jobs are all ready there and will mean extra work load for those employed southy
  • Score: 0

10:43am Tue 12 Jun 12

freemantlegirl2 says...

The Salv wrote:
Looks great, and what a great opportunity for jobs. This will really get the economy rolling again and not only provide jobs building it but also more jobs for locals running it. Good location too as already in a working dock so lets get this approved and get Southampton prosporus.
yeah and to hell with the clear environmental issues and effect on residents/traffic/sc
hools/nurseries nearby eh!
[quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: Looks great, and what a great opportunity for jobs. This will really get the economy rolling again and not only provide jobs building it but also more jobs for locals running it. Good location too as already in a working dock so lets get this approved and get Southampton prosporus.[/p][/quote]yeah and to hell with the clear environmental issues and effect on residents/traffic/sc hools/nurseries nearby eh! freemantlegirl2
  • Score: 0

10:49am Tue 12 Jun 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

southy wrote:
Salv in real terms it will mean only about 3 to 5 new jobs when the place is up and running, all other jobs are all ready there and will mean extra work load for those employed
Southy that shows a lack of understanding of direct and indirect jobs and it is not even accurate on the number of direct jobs. There are almost no places in the county that directly sustain more than a few hundred jobs yet collectively the county sustains hundreds of thousands of jobs. Think of an electrician - working on jobs that by themselves might only take a few hours but collectively they create a constant workstream. Any large industrial plant will sustain small parts of hundreds of jobs. You cannot just write that off and consider those who spend all day and every day in the plant. That's not how industrial economics works
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Salv in real terms it will mean only about 3 to 5 new jobs when the place is up and running, all other jobs are all ready there and will mean extra work load for those employed[/p][/quote]Southy that shows a lack of understanding of direct and indirect jobs and it is not even accurate on the number of direct jobs. There are almost no places in the county that directly sustain more than a few hundred jobs yet collectively the county sustains hundreds of thousands of jobs. Think of an electrician - working on jobs that by themselves might only take a few hours but collectively they create a constant workstream. Any large industrial plant will sustain small parts of hundreds of jobs. You cannot just write that off and consider those who spend all day and every day in the plant. That's not how industrial economics works Andy Locks Heath
  • Score: 0

10:50am Tue 12 Jun 12

southy says...

I am not for it or against it, If it is built its being built in the totally wrong location, this needs to be built way down river
I am not for it or against it, If it is built its being built in the totally wrong location, this needs to be built way down river southy
  • Score: 0

10:52am Tue 12 Jun 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
The Salv wrote:
Looks great, and what a great opportunity for jobs. This will really get the economy rolling again and not only provide jobs building it but also more jobs for locals running it. Good location too as already in a working dock so lets get this approved and get Southampton prosporus.
yeah and to hell with the clear environmental issues and effect on residents/traffic/sc

hools/nurseries nearby eh!
What environmental impacts? You just keep saying it without producing actual hard data. It is clear that whatever scrubbed hot gases come out of that chimney are not going to affect the immediate environment, so precisely what "environmental issues" are you talking about?
[quote][p][bold]freemantlegirl2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: Looks great, and what a great opportunity for jobs. This will really get the economy rolling again and not only provide jobs building it but also more jobs for locals running it. Good location too as already in a working dock so lets get this approved and get Southampton prosporus.[/p][/quote]yeah and to hell with the clear environmental issues and effect on residents/traffic/sc hools/nurseries nearby eh![/p][/quote]What environmental impacts? You just keep saying it without producing actual hard data. It is clear that whatever scrubbed hot gases come out of that chimney are not going to affect the immediate environment, so precisely what "environmental issues" are you talking about? Andy Locks Heath
  • Score: 0

10:56am Tue 12 Jun 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

southy wrote:
I am not for it or against it, If it is built its being built in the totally wrong location, this needs to be built way down river
Why? You have already been told there is no deepwater channel, no craneage and no wharf at Fawley power station - but you continue to act as though there is. Let's be clear - there isn't. So why would anyone spend millions building new facilities when adequate facilities already exist in the docks? And perversely there is more chance of atmospheric pollution from a chimney 10 miles away than from a chimney 1 kilometre away so this suggestion does not even make sense from a Nimby environmental perspective.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: I am not for it or against it, If it is built its being built in the totally wrong location, this needs to be built way down river[/p][/quote]Why? You have already been told there is no deepwater channel, no craneage and no wharf at Fawley power station - but you continue to act as though there is. Let's be clear - there isn't. So why would anyone spend millions building new facilities when adequate facilities already exist in the docks? And perversely there is more chance of atmospheric pollution from a chimney 10 miles away than from a chimney 1 kilometre away so this suggestion does not even make sense from a Nimby environmental perspective. Andy Locks Heath
  • Score: 0

11:08am Tue 12 Jun 12

southy says...

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
Salv in real terms it will mean only about 3 to 5 new jobs when the place is up and running, all other jobs are all ready there and will mean extra work load for those employed
Southy that shows a lack of understanding of direct and indirect jobs and it is not even accurate on the number of direct jobs. There are almost no places in the county that directly sustain more than a few hundred jobs yet collectively the county sustains hundreds of thousands of jobs. Think of an electrician - working on jobs that by themselves might only take a few hours but collectively they create a constant workstream. Any large industrial plant will sustain small parts of hundreds of jobs. You cannot just write that off and consider those who spend all day and every day in the plant. That's not how industrial economics works
No Andy its showing I have a better under standing.
You have the contract jobs that are short term and will employ the most at any given time on site, but very unlikey that there will be more than 50 at any given point.
(remember I have work on Contructions site alot, and knows how it works).
Then you have the other jobs after the plant is finished and running, the transport jobs are all ready there, so no new jobs in this area, the Quay side jobs and storage work will go to a Steveadores firm, so no new jobs there, so that leaves the jobs that will be inside the plant which will not employ many people very few, most of 40 jobs are out side and it will be steveadores that will do it.
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Salv in real terms it will mean only about 3 to 5 new jobs when the place is up and running, all other jobs are all ready there and will mean extra work load for those employed[/p][/quote]Southy that shows a lack of understanding of direct and indirect jobs and it is not even accurate on the number of direct jobs. There are almost no places in the county that directly sustain more than a few hundred jobs yet collectively the county sustains hundreds of thousands of jobs. Think of an electrician - working on jobs that by themselves might only take a few hours but collectively they create a constant workstream. Any large industrial plant will sustain small parts of hundreds of jobs. You cannot just write that off and consider those who spend all day and every day in the plant. That's not how industrial economics works[/p][/quote]No Andy its showing I have a better under standing. You have the contract jobs that are short term and will employ the most at any given time on site, but very unlikey that there will be more than 50 at any given point. (remember I have work on Contructions site alot, and knows how it works). Then you have the other jobs after the plant is finished and running, the transport jobs are all ready there, so no new jobs in this area, the Quay side jobs and storage work will go to a Steveadores firm, so no new jobs there, so that leaves the jobs that will be inside the plant which will not employ many people very few, most of 40 jobs are out side and it will be steveadores that will do it. southy
  • Score: 0

11:36am Tue 12 Jun 12

southy says...

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
I am not for it or against it, If it is built its being built in the totally wrong location, this needs to be built way down river
Why? You have already been told there is no deepwater channel, no craneage and no wharf at Fawley power station - but you continue to act as though there is. Let's be clear - there isn't. So why would anyone spend millions building new facilities when adequate facilities already exist in the docks? And perversely there is more chance of atmospheric pollution from a chimney 10 miles away than from a chimney 1 kilometre away so this suggestion does not even make sense from a Nimby environmental perspective.
There is a deep water channel at Falwey check your Admiralty charts, The intake Channel is more than deep enough to take large bulk carriers (there was one moored there for a few mths back in the late 80's). You dont need cranes for this type of cargo, vacuum pumps like the ones that saw mills use will do the job better and cleaner, all that is needed down there is a quay side and pumps, every thing else is more or less all ready there to be use (Fawley Power Station will soon be totally decomission) the prevailing winds would keep most of the pollution away from Southampton also the stack there is a lot higher, you could even make a bigger plant if chose to.
Not all facilities are in the docks, even lo this plant will have fin-fans it will still need an intake and an outlet so that means digging up the docks, they could use the fresh water from Millbrook stream/river that passes very close by (it is pipe off and passes some where between the dry dock and where they are tending to locate in the docks) but they still will need to put in an outlet pipe that will need to have an entrance closer to the other side of the river, where the warm water will mix with the flow of the current.
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: I am not for it or against it, If it is built its being built in the totally wrong location, this needs to be built way down river[/p][/quote]Why? You have already been told there is no deepwater channel, no craneage and no wharf at Fawley power station - but you continue to act as though there is. Let's be clear - there isn't. So why would anyone spend millions building new facilities when adequate facilities already exist in the docks? And perversely there is more chance of atmospheric pollution from a chimney 10 miles away than from a chimney 1 kilometre away so this suggestion does not even make sense from a Nimby environmental perspective.[/p][/quote]There is a deep water channel at Falwey check your Admiralty charts, The intake Channel is more than deep enough to take large bulk carriers (there was one moored there for a few mths back in the late 80's). You dont need cranes for this type of cargo, vacuum pumps like the ones that saw mills use will do the job better and cleaner, all that is needed down there is a quay side and pumps, every thing else is more or less all ready there to be use (Fawley Power Station will soon be totally decomission) the prevailing winds would keep most of the pollution away from Southampton also the stack there is a lot higher, you could even make a bigger plant if chose to. Not all facilities are in the docks, even lo this plant will have fin-fans it will still need an intake and an outlet so that means digging up the docks, they could use the fresh water from Millbrook stream/river that passes very close by (it is pipe off and passes some where between the dry dock and where they are tending to locate in the docks) but they still will need to put in an outlet pipe that will need to have an entrance closer to the other side of the river, where the warm water will mix with the flow of the current. southy
  • Score: 0

12:42pm Tue 12 Jun 12

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
Salv in real terms it will mean only about 3 to 5 new jobs when the place is up and running, all other jobs are all ready there and will mean extra work load for those employed
Southy that shows a lack of understanding of direct and indirect jobs and it is not even accurate on the number of direct jobs. There are almost no places in the county that directly sustain more than a few hundred jobs yet collectively the county sustains hundreds of thousands of jobs. Think of an electrician - working on jobs that by themselves might only take a few hours but collectively they create a constant workstream. Any large industrial plant will sustain small parts of hundreds of jobs. You cannot just write that off and consider those who spend all day and every day in the plant. That's not how industrial economics works
No Andy its showing I have a better under standing.
You have the contract jobs that are short term and will employ the most at any given time on site, but very unlikey that there will be more than 50 at any given point.
(remember I have work on Contructions site alot, and knows how it works).
Then you have the other jobs after the plant is finished and running, the transport jobs are all ready there, so no new jobs in this area, the Quay side jobs and storage work will go to a Steveadores firm, so no new jobs there, so that leaves the jobs that will be inside the plant which will not employ many people very few, most of 40 jobs are out side and it will be steveadores that will do it.
I reckon you don't know what the fook you are blithering on about, personally.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Salv in real terms it will mean only about 3 to 5 new jobs when the place is up and running, all other jobs are all ready there and will mean extra work load for those employed[/p][/quote]Southy that shows a lack of understanding of direct and indirect jobs and it is not even accurate on the number of direct jobs. There are almost no places in the county that directly sustain more than a few hundred jobs yet collectively the county sustains hundreds of thousands of jobs. Think of an electrician - working on jobs that by themselves might only take a few hours but collectively they create a constant workstream. Any large industrial plant will sustain small parts of hundreds of jobs. You cannot just write that off and consider those who spend all day and every day in the plant. That's not how industrial economics works[/p][/quote]No Andy its showing I have a better under standing. You have the contract jobs that are short term and will employ the most at any given time on site, but very unlikey that there will be more than 50 at any given point. (remember I have work on Contructions site alot, and knows how it works). Then you have the other jobs after the plant is finished and running, the transport jobs are all ready there, so no new jobs in this area, the Quay side jobs and storage work will go to a Steveadores firm, so no new jobs there, so that leaves the jobs that will be inside the plant which will not employ many people very few, most of 40 jobs are out side and it will be steveadores that will do it.[/p][/quote]I reckon you don't know what the fook you are blithering on about, personally. Shoong
  • Score: 0

12:47pm Tue 12 Jun 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

Those bulk carriers were not moored by the power station - they were moored at the permanent anchorage between Greenland and After Barn opposite Cadland and north of Hamble Oil terminal. There is no shipping channel to the power station - there is just a creek used for water cooling which would not even carry the Hythe Ferry let alone a large ship. And yes I am verifying my memory using an Admiralty chart. I agree that the power station building and stack might be useful but none of the boilers would be suitable for burning biomass, there is no flue scrubbing, and the four 3 stage turbine generators are far too large and cumbersome for the short term work required by the new units so they would be scrapped as well. The building would therefore be just a shell and little of the facilities would be of use. So it is a straight case of economics. If you truly do not care where it is built then just accept that planners know their jobs and will choose the most economic option.
Those bulk carriers were not moored by the power station - they were moored at the permanent anchorage between Greenland and After Barn opposite Cadland and north of Hamble Oil terminal. There is no shipping channel to the power station - there is just a creek used for water cooling which would not even carry the Hythe Ferry let alone a large ship. And yes I am verifying my memory using an Admiralty chart. I agree that the power station building and stack might be useful but none of the boilers would be suitable for burning biomass, there is no flue scrubbing, and the four 3 stage turbine generators are far too large and cumbersome for the short term work required by the new units so they would be scrapped as well. The building would therefore be just a shell and little of the facilities would be of use. So it is a straight case of economics. If you truly do not care where it is built then just accept that planners know their jobs and will choose the most economic option. Andy Locks Heath
  • Score: 0

1:08pm Tue 12 Jun 12

phil maccavity says...

Southy once said you could walk across Soton Water at low tide so his grasp of Admiralty Charts is rather lacking!!
Southy once said you could walk across Soton Water at low tide so his grasp of Admiralty Charts is rather lacking!! phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

1:09pm Tue 12 Jun 12

southy says...

Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
Salv in real terms it will mean only about 3 to 5 new jobs when the place is up and running, all other jobs are all ready there and will mean extra work load for those employed
Southy that shows a lack of understanding of direct and indirect jobs and it is not even accurate on the number of direct jobs. There are almost no places in the county that directly sustain more than a few hundred jobs yet collectively the county sustains hundreds of thousands of jobs. Think of an electrician - working on jobs that by themselves might only take a few hours but collectively they create a constant workstream. Any large industrial plant will sustain small parts of hundreds of jobs. You cannot just write that off and consider those who spend all day and every day in the plant. That's not how industrial economics works
No Andy its showing I have a better under standing.
You have the contract jobs that are short term and will employ the most at any given time on site, but very unlikey that there will be more than 50 at any given point.
(remember I have work on Contructions site alot, and knows how it works).
Then you have the other jobs after the plant is finished and running, the transport jobs are all ready there, so no new jobs in this area, the Quay side jobs and storage work will go to a Steveadores firm, so no new jobs there, so that leaves the jobs that will be inside the plant which will not employ many people very few, most of 40 jobs are out side and it will be steveadores that will do it.
I reckon you don't know what the fook you are blithering on about, personally.
Yes you would think that, but then you need to get your hands dirty to find out and work in contruction industary, or do it take to much know how for you to be able to coop with it all.
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Salv in real terms it will mean only about 3 to 5 new jobs when the place is up and running, all other jobs are all ready there and will mean extra work load for those employed[/p][/quote]Southy that shows a lack of understanding of direct and indirect jobs and it is not even accurate on the number of direct jobs. There are almost no places in the county that directly sustain more than a few hundred jobs yet collectively the county sustains hundreds of thousands of jobs. Think of an electrician - working on jobs that by themselves might only take a few hours but collectively they create a constant workstream. Any large industrial plant will sustain small parts of hundreds of jobs. You cannot just write that off and consider those who spend all day and every day in the plant. That's not how industrial economics works[/p][/quote]No Andy its showing I have a better under standing. You have the contract jobs that are short term and will employ the most at any given time on site, but very unlikey that there will be more than 50 at any given point. (remember I have work on Contructions site alot, and knows how it works). Then you have the other jobs after the plant is finished and running, the transport jobs are all ready there, so no new jobs in this area, the Quay side jobs and storage work will go to a Steveadores firm, so no new jobs there, so that leaves the jobs that will be inside the plant which will not employ many people very few, most of 40 jobs are out side and it will be steveadores that will do it.[/p][/quote]I reckon you don't know what the fook you are blithering on about, personally.[/p][/quote]Yes you would think that, but then you need to get your hands dirty to find out and work in contruction industary, or do it take to much know how for you to be able to coop with it all. southy
  • Score: 0

1:24pm Tue 12 Jun 12

southy says...

phil maccavity wrote:
Southy once said you could walk across Soton Water at low tide so his grasp of Admiralty Charts is rather lacking!!
And that you could you look at any Admiralty charts that predates the building of the first docks (the old Dock / Eastern docks) Charts that are 1810 and older and around where Netley Abby is the deepest part was only about 2 foot deep at Spring low water tides, there was banks that showed up, in the middle of the river, and it was not till they started to dredge the river for the first time was the channel any deeper.
My grasp of Admiralty charts is very good, old and new.
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: Southy once said you could walk across Soton Water at low tide so his grasp of Admiralty Charts is rather lacking!![/p][/quote]And that you could you look at any Admiralty charts that predates the building of the first docks (the old Dock / Eastern docks) Charts that are 1810 and older and around where Netley Abby is the deepest part was only about 2 foot deep at Spring low water tides, there was banks that showed up, in the middle of the river, and it was not till they started to dredge the river for the first time was the channel any deeper. My grasp of Admiralty charts is very good, old and new. southy
  • Score: 0

1:48pm Tue 12 Jun 12

southy says...

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
Those bulk carriers were not moored by the power station - they were moored at the permanent anchorage between Greenland and After Barn opposite Cadland and north of Hamble Oil terminal. There is no shipping channel to the power station - there is just a creek used for water cooling which would not even carry the Hythe Ferry let alone a large ship. And yes I am verifying my memory using an Admiralty chart. I agree that the power station building and stack might be useful but none of the boilers would be suitable for burning biomass, there is no flue scrubbing, and the four 3 stage turbine generators are far too large and cumbersome for the short term work required by the new units so they would be scrapped as well. The building would therefore be just a shell and little of the facilities would be of use. So it is a straight case of economics. If you truly do not care where it is built then just accept that planners know their jobs and will choose the most economic option.
Andy there was one there in the 80s, and yes they was also moored across the other side.
And yes there is a channel at the intake at Fawley the marsh was cut away and it was dredge out, you could sink the Hythe ferry and you would not be able to any of it at low water springs Andy, if your on about Ashlet creek that go's up to the old Tidal Mill and Tidal Ponds your in the wrong location on the river, you need to go down river even more about half way from Ashlett Creek to Calshot beach.
It would still be cheaper Andy you have a building all ready you do not need to start from scatch, that power station going to be gutted any way when it finally shuts down for good, so why not use it, you all ready have the intake and outlet all ready there for use.
You know what it will take to bore a hole to nearly the other side of the river just so got an out let. I was on that job that had to replace 2 pipes that connects up Millbrook and Marchwood treatment plants, that the suction dredges broke, that cost close to £16 million to replace those pipes.
I care where it is built, I just don't care if they build it or not.
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: Those bulk carriers were not moored by the power station - they were moored at the permanent anchorage between Greenland and After Barn opposite Cadland and north of Hamble Oil terminal. There is no shipping channel to the power station - there is just a creek used for water cooling which would not even carry the Hythe Ferry let alone a large ship. And yes I am verifying my memory using an Admiralty chart. I agree that the power station building and stack might be useful but none of the boilers would be suitable for burning biomass, there is no flue scrubbing, and the four 3 stage turbine generators are far too large and cumbersome for the short term work required by the new units so they would be scrapped as well. The building would therefore be just a shell and little of the facilities would be of use. So it is a straight case of economics. If you truly do not care where it is built then just accept that planners know their jobs and will choose the most economic option.[/p][/quote]Andy there was one there in the 80s, and yes they was also moored across the other side. And yes there is a channel at the intake at Fawley the marsh was cut away and it was dredge out, you could sink the Hythe ferry and you would not be able to any of it at low water springs Andy, if your on about Ashlet creek that go's up to the old Tidal Mill and Tidal Ponds your in the wrong location on the river, you need to go down river even more about half way from Ashlett Creek to Calshot beach. It would still be cheaper Andy you have a building all ready you do not need to start from scatch, that power station going to be gutted any way when it finally shuts down for good, so why not use it, you all ready have the intake and outlet all ready there for use. You know what it will take to bore a hole to nearly the other side of the river just so got an out let. I was on that job that had to replace 2 pipes that connects up Millbrook and Marchwood treatment plants, that the suction dredges broke, that cost close to £16 million to replace those pipes. I care where it is built, I just don't care if they build it or not. southy
  • Score: 0

2:28pm Tue 12 Jun 12

The Salv says...

freemantlegirl2 wrote:
The Salv wrote: Looks great, and what a great opportunity for jobs. This will really get the economy rolling again and not only provide jobs building it but also more jobs for locals running it. Good location too as already in a working dock so lets get this approved and get Southampton prosporus.
yeah and to hell with the clear environmental issues and effect on residents/traffic/sc hools/nurseries nearby eh!
translated as - and to the hell with the view from my window and the clear effects on my back garden :-/
[quote][p][bold]freemantlegirl2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Salv[/bold] wrote: Looks great, and what a great opportunity for jobs. This will really get the economy rolling again and not only provide jobs building it but also more jobs for locals running it. Good location too as already in a working dock so lets get this approved and get Southampton prosporus.[/p][/quote]yeah and to hell with the clear environmental issues and effect on residents/traffic/sc hools/nurseries nearby eh![/p][/quote]translated as - and to the hell with the view from my window and the clear effects on my back garden :-/ The Salv
  • Score: 0

3:02pm Tue 12 Jun 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

southy wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
Southy once said you could walk across Soton Water at low tide so his grasp of Admiralty Charts is rather lacking!!
And that you could you look at any Admiralty charts that predates the building of the first docks (the old Dock / Eastern docks) Charts that are 1810 and older and around where Netley Abby is the deepest part was only about 2 foot deep at Spring low water tides, there was banks that showed up, in the middle of the river, and it was not till they started to dredge the river for the first time was the channel any deeper.
My grasp of Admiralty charts is very good, old and new.
I'm afraid that is not true Southy - I don't know what chart could have led you to think that. The reason predates dredging. As you may know, prior to the end of the last ice age the combined waters of the Itchen and Test flowed down to the sea around where Bembridge is today - you could not wade either of those two rivers above the tide line so put them together and even with no sea at all you would not walk across the channel they created in the centre of the water. Now put in the impact of the subsequent sea level rise and you would not even get across on stilts. The charts show that even ignoring the dredged shipping channel there is a width of over one mile that is over 10 feet deep at low tide. Those effects would apply as much in 1800 as they do now - and don;t forget that the Romans were sailing trading ships up to Chausentum 2000 years ago. They could not sail so far relying on tide alone.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: Southy once said you could walk across Soton Water at low tide so his grasp of Admiralty Charts is rather lacking!![/p][/quote]And that you could you look at any Admiralty charts that predates the building of the first docks (the old Dock / Eastern docks) Charts that are 1810 and older and around where Netley Abby is the deepest part was only about 2 foot deep at Spring low water tides, there was banks that showed up, in the middle of the river, and it was not till they started to dredge the river for the first time was the channel any deeper. My grasp of Admiralty charts is very good, old and new.[/p][/quote]I'm afraid that is not true Southy - I don't know what chart could have led you to think that. The reason predates dredging. As you may know, prior to the end of the last ice age the combined waters of the Itchen and Test flowed down to the sea around where Bembridge is today - you could not wade either of those two rivers above the tide line so put them together and even with no sea at all you would not walk across the channel they created in the centre of the water. Now put in the impact of the subsequent sea level rise and you would not even get across on stilts. The charts show that even ignoring the dredged shipping channel there is a width of over one mile that is over 10 feet deep at low tide. Those effects would apply as much in 1800 as they do now - and don;t forget that the Romans were sailing trading ships up to Chausentum 2000 years ago. They could not sail so far relying on tide alone. Andy Locks Heath
  • Score: 0

8:53pm Tue 12 Jun 12

Timbimota says...

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
Those bulk carriers were not moored by the power station - they were moored at the permanent anchorage between Greenland and After Barn opposite Cadland and north of Hamble Oil terminal. There is no shipping channel to the power station - there is just a creek used for water cooling which would not even carry the Hythe Ferry let alone a large ship. And yes I am verifying my memory using an Admiralty chart. I agree that the power station building and stack might be useful but none of the boilers would be suitable for burning biomass, there is no flue scrubbing, and the four 3 stage turbine generators are far too large and cumbersome for the short term work required by the new units so they would be scrapped as well. The building would therefore be just a shell and little of the facilities would be of use. So it is a straight case of economics. If you truly do not care where it is built then just accept that planners know their jobs and will choose the most economic option.
According to the chart here http://www.visitmyha
rbour.com/viewchart.
asp?chart=1DD57B424C
BE22423
you are correct. There is no deep water shipping channel. I would love to see a large bulk carrier try and navigate that inlet.
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: Those bulk carriers were not moored by the power station - they were moored at the permanent anchorage between Greenland and After Barn opposite Cadland and north of Hamble Oil terminal. There is no shipping channel to the power station - there is just a creek used for water cooling which would not even carry the Hythe Ferry let alone a large ship. And yes I am verifying my memory using an Admiralty chart. I agree that the power station building and stack might be useful but none of the boilers would be suitable for burning biomass, there is no flue scrubbing, and the four 3 stage turbine generators are far too large and cumbersome for the short term work required by the new units so they would be scrapped as well. The building would therefore be just a shell and little of the facilities would be of use. So it is a straight case of economics. If you truly do not care where it is built then just accept that planners know their jobs and will choose the most economic option.[/p][/quote]According to the chart here http://www.visitmyha rbour.com/viewchart. asp?chart=1DD57B424C BE22423 you are correct. There is no deep water shipping channel. I would love to see a large bulk carrier try and navigate that inlet. Timbimota
  • Score: 0

8:57pm Tue 12 Jun 12

skin2000 says...

dango wrote:
here we go again, more arguments and opinions to follow, not forgetting the obligatory 'who can quote the most quotes' game. Get ready, on your marks, and ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

,GO!
Spot on, can't wait to read Andy from Locks Heath, The Wickham Man and Loosehead's opinions.
[quote][p][bold]dango[/bold] wrote: here we go again, more arguments and opinions to follow, not forgetting the obligatory 'who can quote the most quotes' game. Get ready, on your marks, and ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,GO![/p][/quote]Spot on, can't wait to read Andy from Locks Heath, The Wickham Man and Loosehead's opinions. skin2000
  • Score: 0

10:40am Wed 13 Jun 12

MisterGrimsdale says...

skin2000 wrote:
dango wrote: here we go again, more arguments and opinions to follow, not forgetting the obligatory 'who can quote the most quotes' game. Get ready, on your marks, and ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,GO!
Spot on, can't wait to read Andy from Locks Heath, The Wickham Man and Loosehead's opinions.
Yep but it's thanks to those gents that we get sensible information and grown up argument instead of the usual Nimby rubbish dragged off the internet. The only reason they get slagged off is the Nimbies don't get their own way with all their moaning. Andy sounds like he understand the information rather than just quoting it the way people like Freefinker do.
[quote][p][bold]skin2000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dango[/bold] wrote: here we go again, more arguments and opinions to follow, not forgetting the obligatory 'who can quote the most quotes' game. Get ready, on your marks, and ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,GO![/p][/quote]Spot on, can't wait to read Andy from Locks Heath, The Wickham Man and Loosehead's opinions.[/p][/quote]Yep but it's thanks to those gents that we get sensible information and grown up argument instead of the usual Nimby rubbish dragged off the internet. The only reason they get slagged off is the Nimbies don't get their own way with all their moaning. Andy sounds like he understand the information rather than just quoting it the way people like Freefinker do. MisterGrimsdale
  • Score: 0

5:55pm Wed 13 Jun 12

skin2000 says...

MisterGrimsdale wrote:
skin2000 wrote:
dango wrote: here we go again, more arguments and opinions to follow, not forgetting the obligatory 'who can quote the most quotes' game. Get ready, on your marks, and ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,GO!
Spot on, can't wait to read Andy from Locks Heath, The Wickham Man and Loosehead's opinions.
Yep but it's thanks to those gents that we get sensible information and grown up argument instead of the usual Nimby rubbish dragged off the internet. The only reason they get slagged off is the Nimbies don't get their own way with all their moaning. Andy sounds like he understand the information rather than just quoting it the way people like Freefinker do.
When in doubt, call people who opose NIMBIES. Original.
[quote][p][bold]MisterGrimsdale[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]skin2000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dango[/bold] wrote: here we go again, more arguments and opinions to follow, not forgetting the obligatory 'who can quote the most quotes' game. Get ready, on your marks, and ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,GO![/p][/quote]Spot on, can't wait to read Andy from Locks Heath, The Wickham Man and Loosehead's opinions.[/p][/quote]Yep but it's thanks to those gents that we get sensible information and grown up argument instead of the usual Nimby rubbish dragged off the internet. The only reason they get slagged off is the Nimbies don't get their own way with all their moaning. Andy sounds like he understand the information rather than just quoting it the way people like Freefinker do.[/p][/quote]When in doubt, call people who opose NIMBIES. Original. skin2000
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

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