Helius vow to press ahead with biomass plans for Southampton docks

Daily Echo: Vow to press ahead with biomass plans Vow to press ahead with biomass plans

THE developer behind a proposed power plant at Southampton docks has insisted it will press ahead with the scheme.

It comes after councillors agreed planning objections to the controversial scheme.

Around 60 residents attended a meeting where councillors agreed a formal response to a consultation by Helius Energy on revised plans for a 100-megawatt biomass plant, 250 metres from the nearest homes in Millbrook.

Planners revealed they had received 239 written objections.

Councillors agreed “insufficient” detail had been provided to properly assess impact on air quality and that the “inappropriate size” and “poor architectural” quality of the proposed plant were unacceptable.

They also wanted specific details about how steam and hot water from the plant would be reused locally.

The 800,000 tonnes of wood fuel to be burnt at the power station would be in excess of limits set out in a forthcoming countywide minerals and waste plan, councillors noted.

The No Southampton Biomass campaign group accused Helius of manipulating computer images to show the proposed power station from the best angles and said the consultation was inadequate.

They said the plant was still too big, too close to homes, not green and would pollute the already poor local air quality.

Campaigner Eloisa Gil- Arranz told the meeting: “It’s an ill-conceived monstrosity whose sole purpose is to line the pockets of Heluis fat cats.”

Council leader Richard Williams said: “We are sending a clear signal to Helius that Southampton does not want their proposed power station and we will object to their current plans.”

Helius planning director Paul Brighton said the public consultation, which runs until August 3, had been a “full programme” and insisted the biomass plant was needed to help cut carbon emissions. “If climate change was not an issue we would not be here,” he said.

He said the objections would be “carefully considered” to help Helius “refine” its proposals but anticipated a planning application would be submitted to the National Infrastructure Directorate by the end of the year, which will recommend to Government whether to give the final go-ahead.

Speaking after the meeting Mr Brighton denied images had been manipulated.

He said: “We commissioned three independent and experienced professional consultants to undertake the preparation of the images on our behalf.

"The photomontages that they produced conform to the technical guidelines for such images set out in the Landscape Institute’s professional guidance for such work.

"The 21 viewpoints selected were agreed in advance with Southampton City Council as part of the scoping of the environmental statement and were surveyed to verify the accuracy of the images."

Comments (62)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:02pm Wed 25 Jul 12

Lone Ranger. says...

So the dcision will not be made locally anyway if the report is correct.......
.
Quote:- a planning application would be submitted to the National Infrastructure Directorate by the end of the year, which will recommend to Government whether to give the final go-ahead.
.
Unless i am missing something ....... whats the point of debates and referendums ........ Waste of money
So the dcision will not be made locally anyway if the report is correct....... . Quote:- a planning application would be submitted to the National Infrastructure Directorate by the end of the year, which will recommend to Government whether to give the final go-ahead. . Unless i am missing something ....... whats the point of debates and referendums ........ Waste of money Lone Ranger.

7:42pm Wed 25 Jul 12

freefinker says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
So the dcision will not be made locally anyway if the report is correct.......
.
Quote:- a planning application would be submitted to the National Infrastructure Directorate by the end of the year, which will recommend to Government whether to give the final go-ahead.
.
Unless i am missing something ....... whats the point of debates and referendums ........ Waste of money
.. no. it's part of the whole consultation process that the National Infrastructure Directorate have to take into account when reaching a decision.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: So the dcision will not be made locally anyway if the report is correct....... . Quote:- a planning application would be submitted to the National Infrastructure Directorate by the end of the year, which will recommend to Government whether to give the final go-ahead. . Unless i am missing something ....... whats the point of debates and referendums ........ Waste of money[/p][/quote].. no. it's part of the whole consultation process that the National Infrastructure Directorate have to take into account when reaching a decision. freefinker

8:37pm Wed 25 Jul 12

lordshill loyal says...

consultation process my arse!!!!!!!!!!.SAVE OAKLANDS SWIMMING POOL
consultation process my arse!!!!!!!!!!.SAVE OAKLANDS SWIMMING POOL lordshill loyal

9:09pm Wed 25 Jul 12

loosehead says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
So the dcision will not be made locally anyway if the report is correct.......
.
Quote:- a planning application would be submitted to the National Infrastructure Directorate by the end of the year, which will recommend to Government whether to give the final go-ahead.
.
Unless i am missing something ....... whats the point of debates and referendums ........ Waste of money
For once I agree with you!
Campaigner Eloisa Gil- Arranz told the meeting: “It’s an ill-conceived monstrosity whose sole purpose is to line the pockets of Heluis fat cats.”
But she never said anything about people who have said they oppose it because they're worried about a drop in value to their properties.
Many of them put up objections on health?
Andy from Locksheath destroys those arguments.
One poster who lives opposite Freemantle Park & won't even see it objects to it being ugly?
but the ones who are really telling the truth are the ones who admit to being NIMBY's
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: So the dcision will not be made locally anyway if the report is correct....... . Quote:- a planning application would be submitted to the National Infrastructure Directorate by the end of the year, which will recommend to Government whether to give the final go-ahead. . Unless i am missing something ....... whats the point of debates and referendums ........ Waste of money[/p][/quote]For once I agree with you! Campaigner Eloisa Gil- Arranz told the meeting: “It’s an ill-conceived monstrosity whose sole purpose is to line the pockets of Heluis fat cats.” But she never said anything about people who have said they oppose it because they're worried about a drop in value to their properties. Many of them put up objections on health? Andy from Locksheath destroys those arguments. One poster who lives opposite Freemantle Park & won't even see it objects to it being ugly? but the ones who are really telling the truth are the ones who admit to being NIMBY's loosehead

9:32pm Wed 25 Jul 12

Torchie1 says...

loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
So the dcision will not be made locally anyway if the report is correct.......
.
Quote:- a planning application would be submitted to the National Infrastructure Directorate by the end of the year, which will recommend to Government whether to give the final go-ahead.
.
Unless i am missing something ....... whats the point of debates and referendums ........ Waste of money
For once I agree with you!
Campaigner Eloisa Gil- Arranz told the meeting: “It’s an ill-conceived monstrosity whose sole purpose is to line the pockets of Heluis fat cats.”
But she never said anything about people who have said they oppose it because they're worried about a drop in value to their properties.
Many of them put up objections on health?
Andy from Locksheath destroys those arguments.
One poster who lives opposite Freemantle Park & won't even see it objects to it being ugly?
but the ones who are really telling the truth are the ones who admit to being NIMBY's
Any proposal in any part of the UK brings out an army of opposition to siting something in its own area. At the same time there is always a long clear and logical reason why the same thing should be built in another distant back yard which shows that there would be no green energy producers if the public had their way. When something like this can't be agreed on, like the Newbury bypass or the Twyford Cutting, central government has the last world and five years after the event, everyone has forgotten what it was like before. In every aspect of life there are winners and losers and I'll be willing to bet that a sweetener of either free or cheap power for locals would see the opposition melt away.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: So the dcision will not be made locally anyway if the report is correct....... . Quote:- a planning application would be submitted to the National Infrastructure Directorate by the end of the year, which will recommend to Government whether to give the final go-ahead. . Unless i am missing something ....... whats the point of debates and referendums ........ Waste of money[/p][/quote]For once I agree with you! Campaigner Eloisa Gil- Arranz told the meeting: “It’s an ill-conceived monstrosity whose sole purpose is to line the pockets of Heluis fat cats.” But she never said anything about people who have said they oppose it because they're worried about a drop in value to their properties. Many of them put up objections on health? Andy from Locksheath destroys those arguments. One poster who lives opposite Freemantle Park & won't even see it objects to it being ugly? but the ones who are really telling the truth are the ones who admit to being NIMBY's[/p][/quote]Any proposal in any part of the UK brings out an army of opposition to siting something in its own area. At the same time there is always a long clear and logical reason why the same thing should be built in another distant back yard which shows that there would be no green energy producers if the public had their way. When something like this can't be agreed on, like the Newbury bypass or the Twyford Cutting, central government has the last world and five years after the event, everyone has forgotten what it was like before. In every aspect of life there are winners and losers and I'll be willing to bet that a sweetener of either free or cheap power for locals would see the opposition melt away. Torchie1

10:54pm Wed 25 Jul 12

Horse’s mouth says...

Where are they going to park all the ford transit vans?maybe they wont need to...hmmmm
Where are they going to park all the ford transit vans?maybe they wont need to...hmmmm Horse’s mouth

7:15am Thu 26 Jul 12

MisterGrimsdale says...

Love the way councillors feel they need more information on the burning of wood. Next time I have a bonfire in my garden they can come and watch.
Love the way councillors feel they need more information on the burning of wood. Next time I have a bonfire in my garden they can come and watch. MisterGrimsdale

7:20am Thu 26 Jul 12

bigfella777 says...

We need an ice rink not a power station.
We need an ice rink not a power station. bigfella777

7:46am Thu 26 Jul 12

tootle says...

Personally I don't care about the view, loss of property value, being a NIMBY(mainly because it isn't) as the Docks are a working area which have changed massively since they were first constructed and will, hopefully, continue to change and flourish. However nobody has actually put forward an argument to prove just how building the power station, importing the fuel and burning wood is actually green!. Therefore I object, just as I do to wind turbines which are another costly and not very green way to make energy.
We should be looking at schemes using locally sourced materials - the core water one springs to mind. Be creative, innovative rather than jumping on the bandwagon.
That said the Government won't know how people feel if the Council don't find out and tell them. Referendum -Waste of time as Council don't make the decision, not a waste of time if it informs the decision.
Personally I don't care about the view, loss of property value, being a NIMBY(mainly because it isn't) as the Docks are a working area which have changed massively since they were first constructed and will, hopefully, continue to change and flourish. However nobody has actually put forward an argument to prove just how building the power station, importing the fuel and burning wood is actually green!. Therefore I object, just as I do to wind turbines which are another costly and not very green way to make energy. We should be looking at schemes using locally sourced materials - the core water one springs to mind. Be creative, innovative rather than jumping on the bandwagon. That said the Government won't know how people feel if the Council don't find out and tell them. Referendum -Waste of time as Council don't make the decision, not a waste of time if it informs the decision. tootle

8:22am Thu 26 Jul 12

Condor Man says...

The city must have a sustainable energy source, we can't be reliant on fossil fuels forever. I, for one, don't want to have power shortages as we had 40 years ago.
The city must have a sustainable energy source, we can't be reliant on fossil fuels forever. I, for one, don't want to have power shortages as we had 40 years ago. Condor Man

8:38am Thu 26 Jul 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

tootle wrote:
Personally I don't care about the view, loss of property value, being a NIMBY(mainly because it isn't) as the Docks are a working area which have changed massively since they were first constructed and will, hopefully, continue to change and flourish. However nobody has actually put forward an argument to prove just how building the power station, importing the fuel and burning wood is actually green!. Therefore I object, just as I do to wind turbines which are another costly and not very green way to make energy.
We should be looking at schemes using locally sourced materials - the core water one springs to mind. Be creative, innovative rather than jumping on the bandwagon.
That said the Government won't know how people feel if the Council don't find out and tell them. Referendum -Waste of time as Council don't make the decision, not a waste of time if it informs the decision.
Tootle the reason nobody has put forward a "green" justification is because generating power is not a hobby or a game - it is literally a matter of life and death. We never built coal power stations for "fun" or because we liked the smoke - it was because we absolutely have to have the power continuously and reliably. Over 90% of all the power we need nationally has to be "on tap" ie not dependent on wind, sun or tide. Thermal,(including nuclear) and some hydro power plants deliver power reliably and predictably - and because they are reliable it is also cheap. On this basis it is possible to make the economic case for wood chip - much of what is being spouted by Eloisa Gil Arranz and some shamefully ignorant councillors is uninformed uneducated rubbish. I have said that I can refute any claim made by her on this site and so far she has chosen to stop posting rather than take up the challenge.By the way I have no connection whatsoever with Helius and no financial stake in any outcome.
[quote][p][bold]tootle[/bold] wrote: Personally I don't care about the view, loss of property value, being a NIMBY(mainly because it isn't) as the Docks are a working area which have changed massively since they were first constructed and will, hopefully, continue to change and flourish. However nobody has actually put forward an argument to prove just how building the power station, importing the fuel and burning wood is actually green!. Therefore I object, just as I do to wind turbines which are another costly and not very green way to make energy. We should be looking at schemes using locally sourced materials - the core water one springs to mind. Be creative, innovative rather than jumping on the bandwagon. That said the Government won't know how people feel if the Council don't find out and tell them. Referendum -Waste of time as Council don't make the decision, not a waste of time if it informs the decision.[/p][/quote]Tootle the reason nobody has put forward a "green" justification is because generating power is not a hobby or a game - it is literally a matter of life and death. We never built coal power stations for "fun" or because we liked the smoke - it was because we absolutely have to have the power continuously and reliably. Over 90% of all the power we need nationally has to be "on tap" ie not dependent on wind, sun or tide. Thermal,(including nuclear) and some hydro power plants deliver power reliably and predictably - and because they are reliable it is also cheap. On this basis it is possible to make the economic case for wood chip - much of what is being spouted by Eloisa Gil Arranz and some shamefully ignorant councillors is uninformed uneducated rubbish. I have said that I can refute any claim made by her on this site and so far she has chosen to stop posting rather than take up the challenge.By the way I have no connection whatsoever with Helius and no financial stake in any outcome. Andy Locks Heath

9:20am Thu 26 Jul 12

hulla baloo says...

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
tootle wrote:
Personally I don't care about the view, loss of property value, being a NIMBY(mainly because it isn't) as the Docks are a working area which have changed massively since they were first constructed and will, hopefully, continue to change and flourish. However nobody has actually put forward an argument to prove just how building the power station, importing the fuel and burning wood is actually green!. Therefore I object, just as I do to wind turbines which are another costly and not very green way to make energy.
We should be looking at schemes using locally sourced materials - the core water one springs to mind. Be creative, innovative rather than jumping on the bandwagon.
That said the Government won't know how people feel if the Council don't find out and tell them. Referendum -Waste of time as Council don't make the decision, not a waste of time if it informs the decision.
Tootle the reason nobody has put forward a "green" justification is because generating power is not a hobby or a game - it is literally a matter of life and death. We never built coal power stations for "fun" or because we liked the smoke - it was because we absolutely have to have the power continuously and reliably. Over 90% of all the power we need nationally has to be "on tap" ie not dependent on wind, sun or tide. Thermal,(including nuclear) and some hydro power plants deliver power reliably and predictably - and because they are reliable it is also cheap. On this basis it is possible to make the economic case for wood chip - much of what is being spouted by Eloisa Gil Arranz and some shamefully ignorant councillors is uninformed uneducated rubbish. I have said that I can refute any claim made by her on this site and so far she has chosen to stop posting rather than take up the challenge.By the way I have no connection whatsoever with Helius and no financial stake in any outcome.
Good post. But I think it could be located in a different place, maybe Fawley or Dibden area. Ih Helius are determined to locate here, then they will keep submitting plans, chip away at the opposition, offer incentives until they get their way.
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tootle[/bold] wrote: Personally I don't care about the view, loss of property value, being a NIMBY(mainly because it isn't) as the Docks are a working area which have changed massively since they were first constructed and will, hopefully, continue to change and flourish. However nobody has actually put forward an argument to prove just how building the power station, importing the fuel and burning wood is actually green!. Therefore I object, just as I do to wind turbines which are another costly and not very green way to make energy. We should be looking at schemes using locally sourced materials - the core water one springs to mind. Be creative, innovative rather than jumping on the bandwagon. That said the Government won't know how people feel if the Council don't find out and tell them. Referendum -Waste of time as Council don't make the decision, not a waste of time if it informs the decision.[/p][/quote]Tootle the reason nobody has put forward a "green" justification is because generating power is not a hobby or a game - it is literally a matter of life and death. We never built coal power stations for "fun" or because we liked the smoke - it was because we absolutely have to have the power continuously and reliably. Over 90% of all the power we need nationally has to be "on tap" ie not dependent on wind, sun or tide. Thermal,(including nuclear) and some hydro power plants deliver power reliably and predictably - and because they are reliable it is also cheap. On this basis it is possible to make the economic case for wood chip - much of what is being spouted by Eloisa Gil Arranz and some shamefully ignorant councillors is uninformed uneducated rubbish. I have said that I can refute any claim made by her on this site and so far she has chosen to stop posting rather than take up the challenge.By the way I have no connection whatsoever with Helius and no financial stake in any outcome.[/p][/quote]Good post. But I think it could be located in a different place, maybe Fawley or Dibden area. Ih Helius are determined to locate here, then they will keep submitting plans, chip away at the opposition, offer incentives until they get their way. hulla baloo

9:30am Thu 26 Jul 12

Here, There says...

Is anyone really suprised that Helius will 'press ahead' ? They have spent a considerable amount of money on this project and its Planning Director will not have done so without a clear indication further up the line that this project will get the go ahead...I suspect even ABP have similar assurances so are not making that piece of land available to other interested parties..It, ultimately, is not a local decision and when you apportion the objections they will fail to even raise an eyebrow from central Government.
Is anyone really suprised that Helius will 'press ahead' ? They have spent a considerable amount of money on this project and its Planning Director will not have done so without a clear indication further up the line that this project will get the go ahead...I suspect even ABP have similar assurances so are not making that piece of land available to other interested parties..It, ultimately, is not a local decision and when you apportion the objections they will fail to even raise an eyebrow from central Government. Here, There

9:41am Thu 26 Jul 12

Max Freemantle says...

What also remains the case is the fact in 2010 a new efficient gas power station was built in Marchwood about 1km away from this proposed site to provide electricity for the Hampshire region for the foreseeable future. £380 million has been invested in this power station. The power generated by this proposed plant would have to reduce the efficiency of the Marchwood site as it would burn a little less gas (at about 2p/Kwh apporx.) Just insane!
See marchwoodpower.com get the facts.
What also remains the case is the fact in 2010 a new efficient gas power station was built in Marchwood about 1km away from this proposed site to provide electricity for the Hampshire region for the foreseeable future. £380 million has been invested in this power station. The power generated by this proposed plant would have to reduce the efficiency of the Marchwood site as it would burn a little less gas (at about 2p/Kwh apporx.) Just insane! See marchwoodpower.com get the facts. Max Freemantle

9:55am Thu 26 Jul 12

Danae says...

Southampton and South Hampshire Health and Air Pollution:

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 very large 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, right opposite the mooted power station site, is in one of these.

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 nonoparticles 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.

On health grounds alone there is very good reason for South Hampshire communities to object to Helius’ idea, now, before the current 3rd August consultation deadline.
Southampton and South Hampshire Health and Air Pollution: 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 very large 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, right opposite the mooted power station site, is in one of these. 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 nonoparticles 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. On health grounds alone there is very good reason for South Hampshire communities to object to Helius’ idea, now, before the current 3rd August consultation deadline. Danae

9:58am Thu 26 Jul 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

Leaving all the other arguments aside it would be interesting for the Echo to conduct a survey to ascertain what people regard as "ugly" and "attractive" structures. For example I prefer the latest Helius design proposal to the existing natural gas power station over the water at Marchwood whose two squat, fat chimneys still look unfinished and give it a more unfriendly visage. The slimmed down chimney in the revised Helius design is a particular improvement (excuse the pun). However If Nimby groups and councillors are just going to hate whatever design Helius proposes on principle then the whole issue of aesthetics should be removed from the council's list of objections because it is pointless to even discuss it.
Leaving all the other arguments aside it would be interesting for the Echo to conduct a survey to ascertain what people regard as "ugly" and "attractive" structures. For example I prefer the latest Helius design proposal to the existing natural gas power station over the water at Marchwood whose two squat, fat chimneys still look unfinished and give it a more unfriendly visage. The slimmed down chimney in the revised Helius design is a particular improvement (excuse the pun). However If Nimby groups and councillors are just going to hate whatever design Helius proposes on principle then the whole issue of aesthetics should be removed from the council's list of objections because it is pointless to even discuss it. Andy Locks Heath

10:37am Thu 26 Jul 12

Torchie1 says...

Danae wrote:
Southampton and South Hampshire Health and Air Pollution:

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 very large 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, right opposite the mooted power station site, is in one of these.

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 nonoparticles 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.

On health grounds alone there is very good reason for South Hampshire communities to object to Helius’ idea, now, before the current 3rd August consultation deadline.
One of the main routes in and out of Southampton passes through Freemantle and six lanes of rush hour traffic on a still day has more of a negative effect on air quality than the proposed Helius project which will be governed by the latest emissions legislation. The statistics you quote are bad but will the situation improve if there are power shortages because of local objectors beliefs that the project should be another areas problem? Someone somewhere is going to get it and Southampton docks as a brownfield site in the right place, with the necessary facilities and the right connections is the one that ticks all of the boxes. Five years from now you won't even notice it.
[quote][p][bold]Danae[/bold] wrote: Southampton and South Hampshire Health and Air Pollution: 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 very large 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, right opposite the mooted power station site, is in one of these. 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 nonoparticles 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. On health grounds alone there is very good reason for South Hampshire communities to object to Helius’ idea, now, before the current 3rd August consultation deadline.[/p][/quote]One of the main routes in and out of Southampton passes through Freemantle and six lanes of rush hour traffic on a still day has more of a negative effect on air quality than the proposed Helius project which will be governed by the latest emissions legislation. The statistics you quote are bad but will the situation improve if there are power shortages because of local objectors beliefs that the project should be another areas problem? Someone somewhere is going to get it and Southampton docks as a brownfield site in the right place, with the necessary facilities and the right connections is the one that ticks all of the boxes. Five years from now you won't even notice it. Torchie1

11:07am Thu 26 Jul 12

loosehead says...

tootle wrote:
Personally I don't care about the view, loss of property value, being a NIMBY(mainly because it isn't) as the Docks are a working area which have changed massively since they were first constructed and will, hopefully, continue to change and flourish. However nobody has actually put forward an argument to prove just how building the power station, importing the fuel and burning wood is actually green!. Therefore I object, just as I do to wind turbines which are another costly and not very green way to make energy.
We should be looking at schemes using locally sourced materials - the core water one springs to mind. Be creative, innovative rather than jumping on the bandwagon.
That said the Government won't know how people feel if the Council don't find out and tell them. Referendum -Waste of time as Council don't make the decision, not a waste of time if it informs the decision.
Just watched a program where they're planting a sustainable forest,
part Conifer quick growing trees part ( forgot word)broadleaf trees,
one will be good for the birds one to chop sell & replant.
A young tree eats more carbon than an older tree.
What the NO campaign & all political parties should be fighting for is for Helius to buy from UK sustainable forests/wood plantations.
then get them to pipe the waste hot water to the local properties for the locals to use for heating & hot water.
There must be a grant they can get to achieve this & then to sell cheaply to the locals?
They will both win locals get cheap heating & water Helius get money for a waste product.
then get the wood chip delivered by train & they will have a Carbon Negative impact.
the chip they burn producing carbon will be offset by the young trees that are planted so in effect they're not polluting the atmosphere
[quote][p][bold]tootle[/bold] wrote: Personally I don't care about the view, loss of property value, being a NIMBY(mainly because it isn't) as the Docks are a working area which have changed massively since they were first constructed and will, hopefully, continue to change and flourish. However nobody has actually put forward an argument to prove just how building the power station, importing the fuel and burning wood is actually green!. Therefore I object, just as I do to wind turbines which are another costly and not very green way to make energy. We should be looking at schemes using locally sourced materials - the core water one springs to mind. Be creative, innovative rather than jumping on the bandwagon. That said the Government won't know how people feel if the Council don't find out and tell them. Referendum -Waste of time as Council don't make the decision, not a waste of time if it informs the decision.[/p][/quote]Just watched a program where they're planting a sustainable forest, part Conifer quick growing trees part ( forgot word)broadleaf trees, one will be good for the birds one to chop sell & replant. A young tree eats more carbon than an older tree. What the NO campaign & all political parties should be fighting for is for Helius to buy from UK sustainable forests/wood plantations. then get them to pipe the waste hot water to the local properties for the locals to use for heating & hot water. There must be a grant they can get to achieve this & then to sell cheaply to the locals? They will both win locals get cheap heating & water Helius get money for a waste product. then get the wood chip delivered by train & they will have a Carbon Negative impact. the chip they burn producing carbon will be offset by the young trees that are planted so in effect they're not polluting the atmosphere loosehead

11:42am Thu 26 Jul 12

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
So the dcision will not be made locally anyway if the report is correct.......
.
Quote:- a planning application would be submitted to the National Infrastructure Directorate by the end of the year, which will recommend to Government whether to give the final go-ahead.
.
Unless i am missing something ....... whats the point of debates and referendums ........ Waste of money
.. no. it's part of the whole consultation process that the National Infrastructure Directorate have to take into account when reaching a decision.
But still pointless, the final decision will be made in Whitehall.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: So the dcision will not be made locally anyway if the report is correct....... . Quote:- a planning application would be submitted to the National Infrastructure Directorate by the end of the year, which will recommend to Government whether to give the final go-ahead. . Unless i am missing something ....... whats the point of debates and referendums ........ Waste of money[/p][/quote].. no. it's part of the whole consultation process that the National Infrastructure Directorate have to take into account when reaching a decision.[/p][/quote]But still pointless, the final decision will be made in Whitehall. southy

11:44am Thu 26 Jul 12

southy says...

If it built in this location, Continental Animal Feeds will pull out of Southampton all together.
If it built in this location, Continental Animal Feeds will pull out of Southampton all together. southy

11:55am Thu 26 Jul 12

southy says...

Burning things will produce more carbon than you put into it. Rule 1 to remember.
Things like plants of any kind do lock up Carbon, but it will start to release the carbon once it starts to decay, it will also release carbon when set alite, the same amount that the plant as lock up.
Treating a Bio-Mass as being Green is a error in thinking, it is far from being that, it will produce the same amount carbon to be release into the air as a Coal Fired Power Station, only difference would be that Coal Power Station will produce more power while doing so.
Burning things will produce more carbon than you put into it. Rule 1 to remember. Things like plants of any kind do lock up Carbon, but it will start to release the carbon once it starts to decay, it will also release carbon when set alite, the same amount that the plant as lock up. Treating a Bio-Mass as being Green is a error in thinking, it is far from being that, it will produce the same amount carbon to be release into the air as a Coal Fired Power Station, only difference would be that Coal Power Station will produce more power while doing so. southy

12:00pm Thu 26 Jul 12

Jamez3000 says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Danae wrote:
Southampton and South Hampshire Health and Air Pollution:

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 very large 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, right opposite the mooted power station site, is in one of these.

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 nonoparticles 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.

On health grounds alone there is very good reason for South Hampshire communities to object to Helius’ idea, now, before the current 3rd August consultation deadline.
One of the main routes in and out of Southampton passes through Freemantle and six lanes of rush hour traffic on a still day has more of a negative effect on air quality than the proposed Helius project which will be governed by the latest emissions legislation. The statistics you quote are bad but will the situation improve if there are power shortages because of local objectors beliefs that the project should be another areas problem? Someone somewhere is going to get it and Southampton docks as a brownfield site in the right place, with the necessary facilities and the right connections is the one that ticks all of the boxes. Five years from now you won't even notice it.
Just because there is already poor air quality why should it be even worse! The proposed site is already in an Air Quality Management area!! It makes no sense whatsover to increase pollution in an already polluted area. There will not be power shortages if it is not built because it would only be connected into the National Grid. There is already Marchwood Power Station which generates 842MW of energy - this alone generates enough electricity to power the whole of Southampton, Winchester & the New Forest. The proposed Biomass power station is 100MW. Biomass is an extremely inefficient form of electricity generation and its only being proposed because of the ROC benefits handed out by the government!
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Danae[/bold] wrote: Southampton and South Hampshire Health and Air Pollution: 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 very large 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, right opposite the mooted power station site, is in one of these. 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 nonoparticles 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. On health grounds alone there is very good reason for South Hampshire communities to object to Helius’ idea, now, before the current 3rd August consultation deadline.[/p][/quote]One of the main routes in and out of Southampton passes through Freemantle and six lanes of rush hour traffic on a still day has more of a negative effect on air quality than the proposed Helius project which will be governed by the latest emissions legislation. The statistics you quote are bad but will the situation improve if there are power shortages because of local objectors beliefs that the project should be another areas problem? Someone somewhere is going to get it and Southampton docks as a brownfield site in the right place, with the necessary facilities and the right connections is the one that ticks all of the boxes. Five years from now you won't even notice it.[/p][/quote]Just because there is already poor air quality why should it be even worse! The proposed site is already in an Air Quality Management area!! It makes no sense whatsover to increase pollution in an already polluted area. There will not be power shortages if it is not built because it would only be connected into the National Grid. There is already Marchwood Power Station which generates 842MW of energy - this alone generates enough electricity to power the whole of Southampton, Winchester & the New Forest. The proposed Biomass power station is 100MW. Biomass is an extremely inefficient form of electricity generation and its only being proposed because of the ROC benefits handed out by the government! Jamez3000

12:47pm Thu 26 Jul 12

phil maccavity says...

southy wrote:
If it built in this location, Continental Animal Feeds will pull out of Southampton all together.
Another figment of Southy's fervent imagination.!!!!!!!!

He is 10 years behind the times with this post.
Continental pulled out of the port about 10 years ago and their old silo site is now home for the Ocean Cruise Terminal
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: If it built in this location, Continental Animal Feeds will pull out of Southampton all together.[/p][/quote]Another figment of Southy's fervent imagination.!!!!!!!! He is 10 years behind the times with this post. Continental pulled out of the port about 10 years ago and their old silo site is now home for the Ocean Cruise Terminal phil maccavity

12:48pm Thu 26 Jul 12

Torchie1 says...

Jamez3000 wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Danae wrote:
Southampton and South Hampshire Health and Air Pollution:

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 very large 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, right opposite the mooted power station site, is in one of these.

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 nonoparticles 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.

On health grounds alone there is very good reason for South Hampshire communities to object to Helius’ idea, now, before the current 3rd August consultation deadline.
One of the main routes in and out of Southampton passes through Freemantle and six lanes of rush hour traffic on a still day has more of a negative effect on air quality than the proposed Helius project which will be governed by the latest emissions legislation. The statistics you quote are bad but will the situation improve if there are power shortages because of local objectors beliefs that the project should be another areas problem? Someone somewhere is going to get it and Southampton docks as a brownfield site in the right place, with the necessary facilities and the right connections is the one that ticks all of the boxes. Five years from now you won't even notice it.
Just because there is already poor air quality why should it be even worse! The proposed site is already in an Air Quality Management area!! It makes no sense whatsover to increase pollution in an already polluted area. There will not be power shortages if it is not built because it would only be connected into the National Grid. There is already Marchwood Power Station which generates 842MW of energy - this alone generates enough electricity to power the whole of Southampton, Winchester & the New Forest. The proposed Biomass power station is 100MW. Biomass is an extremely inefficient form of electricity generation and its only being proposed because of the ROC benefits handed out by the government!
The air quality won't be worse because any emissions will be very tightly controlled and because of the height of the stack, anything coming out will be dispersed and diluted as the prevailing wind carries it away. Whatever you believe about prevailing wind, ask a glider pilot what they use to keep their aircraft aloft. As for the National Grid, what shortages do you foresee as the remaining nuclear powered stations reach the end of their shelf life? There are groups just as ardent as you protesting about any of them being replaced as well and if everyone had their way the blogs would be full of posts like yours interspersed with moans about the high cost of power produced by imported fuel.
[quote][p][bold]Jamez3000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Danae[/bold] wrote: Southampton and South Hampshire Health and Air Pollution: 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 very large 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, right opposite the mooted power station site, is in one of these. 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 nonoparticles 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. On health grounds alone there is very good reason for South Hampshire communities to object to Helius’ idea, now, before the current 3rd August consultation deadline.[/p][/quote]One of the main routes in and out of Southampton passes through Freemantle and six lanes of rush hour traffic on a still day has more of a negative effect on air quality than the proposed Helius project which will be governed by the latest emissions legislation. The statistics you quote are bad but will the situation improve if there are power shortages because of local objectors beliefs that the project should be another areas problem? Someone somewhere is going to get it and Southampton docks as a brownfield site in the right place, with the necessary facilities and the right connections is the one that ticks all of the boxes. Five years from now you won't even notice it.[/p][/quote]Just because there is already poor air quality why should it be even worse! The proposed site is already in an Air Quality Management area!! It makes no sense whatsover to increase pollution in an already polluted area. There will not be power shortages if it is not built because it would only be connected into the National Grid. There is already Marchwood Power Station which generates 842MW of energy - this alone generates enough electricity to power the whole of Southampton, Winchester & the New Forest. The proposed Biomass power station is 100MW. Biomass is an extremely inefficient form of electricity generation and its only being proposed because of the ROC benefits handed out by the government![/p][/quote]The air quality won't be worse because any emissions will be very tightly controlled and because of the height of the stack, anything coming out will be dispersed and diluted as the prevailing wind carries it away. Whatever you believe about prevailing wind, ask a glider pilot what they use to keep their aircraft aloft. As for the National Grid, what shortages do you foresee as the remaining nuclear powered stations reach the end of their shelf life? There are groups just as ardent as you protesting about any of them being replaced as well and if everyone had their way the blogs would be full of posts like yours interspersed with moans about the high cost of power produced by imported fuel. Torchie1

12:56pm Thu 26 Jul 12

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
Burning things will produce more carbon than you put into it. Rule 1 to remember.
Things like plants of any kind do lock up Carbon, but it will start to release the carbon once it starts to decay, it will also release carbon when set alite, the same amount that the plant as lock up.
Treating a Bio-Mass as being Green is a error in thinking, it is far from being that, it will produce the same amount carbon to be release into the air as a Coal Fired Power Station, only difference would be that Coal Power Station will produce more power while doing so.
.. wow, southy's science is pure alchemy.

He can produce some extra carbon magically by just burning a lesser amount of carbon.

But then he's never understood the carbon cycle as is evident by his utterances on climate change.

Base metals into gold next?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Burning things will produce more carbon than you put into it. Rule 1 to remember. Things like plants of any kind do lock up Carbon, but it will start to release the carbon once it starts to decay, it will also release carbon when set alite, the same amount that the plant as lock up. Treating a Bio-Mass as being Green is a error in thinking, it is far from being that, it will produce the same amount carbon to be release into the air as a Coal Fired Power Station, only difference would be that Coal Power Station will produce more power while doing so.[/p][/quote].. wow, southy's science is pure alchemy. He can produce some extra carbon magically by just burning a lesser amount of carbon. But then he's never understood the carbon cycle as is evident by his utterances on climate change. Base metals into gold next? freefinker

12:58pm Thu 26 Jul 12

skin2000 says...

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
Leaving all the other arguments aside it would be interesting for the Echo to conduct a survey to ascertain what people regard as "ugly" and "attractive" structures. For example I prefer the latest Helius design proposal to the existing natural gas power station over the water at Marchwood whose two squat, fat chimneys still look unfinished and give it a more unfriendly visage. The slimmed down chimney in the revised Helius design is a particular improvement (excuse the pun). However If Nimby groups and councillors are just going to hate whatever design Helius proposes on principle then the whole issue of aesthetics should be removed from the council's list of objections because it is pointless to even discuss it.
Andy, do you ever get tired of telling the people of Freemantle and Millbrook what they should have, or need in the area in which they live? Isn’t there some BURNING issue in Locks Heath that you can get your teeth into?
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: Leaving all the other arguments aside it would be interesting for the Echo to conduct a survey to ascertain what people regard as "ugly" and "attractive" structures. For example I prefer the latest Helius design proposal to the existing natural gas power station over the water at Marchwood whose two squat, fat chimneys still look unfinished and give it a more unfriendly visage. The slimmed down chimney in the revised Helius design is a particular improvement (excuse the pun). However If Nimby groups and councillors are just going to hate whatever design Helius proposes on principle then the whole issue of aesthetics should be removed from the council's list of objections because it is pointless to even discuss it.[/p][/quote]Andy, do you ever get tired of telling the people of Freemantle and Millbrook what they should have, or need in the area in which they live? Isn’t there some BURNING issue in Locks Heath that you can get your teeth into? skin2000

1:04pm Thu 26 Jul 12

freefinker says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
Burning things will produce more carbon than you put into it. Rule 1 to remember.
Things like plants of any kind do lock up Carbon, but it will start to release the carbon once it starts to decay, it will also release carbon when set alite, the same amount that the plant as lock up.
Treating a Bio-Mass as being Green is a error in thinking, it is far from being that, it will produce the same amount carbon to be release into the air as a Coal Fired Power Station, only difference would be that Coal Power Station will produce more power while doing so.
.. wow, southy's science is pure alchemy.

He can produce some extra carbon magically by just burning a lesser amount of carbon.

But then he's never understood the carbon cycle as is evident by his utterances on climate change.

Base metals into gold next?
.. oh, and as for the rest of his post - utter rubbish.

I'm no supporter of this proposal and I too question its green credentials.

But to compare the premature release of carbon from burning wood to the deliberate release of EXTRA carbon to our atmosphere by burning geologically sequestered carbon, clearly demonstrates the man's total failure to grasp even the fundamentals of the carbon cycle.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Burning things will produce more carbon than you put into it. Rule 1 to remember. Things like plants of any kind do lock up Carbon, but it will start to release the carbon once it starts to decay, it will also release carbon when set alite, the same amount that the plant as lock up. Treating a Bio-Mass as being Green is a error in thinking, it is far from being that, it will produce the same amount carbon to be release into the air as a Coal Fired Power Station, only difference would be that Coal Power Station will produce more power while doing so.[/p][/quote].. wow, southy's science is pure alchemy. He can produce some extra carbon magically by just burning a lesser amount of carbon. But then he's never understood the carbon cycle as is evident by his utterances on climate change. Base metals into gold next?[/p][/quote].. oh, and as for the rest of his post - utter rubbish. I'm no supporter of this proposal and I too question its green credentials. But to compare the premature release of carbon from burning wood to the deliberate release of EXTRA carbon to our atmosphere by burning geologically sequestered carbon, clearly demonstrates the man's total failure to grasp even the fundamentals of the carbon cycle. freefinker

1:14pm Thu 26 Jul 12

southy says...

phil maccavity wrote:
southy wrote:
If it built in this location, Continental Animal Feeds will pull out of Southampton all together.
Another figment of Southy's fervent imagination.!!!!!!!!


He is 10 years behind the times with this post.
Continental pulled out of the port about 10 years ago and their old silo site is now home for the Ocean Cruise Terminal
At 107 berth western docks right next to where this Bio-mas plant will be built, where all that scrap metal is ect, there is no Ocean Cruise Terminal at that end of the Western Docks. the sheds are still being used by Continenatal sister companys.
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: If it built in this location, Continental Animal Feeds will pull out of Southampton all together.[/p][/quote]Another figment of Southy's fervent imagination.!!!!!!!! He is 10 years behind the times with this post. Continental pulled out of the port about 10 years ago and their old silo site is now home for the Ocean Cruise Terminal[/p][/quote]At 107 berth western docks right next to where this Bio-mas plant will be built, where all that scrap metal is ect, there is no Ocean Cruise Terminal at that end of the Western Docks. the sheds are still being used by Continenatal sister companys. southy

1:15pm Thu 26 Jul 12

loosehead says...

skin2000 wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
Leaving all the other arguments aside it would be interesting for the Echo to conduct a survey to ascertain what people regard as "ugly" and "attractive" structures. For example I prefer the latest Helius design proposal to the existing natural gas power station over the water at Marchwood whose two squat, fat chimneys still look unfinished and give it a more unfriendly visage. The slimmed down chimney in the revised Helius design is a particular improvement (excuse the pun). However If Nimby groups and councillors are just going to hate whatever design Helius proposes on principle then the whole issue of aesthetics should be removed from the council's list of objections because it is pointless to even discuss it.
Andy, do you ever get tired of telling the people of Freemantle and Millbrook what they should have, or need in the area in which they live? Isn’t there some BURNING issue in Locks Heath that you can get your teeth into?
No I get tired of people speaking on behalf of all the people of Millbrook & Freemantle instead of saying they speak for the vocal minority.
I have talked to many people who I went to school with & was brought up with when I lived in Freshfield rd & they couldn't give a **** about the Bio Mass.
They laughed when I showed them a post from FM2 about what they're suppose to think about the old BAT factory & said she's speaking for herself not us
[quote][p][bold]skin2000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: Leaving all the other arguments aside it would be interesting for the Echo to conduct a survey to ascertain what people regard as "ugly" and "attractive" structures. For example I prefer the latest Helius design proposal to the existing natural gas power station over the water at Marchwood whose two squat, fat chimneys still look unfinished and give it a more unfriendly visage. The slimmed down chimney in the revised Helius design is a particular improvement (excuse the pun). However If Nimby groups and councillors are just going to hate whatever design Helius proposes on principle then the whole issue of aesthetics should be removed from the council's list of objections because it is pointless to even discuss it.[/p][/quote]Andy, do you ever get tired of telling the people of Freemantle and Millbrook what they should have, or need in the area in which they live? Isn’t there some BURNING issue in Locks Heath that you can get your teeth into?[/p][/quote]No I get tired of people speaking on behalf of all the people of Millbrook & Freemantle instead of saying they speak for the vocal minority. I have talked to many people who I went to school with & was brought up with when I lived in Freshfield rd & they couldn't give a **** about the Bio Mass. They laughed when I showed them a post from FM2 about what they're suppose to think about the old BAT factory & said she's speaking for herself not us loosehead

1:24pm Thu 26 Jul 12

skin2000 says...

loosehead wrote:
skin2000 wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
Leaving all the other arguments aside it would be interesting for the Echo to conduct a survey to ascertain what people regard as "ugly" and "attractive" structures. For example I prefer the latest Helius design proposal to the existing natural gas power station over the water at Marchwood whose two squat, fat chimneys still look unfinished and give it a more unfriendly visage. The slimmed down chimney in the revised Helius design is a particular improvement (excuse the pun). However If Nimby groups and councillors are just going to hate whatever design Helius proposes on principle then the whole issue of aesthetics should be removed from the council's list of objections because it is pointless to even discuss it.
Andy, do you ever get tired of telling the people of Freemantle and Millbrook what they should have, or need in the area in which they live? Isn’t there some BURNING issue in Locks Heath that you can get your teeth into?
No I get tired of people speaking on behalf of all the people of Millbrook & Freemantle instead of saying they speak for the vocal minority.
I have talked to many people who I went to school with & was brought up with when I lived in Freshfield rd & they couldn't give a **** about the Bio Mass.
They laughed when I showed them a post from FM2 about what they're suppose to think about the old BAT factory & said she's speaking for herself not us
Sorry Loosehead I was asking Andy, or are you one of the same person?
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]skin2000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: Leaving all the other arguments aside it would be interesting for the Echo to conduct a survey to ascertain what people regard as "ugly" and "attractive" structures. For example I prefer the latest Helius design proposal to the existing natural gas power station over the water at Marchwood whose two squat, fat chimneys still look unfinished and give it a more unfriendly visage. The slimmed down chimney in the revised Helius design is a particular improvement (excuse the pun). However If Nimby groups and councillors are just going to hate whatever design Helius proposes on principle then the whole issue of aesthetics should be removed from the council's list of objections because it is pointless to even discuss it.[/p][/quote]Andy, do you ever get tired of telling the people of Freemantle and Millbrook what they should have, or need in the area in which they live? Isn’t there some BURNING issue in Locks Heath that you can get your teeth into?[/p][/quote]No I get tired of people speaking on behalf of all the people of Millbrook & Freemantle instead of saying they speak for the vocal minority. I have talked to many people who I went to school with & was brought up with when I lived in Freshfield rd & they couldn't give a **** about the Bio Mass. They laughed when I showed them a post from FM2 about what they're suppose to think about the old BAT factory & said she's speaking for herself not us[/p][/quote]Sorry Loosehead I was asking Andy, or are you one of the same person? skin2000

1:30pm Thu 26 Jul 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

Danae wrote:
Southampton and South Hampshire Health and Air Pollution:

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 very large 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, right opposite the mooted power station site, is in one of these.

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 nonoparticles 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.

On health grounds alone there is very good reason for South Hampshire communities to object to Helius’ idea, now, before the current 3rd August consultation deadline.
I quite enjoy the banter with friends and adversaries alike but this post from Danae is the kind of pseudo scientific garbage sophistry that really annoys me. He/She has simply created a link between these ailments and the new power plant without any evidence whatsoever, and even a child would be bound to ask the obvious question - if this is all so bad already shouldn't you be dealing with what's causing your existing problems rather than blaming it all on something that doesn't even exist? If you want to know about population trends and demographics use a proper national statistical survey readily available from the ONS at no charge - the figures you are using are partial, selective, inexact and drawn up by a variety of groups (usually health authorities) or individuals with different purposes at different times and differing terms of reference. Dane if you want to have a scientific argument use complete scientific data and use it in a structured scientific manner. What you have done is list local "studies" and "surveys" with no attempt to provide a context. You simply "infer" and "Hint" that somehow this power plant would do something awful without providing any evidence at all. Now go home, and do your homework properly. You can start by a) understanding how a chimney flue works and b showing which is more harmful - a neigbour's bonfire or awoodburning stove, or a factory chimney 1000 metres away. By your scale of reckoning your neighbour's bonfire would kill the entire street,
[quote][p][bold]Danae[/bold] wrote: Southampton and South Hampshire Health and Air Pollution: 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 very large 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, right opposite the mooted power station site, is in one of these. 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 nonoparticles 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. On health grounds alone there is very good reason for South Hampshire communities to object to Helius’ idea, now, before the current 3rd August consultation deadline.[/p][/quote]I quite enjoy the banter with friends and adversaries alike but this post from Danae is the kind of pseudo scientific garbage sophistry that really annoys me. He/She has simply created a link between these ailments and the new power plant without any evidence whatsoever, and even a child would be bound to ask the obvious question - if this is all so bad already shouldn't you be dealing with what's causing your existing problems rather than blaming it all on something that doesn't even exist? If you want to know about population trends and demographics use a proper national statistical survey readily available from the ONS at no charge - the figures you are using are partial, selective, inexact and drawn up by a variety of groups (usually health authorities) or individuals with different purposes at different times and differing terms of reference. Dane if you want to have a scientific argument use complete scientific data and use it in a structured scientific manner. What you have done is list local "studies" and "surveys" with no attempt to provide a context. You simply "infer" and "Hint" that somehow this power plant would do something awful without providing any evidence at all. Now go home, and do your homework properly. You can start by a) understanding how a chimney flue works and b showing which is more harmful - a neigbour's bonfire or awoodburning stove, or a factory chimney 1000 metres away. By your scale of reckoning your neighbour's bonfire would kill the entire street, Andy Locks Heath

1:34pm Thu 26 Jul 12

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
Burning things will produce more carbon than you put into it. Rule 1 to remember.
Things like plants of any kind do lock up Carbon, but it will start to release the carbon once it starts to decay, it will also release carbon when set alite, the same amount that the plant as lock up.
Treating a Bio-Mass as being Green is a error in thinking, it is far from being that, it will produce the same amount carbon to be release into the air as a Coal Fired Power Station, only difference would be that Coal Power Station will produce more power while doing so.
.. wow, southy's science is pure alchemy.

He can produce some extra carbon magically by just burning a lesser amount of carbon.

But then he's never understood the carbon cycle as is evident by his utterances on climate change.

Base metals into gold next?
I may know more than you ever think, and unlike you i do not try to baffle people, i try and keep it so most can under stand.

And its fact freefinker you burn some thing it takes air, and that air will change to co2, there for you not just unlock the co2 in the object you burned you also added to it. Oxygen to not stay as Oxygen once you put a flame to it.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Burning things will produce more carbon than you put into it. Rule 1 to remember. Things like plants of any kind do lock up Carbon, but it will start to release the carbon once it starts to decay, it will also release carbon when set alite, the same amount that the plant as lock up. Treating a Bio-Mass as being Green is a error in thinking, it is far from being that, it will produce the same amount carbon to be release into the air as a Coal Fired Power Station, only difference would be that Coal Power Station will produce more power while doing so.[/p][/quote].. wow, southy's science is pure alchemy. He can produce some extra carbon magically by just burning a lesser amount of carbon. But then he's never understood the carbon cycle as is evident by his utterances on climate change. Base metals into gold next?[/p][/quote]I may know more than you ever think, and unlike you i do not try to baffle people, i try and keep it so most can under stand. And its fact freefinker you burn some thing it takes air, and that air will change to co2, there for you not just unlock the co2 in the object you burned you also added to it. Oxygen to not stay as Oxygen once you put a flame to it. southy

1:52pm Thu 26 Jul 12

Georgem says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
Burning things will produce more carbon than you put into it. Rule 1 to remember.
Things like plants of any kind do lock up Carbon, but it will start to release the carbon once it starts to decay, it will also release carbon when set alite, the same amount that the plant as lock up.
Treating a Bio-Mass as being Green is a error in thinking, it is far from being that, it will produce the same amount carbon to be release into the air as a Coal Fired Power Station, only difference would be that Coal Power Station will produce more power while doing so.
.. wow, southy's science is pure alchemy.

He can produce some extra carbon magically by just burning a lesser amount of carbon.

But then he's never understood the carbon cycle as is evident by his utterances on climate change.

Base metals into gold next?
I may know more than you ever think, and unlike you i do not try to baffle people, i try and keep it so most can under stand.

And its fact freefinker you burn some thing it takes air, and that air will change to co2, there for you not just unlock the co2 in the object you burned you also added to it. Oxygen to not stay as Oxygen once you put a flame to it.
I'd say, given your track record, you're the person least qualified to comment on how much you know. Since you seem oblivious to the fact that you might ever be wrong about something, it's clear you can't be trusted to have a handle on how much you know.

Examples from the last week of course, being that you believe the Rahit Maryada to be a person, despite no evidence whatsoever of the man's existence, and your laughable assertion that Sikhism is a language.

Now you're claiming to be a chemist, too. I'd have thought you'd be laying off the pretend-to-be-an-exp
ert-in-everything stuff for a bit.

Air changes to co2? Err, air is a lovely mixture that CONTAINS co2. How can it change to something it already is?

I'll remind you that 'air' is not a well-defined substance.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Burning things will produce more carbon than you put into it. Rule 1 to remember. Things like plants of any kind do lock up Carbon, but it will start to release the carbon once it starts to decay, it will also release carbon when set alite, the same amount that the plant as lock up. Treating a Bio-Mass as being Green is a error in thinking, it is far from being that, it will produce the same amount carbon to be release into the air as a Coal Fired Power Station, only difference would be that Coal Power Station will produce more power while doing so.[/p][/quote].. wow, southy's science is pure alchemy. He can produce some extra carbon magically by just burning a lesser amount of carbon. But then he's never understood the carbon cycle as is evident by his utterances on climate change. Base metals into gold next?[/p][/quote]I may know more than you ever think, and unlike you i do not try to baffle people, i try and keep it so most can under stand. And its fact freefinker you burn some thing it takes air, and that air will change to co2, there for you not just unlock the co2 in the object you burned you also added to it. Oxygen to not stay as Oxygen once you put a flame to it.[/p][/quote]I'd say, given your track record, you're the person least qualified to comment on how much you know. Since you seem oblivious to the fact that you might ever be wrong about something, it's clear you can't be trusted to have a handle on how much you know. Examples from the last week of course, being that you believe the Rahit Maryada to be a person, despite no evidence whatsoever of the man's existence, and your laughable assertion that Sikhism is a language. Now you're claiming to be a chemist, too. I'd have thought you'd be laying off the pretend-to-be-an-exp ert-in-everything stuff for a bit. Air changes to co2? Err, air is a lovely mixture that CONTAINS co2. How can it change to something it already is? I'll remind you that 'air' is not a well-defined substance. Georgem

1:54pm Thu 26 Jul 12

southy says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
Burning things will produce more carbon than you put into it. Rule 1 to remember.
Things like plants of any kind do lock up Carbon, but it will start to release the carbon once it starts to decay, it will also release carbon when set alite, the same amount that the plant as lock up.
Treating a Bio-Mass as being Green is a error in thinking, it is far from being that, it will produce the same amount carbon to be release into the air as a Coal Fired Power Station, only difference would be that Coal Power Station will produce more power while doing so.
.. wow, southy's science is pure alchemy.

He can produce some extra carbon magically by just burning a lesser amount of carbon.

But then he's never understood the carbon cycle as is evident by his utterances on climate change.

Base metals into gold next?
I may know more than you ever think, and unlike you i do not try to baffle people, i try and keep it so most can under stand.

And its fact freefinker you burn some thing it takes air, and that air will change to co2, there for you not just unlock the co2 in the object you burned you also added to it. Oxygen to not stay as Oxygen once you put a flame to it.
tell me Freefinker have you ever used a Oxygen Acetylene cutting torch and welder and how it mix the two gasses between the two, and what is the exhaust gas that it emits "co2"
All your doing is exchanging Acetylene with wood chip the end result is more Co2 put out than your putting in.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Burning things will produce more carbon than you put into it. Rule 1 to remember. Things like plants of any kind do lock up Carbon, but it will start to release the carbon once it starts to decay, it will also release carbon when set alite, the same amount that the plant as lock up. Treating a Bio-Mass as being Green is a error in thinking, it is far from being that, it will produce the same amount carbon to be release into the air as a Coal Fired Power Station, only difference would be that Coal Power Station will produce more power while doing so.[/p][/quote].. wow, southy's science is pure alchemy. He can produce some extra carbon magically by just burning a lesser amount of carbon. But then he's never understood the carbon cycle as is evident by his utterances on climate change. Base metals into gold next?[/p][/quote]I may know more than you ever think, and unlike you i do not try to baffle people, i try and keep it so most can under stand. And its fact freefinker you burn some thing it takes air, and that air will change to co2, there for you not just unlock the co2 in the object you burned you also added to it. Oxygen to not stay as Oxygen once you put a flame to it.[/p][/quote]tell me Freefinker have you ever used a Oxygen Acetylene cutting torch and welder and how it mix the two gasses between the two, and what is the exhaust gas that it emits "co2" All your doing is exchanging Acetylene with wood chip the end result is more Co2 put out than your putting in. southy

1:58pm Thu 26 Jul 12

southy says...

Georgem
Air changes to co2? Err, air is a lovely mixture that CONTAINS co2. How can it change to something it already is?
I'll remind you that 'air' is not a well-defined substance.

But co2 in the air do not burn, its a snuffer of flames, and your forgetting that fact of life Georgem
Georgem Air changes to co2? Err, air is a lovely mixture that CONTAINS co2. How can it change to something it already is? I'll remind you that 'air' is not a well-defined substance. But co2 in the air do not burn, its a snuffer of flames, and your forgetting that fact of life Georgem southy

2:33pm Thu 26 Jul 12

tootle says...

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
tootle wrote:
Personally I don't care about the view, loss of property value, being a NIMBY(mainly because it isn't) as the Docks are a working area which have changed massively since they were first constructed and will, hopefully, continue to change and flourish. However nobody has actually put forward an argument to prove just how building the power station, importing the fuel and burning wood is actually green!. Therefore I object, just as I do to wind turbines which are another costly and not very green way to make energy.
We should be looking at schemes using locally sourced materials - the core water one springs to mind. Be creative, innovative rather than jumping on the bandwagon.
That said the Government won't know how people feel if the Council don't find out and tell them. Referendum -Waste of time as Council don't make the decision, not a waste of time if it informs the decision.
Tootle the reason nobody has put forward a "green" justification is because generating power is not a hobby or a game - it is literally a matter of life and death. We never built coal power stations for "fun" or because we liked the smoke - it was because we absolutely have to have the power continuously and reliably. Over 90% of all the power we need nationally has to be "on tap" ie not dependent on wind, sun or tide. Thermal,(including nuclear) and some hydro power plants deliver power reliably and predictably - and because they are reliable it is also cheap. On this basis it is possible to make the economic case for wood chip - much of what is being spouted by Eloisa Gil Arranz and some shamefully ignorant councillors is uninformed uneducated rubbish. I have said that I can refute any claim made by her on this site and so far she has chosen to stop posting rather than take up the challenge.By the way I have no connection whatsoever with Helius and no financial stake in any outcome.
Exactly - we need reliable power. However this is being touted as better, cleaner, greener - all of which I doubt. Not even going cheaper!. I fail to see any justification to date that would mean This particular power station should be built. Apart from Helius making a profit or getting a subsidy for providing green power I fail to see the benefit to us.
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tootle[/bold] wrote: Personally I don't care about the view, loss of property value, being a NIMBY(mainly because it isn't) as the Docks are a working area which have changed massively since they were first constructed and will, hopefully, continue to change and flourish. However nobody has actually put forward an argument to prove just how building the power station, importing the fuel and burning wood is actually green!. Therefore I object, just as I do to wind turbines which are another costly and not very green way to make energy. We should be looking at schemes using locally sourced materials - the core water one springs to mind. Be creative, innovative rather than jumping on the bandwagon. That said the Government won't know how people feel if the Council don't find out and tell them. Referendum -Waste of time as Council don't make the decision, not a waste of time if it informs the decision.[/p][/quote]Tootle the reason nobody has put forward a "green" justification is because generating power is not a hobby or a game - it is literally a matter of life and death. We never built coal power stations for "fun" or because we liked the smoke - it was because we absolutely have to have the power continuously and reliably. Over 90% of all the power we need nationally has to be "on tap" ie not dependent on wind, sun or tide. Thermal,(including nuclear) and some hydro power plants deliver power reliably and predictably - and because they are reliable it is also cheap. On this basis it is possible to make the economic case for wood chip - much of what is being spouted by Eloisa Gil Arranz and some shamefully ignorant councillors is uninformed uneducated rubbish. I have said that I can refute any claim made by her on this site and so far she has chosen to stop posting rather than take up the challenge.By the way I have no connection whatsoever with Helius and no financial stake in any outcome.[/p][/quote]Exactly - we need reliable power. However this is being touted as better, cleaner, greener - all of which I doubt. Not even going cheaper!. I fail to see any justification to date that would mean This particular power station should be built. Apart from Helius making a profit or getting a subsidy for providing green power I fail to see the benefit to us. tootle

2:42pm Thu 26 Jul 12

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
Burning things will produce more carbon than you put into it. Rule 1 to remember.
Things like plants of any kind do lock up Carbon, but it will start to release the carbon once it starts to decay, it will also release carbon when set alite, the same amount that the plant as lock up.
Treating a Bio-Mass as being Green is a error in thinking, it is far from being that, it will produce the same amount carbon to be release into the air as a Coal Fired Power Station, only difference would be that Coal Power Station will produce more power while doing so.
.. wow, southy's science is pure alchemy.

He can produce some extra carbon magically by just burning a lesser amount of carbon.

But then he's never understood the carbon cycle as is evident by his utterances on climate change.

Base metals into gold next?
I may know more than you ever think, and unlike you i do not try to baffle people, i try and keep it so most can under stand.

And its fact freefinker you burn some thing it takes air, and that air will change to co2, there for you not just unlock the co2 in the object you burned you also added to it. Oxygen to not stay as Oxygen once you put a flame to it.
southy says, 'And its fact freefinker you burn some thing it takes air, and that air will change to co2'

.. no southy, you're talking total and utter boll0cks - but that's what we have all come to expect.

Air is roughly 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 1% argon, and 0.039% carbon dioxide.

Please take note, southy, that nitrogen, oxygen and argon are elements – i.e UNCHANGEABLE except in nuclear fusion.

Now perhaps you could explain, in non-confusing terms, of course, the chemical pathway that produces MORE of another element, carbon as in CO2, when a carbon containing object is combusted in the presence of ‘air’. Where does this EXTRA carbon come from, southy? What is it that has change to the element carbon?

Have certainly added this classic to my ever growing list of southy’s scientific blunders. It certainly rivals some of your classics – e.g. the moon causes earthquakes, solar years, the ‘earth wobble’, sulphur is biggest cause of cancer, atmospheric CO2 less now than 100 years ago, volcanism is responsible for the Keeling curve – oh, there are so many to choose from.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Burning things will produce more carbon than you put into it. Rule 1 to remember. Things like plants of any kind do lock up Carbon, but it will start to release the carbon once it starts to decay, it will also release carbon when set alite, the same amount that the plant as lock up. Treating a Bio-Mass as being Green is a error in thinking, it is far from being that, it will produce the same amount carbon to be release into the air as a Coal Fired Power Station, only difference would be that Coal Power Station will produce more power while doing so.[/p][/quote].. wow, southy's science is pure alchemy. He can produce some extra carbon magically by just burning a lesser amount of carbon. But then he's never understood the carbon cycle as is evident by his utterances on climate change. Base metals into gold next?[/p][/quote]I may know more than you ever think, and unlike you i do not try to baffle people, i try and keep it so most can under stand. And its fact freefinker you burn some thing it takes air, and that air will change to co2, there for you not just unlock the co2 in the object you burned you also added to it. Oxygen to not stay as Oxygen once you put a flame to it.[/p][/quote]southy says, 'And its fact freefinker you burn some thing it takes air, and that air will change to co2' .. no southy, you're talking total and utter boll0cks - but that's what we have all come to expect. Air is roughly 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 1% argon, and 0.039% carbon dioxide. Please take note, southy, that nitrogen, oxygen and argon are elements – i.e UNCHANGEABLE except in nuclear fusion. Now perhaps you could explain, in non-confusing terms, of course, the chemical pathway that produces MORE of another element, carbon as in CO2, when a carbon containing object is combusted in the presence of ‘air’. Where does this EXTRA carbon come from, southy? What is it that has change to the element carbon? Have certainly added this classic to my ever growing list of southy’s scientific blunders. It certainly rivals some of your classics – e.g. the moon causes earthquakes, solar years, the ‘earth wobble’, sulphur is biggest cause of cancer, atmospheric CO2 less now than 100 years ago, volcanism is responsible for the Keeling curve – oh, there are so many to choose from. freefinker

2:49pm Thu 26 Jul 12

Georgem says...

southy wrote:
Georgem
Air changes to co2? Err, air is a lovely mixture that CONTAINS co2. How can it change to something it already is?
I'll remind you that 'air' is not a well-defined substance.

But co2 in the air do not burn, its a snuffer of flames, and your forgetting that fact of life Georgem
What does that have to do with anything? You said "air turns to co2" and I said it doesn't. How it affects flames is irrelevant.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Georgem Air changes to co2? Err, air is a lovely mixture that CONTAINS co2. How can it change to something it already is? I'll remind you that 'air' is not a well-defined substance. But co2 in the air do not burn, its a snuffer of flames, and your forgetting that fact of life Georgem[/p][/quote]What does that have to do with anything? You said "air turns to co2" and I said it doesn't. How it affects flames is irrelevant. Georgem

2:51pm Thu 26 Jul 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

tootle wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
tootle wrote:
Personally I don't care about the view, loss of property value, being a NIMBY(mainly because it isn't) as the Docks are a working area which have changed massively since they were first constructed and will, hopefully, continue to change and flourish. However nobody has actually put forward an argument to prove just how building the power station, importing the fuel and burning wood is actually green!. Therefore I object, just as I do to wind turbines which are another costly and not very green way to make energy.
We should be looking at schemes using locally sourced materials - the core water one springs to mind. Be creative, innovative rather than jumping on the bandwagon.
That said the Government won't know how people feel if the Council don't find out and tell them. Referendum -Waste of time as Council don't make the decision, not a waste of time if it informs the decision.
Tootle the reason nobody has put forward a "green" justification is because generating power is not a hobby or a game - it is literally a matter of life and death. We never built coal power stations for "fun" or because we liked the smoke - it was because we absolutely have to have the power continuously and reliably. Over 90% of all the power we need nationally has to be "on tap" ie not dependent on wind, sun or tide. Thermal,(including nuclear) and some hydro power plants deliver power reliably and predictably - and because they are reliable it is also cheap. On this basis it is possible to make the economic case for wood chip - much of what is being spouted by Eloisa Gil Arranz and some shamefully ignorant councillors is uninformed uneducated rubbish. I have said that I can refute any claim made by her on this site and so far she has chosen to stop posting rather than take up the challenge.By the way I have no connection whatsoever with Helius and no financial stake in any outcome.
Exactly - we need reliable power. However this is being touted as better, cleaner, greener - all of which I doubt. Not even going cheaper!. I fail to see any justification to date that would mean This particular power station should be built. Apart from Helius making a profit or getting a subsidy for providing green power I fail to see the benefit to us.
fao Tootle - All generated power goes into the National Grid, so you can't point to any power source and say whether it benefits you individually, but collectively we have a need to provide a mix of generating types to ensure we don;t go cold and dark in winter. This station is of a type that can be a) started at fairly short notice and b) provide a guaranteed output and c) have a wide variety of fuel sources, So you need to compare it with other older stations of its type, not with windmills, solar panels etc. because they do not have the predictability or the reliability. The answer to your question therefore is not to claim that woodburning is "greener" than say wind power because it isn't. We all know that. The question should be "Is it greener than other stations of its class that it is replacing?" If you look at the old Fawley "A" station down Southampton Water (oil fired) you can ask whether it would be "greener" to upgrade a dinosaur station like that or build a new plant such as the proposed docks plant with newer more efficient boilers, better flue gas scrubbing (no dirtly soot particles) and a fuel stock that will one day (yes not today but in 10 years) come partly from UK based resources. This station is too small to operate 24x7, that is clear. It will probably only come onstream twice a day in winter at peak times to meet high demand (currently over 40000MW which has to come from somewhere!)
[quote][p][bold]tootle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tootle[/bold] wrote: Personally I don't care about the view, loss of property value, being a NIMBY(mainly because it isn't) as the Docks are a working area which have changed massively since they were first constructed and will, hopefully, continue to change and flourish. However nobody has actually put forward an argument to prove just how building the power station, importing the fuel and burning wood is actually green!. Therefore I object, just as I do to wind turbines which are another costly and not very green way to make energy. We should be looking at schemes using locally sourced materials - the core water one springs to mind. Be creative, innovative rather than jumping on the bandwagon. That said the Government won't know how people feel if the Council don't find out and tell them. Referendum -Waste of time as Council don't make the decision, not a waste of time if it informs the decision.[/p][/quote]Tootle the reason nobody has put forward a "green" justification is because generating power is not a hobby or a game - it is literally a matter of life and death. We never built coal power stations for "fun" or because we liked the smoke - it was because we absolutely have to have the power continuously and reliably. Over 90% of all the power we need nationally has to be "on tap" ie not dependent on wind, sun or tide. Thermal,(including nuclear) and some hydro power plants deliver power reliably and predictably - and because they are reliable it is also cheap. On this basis it is possible to make the economic case for wood chip - much of what is being spouted by Eloisa Gil Arranz and some shamefully ignorant councillors is uninformed uneducated rubbish. I have said that I can refute any claim made by her on this site and so far she has chosen to stop posting rather than take up the challenge.By the way I have no connection whatsoever with Helius and no financial stake in any outcome.[/p][/quote]Exactly - we need reliable power. However this is being touted as better, cleaner, greener - all of which I doubt. Not even going cheaper!. I fail to see any justification to date that would mean This particular power station should be built. Apart from Helius making a profit or getting a subsidy for providing green power I fail to see the benefit to us.[/p][/quote]fao Tootle - All generated power goes into the National Grid, so you can't point to any power source and say whether it benefits you individually, but collectively we have a need to provide a mix of generating types to ensure we don;t go cold and dark in winter. This station is of a type that can be a) started at fairly short notice and b) provide a guaranteed output and c) have a wide variety of fuel sources, So you need to compare it with other older stations of its type, not with windmills, solar panels etc. because they do not have the predictability or the reliability. The answer to your question therefore is not to claim that woodburning is "greener" than say wind power because it isn't. We all know that. The question should be "Is it greener than other stations of its class that it is replacing?" If you look at the old Fawley "A" station down Southampton Water (oil fired) you can ask whether it would be "greener" to upgrade a dinosaur station like that or build a new plant such as the proposed docks plant with newer more efficient boilers, better flue gas scrubbing (no dirtly soot particles) and a fuel stock that will one day (yes not today but in 10 years) come partly from UK based resources. This station is too small to operate 24x7, that is clear. It will probably only come onstream twice a day in winter at peak times to meet high demand (currently over 40000MW which has to come from somewhere!) Andy Locks Heath

3:15pm Thu 26 Jul 12

southy says...

tootle wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
tootle wrote:
Personally I don't care about the view, loss of property value, being a NIMBY(mainly because it isn't) as the Docks are a working area which have changed massively since they were first constructed and will, hopefully, continue to change and flourish. However nobody has actually put forward an argument to prove just how building the power station, importing the fuel and burning wood is actually green!. Therefore I object, just as I do to wind turbines which are another costly and not very green way to make energy.
We should be looking at schemes using locally sourced materials - the core water one springs to mind. Be creative, innovative rather than jumping on the bandwagon.
That said the Government won't know how people feel if the Council don't find out and tell them. Referendum -Waste of time as Council don't make the decision, not a waste of time if it informs the decision.
Tootle the reason nobody has put forward a "green" justification is because generating power is not a hobby or a game - it is literally a matter of life and death. We never built coal power stations for "fun" or because we liked the smoke - it was because we absolutely have to have the power continuously and reliably. Over 90% of all the power we need nationally has to be "on tap" ie not dependent on wind, sun or tide. Thermal,(including nuclear) and some hydro power plants deliver power reliably and predictably - and because they are reliable it is also cheap. On this basis it is possible to make the economic case for wood chip - much of what is being spouted by Eloisa Gil Arranz and some shamefully ignorant councillors is uninformed uneducated rubbish. I have said that I can refute any claim made by her on this site and so far she has chosen to stop posting rather than take up the challenge.By the way I have no connection whatsoever with Helius and no financial stake in any outcome.
Exactly - we need reliable power. However this is being touted as better, cleaner, greener - all of which I doubt. Not even going cheaper!. I fail to see any justification to date that would mean This particular power station should be built. Apart from Helius making a profit or getting a subsidy for providing green power I fail to see the benefit to us.
The cleanest is water driven power, but even this is not clean of co2, one system is, we can only get close as we can.
returning back to the water wheel is the answer, and stop thinking about having a dam to produce the water power to produce power on mass, go back to how the first industary revolution was started but using modern materials and techonolgy.
[quote][p][bold]tootle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tootle[/bold] wrote: Personally I don't care about the view, loss of property value, being a NIMBY(mainly because it isn't) as the Docks are a working area which have changed massively since they were first constructed and will, hopefully, continue to change and flourish. However nobody has actually put forward an argument to prove just how building the power station, importing the fuel and burning wood is actually green!. Therefore I object, just as I do to wind turbines which are another costly and not very green way to make energy. We should be looking at schemes using locally sourced materials - the core water one springs to mind. Be creative, innovative rather than jumping on the bandwagon. That said the Government won't know how people feel if the Council don't find out and tell them. Referendum -Waste of time as Council don't make the decision, not a waste of time if it informs the decision.[/p][/quote]Tootle the reason nobody has put forward a "green" justification is because generating power is not a hobby or a game - it is literally a matter of life and death. We never built coal power stations for "fun" or because we liked the smoke - it was because we absolutely have to have the power continuously and reliably. Over 90% of all the power we need nationally has to be "on tap" ie not dependent on wind, sun or tide. Thermal,(including nuclear) and some hydro power plants deliver power reliably and predictably - and because they are reliable it is also cheap. On this basis it is possible to make the economic case for wood chip - much of what is being spouted by Eloisa Gil Arranz and some shamefully ignorant councillors is uninformed uneducated rubbish. I have said that I can refute any claim made by her on this site and so far she has chosen to stop posting rather than take up the challenge.By the way I have no connection whatsoever with Helius and no financial stake in any outcome.[/p][/quote]Exactly - we need reliable power. However this is being touted as better, cleaner, greener - all of which I doubt. Not even going cheaper!. I fail to see any justification to date that would mean This particular power station should be built. Apart from Helius making a profit or getting a subsidy for providing green power I fail to see the benefit to us.[/p][/quote]The cleanest is water driven power, but even this is not clean of co2, one system is, we can only get close as we can. returning back to the water wheel is the answer, and stop thinking about having a dam to produce the water power to produce power on mass, go back to how the first industary revolution was started but using modern materials and techonolgy. southy

3:23pm Thu 26 Jul 12

loosehead says...

tootle wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
tootle wrote:
Personally I don't care about the view, loss of property value, being a NIMBY(mainly because it isn't) as the Docks are a working area which have changed massively since they were first constructed and will, hopefully, continue to change and flourish. However nobody has actually put forward an argument to prove just how building the power station, importing the fuel and burning wood is actually green!. Therefore I object, just as I do to wind turbines which are another costly and not very green way to make energy.
We should be looking at schemes using locally sourced materials - the core water one springs to mind. Be creative, innovative rather than jumping on the bandwagon.
That said the Government won't know how people feel if the Council don't find out and tell them. Referendum -Waste of time as Council don't make the decision, not a waste of time if it informs the decision.
Tootle the reason nobody has put forward a "green" justification is because generating power is not a hobby or a game - it is literally a matter of life and death. We never built coal power stations for "fun" or because we liked the smoke - it was because we absolutely have to have the power continuously and reliably. Over 90% of all the power we need nationally has to be "on tap" ie not dependent on wind, sun or tide. Thermal,(including nuclear) and some hydro power plants deliver power reliably and predictably - and because they are reliable it is also cheap. On this basis it is possible to make the economic case for wood chip - much of what is being spouted by Eloisa Gil Arranz and some shamefully ignorant councillors is uninformed uneducated rubbish. I have said that I can refute any claim made by her on this site and so far she has chosen to stop posting rather than take up the challenge.By the way I have no connection whatsoever with Helius and no financial stake in any outcome.
Exactly - we need reliable power. However this is being touted as better, cleaner, greener - all of which I doubt. Not even going cheaper!. I fail to see any justification to date that would mean This particular power station should be built. Apart from Helius making a profit or getting a subsidy for providing green power I fail to see the benefit to us.
Tootle i've tried to explain it to you but here I go again.
1/trees are sourced ( wood chip)from a sustainable forest/wood plantation.
2/the new saplings/young trees will eat far more Carbon than a mature tree.
3/you burn the wood chip to produce energy if you have a decent Carbon Capture unit in place you omit nothing so you're helping deplete the Carbon in the air.
If not you're only putting back into the atmosphere what the young trees/saplings are taking out.
4/ If the latter this is being carbon Neutral if the former this is being "Green".
5/if the waste Hot water is used to heat & provide hot water to the local area at a cheap price this will also be looked upon as being green.
The two things you the local people should be fighting for is 1/they source from the UK 2/ the hot water is used for the heating & provision of hot water at a cheap rate for the local community.
we the city should be doing all we can to get this product from UK sources
[quote][p][bold]tootle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tootle[/bold] wrote: Personally I don't care about the view, loss of property value, being a NIMBY(mainly because it isn't) as the Docks are a working area which have changed massively since they were first constructed and will, hopefully, continue to change and flourish. However nobody has actually put forward an argument to prove just how building the power station, importing the fuel and burning wood is actually green!. Therefore I object, just as I do to wind turbines which are another costly and not very green way to make energy. We should be looking at schemes using locally sourced materials - the core water one springs to mind. Be creative, innovative rather than jumping on the bandwagon. That said the Government won't know how people feel if the Council don't find out and tell them. Referendum -Waste of time as Council don't make the decision, not a waste of time if it informs the decision.[/p][/quote]Tootle the reason nobody has put forward a "green" justification is because generating power is not a hobby or a game - it is literally a matter of life and death. We never built coal power stations for "fun" or because we liked the smoke - it was because we absolutely have to have the power continuously and reliably. Over 90% of all the power we need nationally has to be "on tap" ie not dependent on wind, sun or tide. Thermal,(including nuclear) and some hydro power plants deliver power reliably and predictably - and because they are reliable it is also cheap. On this basis it is possible to make the economic case for wood chip - much of what is being spouted by Eloisa Gil Arranz and some shamefully ignorant councillors is uninformed uneducated rubbish. I have said that I can refute any claim made by her on this site and so far she has chosen to stop posting rather than take up the challenge.By the way I have no connection whatsoever with Helius and no financial stake in any outcome.[/p][/quote]Exactly - we need reliable power. However this is being touted as better, cleaner, greener - all of which I doubt. Not even going cheaper!. I fail to see any justification to date that would mean This particular power station should be built. Apart from Helius making a profit or getting a subsidy for providing green power I fail to see the benefit to us.[/p][/quote]Tootle i've tried to explain it to you but here I go again. 1/trees are sourced ( wood chip)from a sustainable forest/wood plantation. 2/the new saplings/young trees will eat far more Carbon than a mature tree. 3/you burn the wood chip to produce energy if you have a decent Carbon Capture unit in place you omit nothing so you're helping deplete the Carbon in the air. If not you're only putting back into the atmosphere what the young trees/saplings are taking out. 4/ If the latter this is being carbon Neutral if the former this is being "Green". 5/if the waste Hot water is used to heat & provide hot water to the local area at a cheap price this will also be looked upon as being green. The two things you the local people should be fighting for is 1/they source from the UK 2/ the hot water is used for the heating & provision of hot water at a cheap rate for the local community. we the city should be doing all we can to get this product from UK sources loosehead

3:28pm Thu 26 Jul 12

loosehead says...

southy wrote:
tootle wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
tootle wrote:
Personally I don't care about the view, loss of property value, being a NIMBY(mainly because it isn't) as the Docks are a working area which have changed massively since they were first constructed and will, hopefully, continue to change and flourish. However nobody has actually put forward an argument to prove just how building the power station, importing the fuel and burning wood is actually green!. Therefore I object, just as I do to wind turbines which are another costly and not very green way to make energy.
We should be looking at schemes using locally sourced materials - the core water one springs to mind. Be creative, innovative rather than jumping on the bandwagon.
That said the Government won't know how people feel if the Council don't find out and tell them. Referendum -Waste of time as Council don't make the decision, not a waste of time if it informs the decision.
Tootle the reason nobody has put forward a "green" justification is because generating power is not a hobby or a game - it is literally a matter of life and death. We never built coal power stations for "fun" or because we liked the smoke - it was because we absolutely have to have the power continuously and reliably. Over 90% of all the power we need nationally has to be "on tap" ie not dependent on wind, sun or tide. Thermal,(including nuclear) and some hydro power plants deliver power reliably and predictably - and because they are reliable it is also cheap. On this basis it is possible to make the economic case for wood chip - much of what is being spouted by Eloisa Gil Arranz and some shamefully ignorant councillors is uninformed uneducated rubbish. I have said that I can refute any claim made by her on this site and so far she has chosen to stop posting rather than take up the challenge.By the way I have no connection whatsoever with Helius and no financial stake in any outcome.
Exactly - we need reliable power. However this is being touted as better, cleaner, greener - all of which I doubt. Not even going cheaper!. I fail to see any justification to date that would mean This particular power station should be built. Apart from Helius making a profit or getting a subsidy for providing green power I fail to see the benefit to us.
The cleanest is water driven power, but even this is not clean of co2, one system is, we can only get close as we can.
returning back to the water wheel is the answer, and stop thinking about having a dam to produce the water power to produce power on mass, go back to how the first industary revolution was started but using modern materials and techonolgy.
What about the water screws that are installed & are seen to be fish friendly along the Test?
Southy I'm for the Bio mass but if we could use our rivers & Southampton water to place water generators with out damming them why don't we do it?
this type of thing falls into sustainable development which brings about government money so could be set up with government money?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tootle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tootle[/bold] wrote: Personally I don't care about the view, loss of property value, being a NIMBY(mainly because it isn't) as the Docks are a working area which have changed massively since they were first constructed and will, hopefully, continue to change and flourish. However nobody has actually put forward an argument to prove just how building the power station, importing the fuel and burning wood is actually green!. Therefore I object, just as I do to wind turbines which are another costly and not very green way to make energy. We should be looking at schemes using locally sourced materials - the core water one springs to mind. Be creative, innovative rather than jumping on the bandwagon. That said the Government won't know how people feel if the Council don't find out and tell them. Referendum -Waste of time as Council don't make the decision, not a waste of time if it informs the decision.[/p][/quote]Tootle the reason nobody has put forward a "green" justification is because generating power is not a hobby or a game - it is literally a matter of life and death. We never built coal power stations for "fun" or because we liked the smoke - it was because we absolutely have to have the power continuously and reliably. Over 90% of all the power we need nationally has to be "on tap" ie not dependent on wind, sun or tide. Thermal,(including nuclear) and some hydro power plants deliver power reliably and predictably - and because they are reliable it is also cheap. On this basis it is possible to make the economic case for wood chip - much of what is being spouted by Eloisa Gil Arranz and some shamefully ignorant councillors is uninformed uneducated rubbish. I have said that I can refute any claim made by her on this site and so far she has chosen to stop posting rather than take up the challenge.By the way I have no connection whatsoever with Helius and no financial stake in any outcome.[/p][/quote]Exactly - we need reliable power. However this is being touted as better, cleaner, greener - all of which I doubt. Not even going cheaper!. I fail to see any justification to date that would mean This particular power station should be built. Apart from Helius making a profit or getting a subsidy for providing green power I fail to see the benefit to us.[/p][/quote]The cleanest is water driven power, but even this is not clean of co2, one system is, we can only get close as we can. returning back to the water wheel is the answer, and stop thinking about having a dam to produce the water power to produce power on mass, go back to how the first industary revolution was started but using modern materials and techonolgy.[/p][/quote]What about the water screws that are installed & are seen to be fish friendly along the Test? Southy I'm for the Bio mass but if we could use our rivers & Southampton water to place water generators with out damming them why don't we do it? this type of thing falls into sustainable development which brings about government money so could be set up with government money? loosehead

3:36pm Thu 26 Jul 12

southy says...

Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem
Air changes to co2? Err, air is a lovely mixture that CONTAINS co2. How can it change to something it already is?
I'll remind you that 'air' is not a well-defined substance.

But co2 in the air do not burn, its a snuffer of flames, and your forgetting that fact of life Georgem
What does that have to do with anything? You said "air turns to co2" and I said it doesn't. How it affects flames is irrelevant.
what is the main gas in air, you need it to be able to breath. and when you put a flame to air its only the snuffer gasses that will not burn, the rest will and turn to co2. and its all very relenant when some thing like this is trying to work the green condential to get approval.
What this power station is all about is gaining Tax payers money, same as wind farms, in reality it should only be state owned industary that should tax payers money because any profit is pump back into the country.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Georgem Air changes to co2? Err, air is a lovely mixture that CONTAINS co2. How can it change to something it already is? I'll remind you that 'air' is not a well-defined substance. But co2 in the air do not burn, its a snuffer of flames, and your forgetting that fact of life Georgem[/p][/quote]What does that have to do with anything? You said "air turns to co2" and I said it doesn't. How it affects flames is irrelevant.[/p][/quote]what is the main gas in air, you need it to be able to breath. and when you put a flame to air its only the snuffer gasses that will not burn, the rest will and turn to co2. and its all very relenant when some thing like this is trying to work the green condential to get approval. What this power station is all about is gaining Tax payers money, same as wind farms, in reality it should only be state owned industary that should tax payers money because any profit is pump back into the country. southy

3:37pm Thu 26 Jul 12

freefinker says...

loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
tootle wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
tootle wrote:
Personally I don't care about the view, loss of property value, being a NIMBY(mainly because it isn't) as the Docks are a working area which have changed massively since they were first constructed and will, hopefully, continue to change and flourish. However nobody has actually put forward an argument to prove just how building the power station, importing the fuel and burning wood is actually green!. Therefore I object, just as I do to wind turbines which are another costly and not very green way to make energy.
We should be looking at schemes using locally sourced materials - the core water one springs to mind. Be creative, innovative rather than jumping on the bandwagon.
That said the Government won't know how people feel if the Council don't find out and tell them. Referendum -Waste of time as Council don't make the decision, not a waste of time if it informs the decision.
Tootle the reason nobody has put forward a "green" justification is because generating power is not a hobby or a game - it is literally a matter of life and death. We never built coal power stations for "fun" or because we liked the smoke - it was because we absolutely have to have the power continuously and reliably. Over 90% of all the power we need nationally has to be "on tap" ie not dependent on wind, sun or tide. Thermal,(including nuclear) and some hydro power plants deliver power reliably and predictably - and because they are reliable it is also cheap. On this basis it is possible to make the economic case for wood chip - much of what is being spouted by Eloisa Gil Arranz and some shamefully ignorant councillors is uninformed uneducated rubbish. I have said that I can refute any claim made by her on this site and so far she has chosen to stop posting rather than take up the challenge.By the way I have no connection whatsoever with Helius and no financial stake in any outcome.
Exactly - we need reliable power. However this is being touted as better, cleaner, greener - all of which I doubt. Not even going cheaper!. I fail to see any justification to date that would mean This particular power station should be built. Apart from Helius making a profit or getting a subsidy for providing green power I fail to see the benefit to us.
The cleanest is water driven power, but even this is not clean of co2, one system is, we can only get close as we can.
returning back to the water wheel is the answer, and stop thinking about having a dam to produce the water power to produce power on mass, go back to how the first industary revolution was started but using modern materials and techonolgy.
What about the water screws that are installed & are seen to be fish friendly along the Test?
Southy I'm for the Bio mass but if we could use our rivers & Southampton water to place water generators with out damming them why don't we do it?
this type of thing falls into sustainable development which brings about government money so could be set up with government money?
.. all very well said loosehead, but there is just one tinsy wincy small snag to southy's scheme. It don't work.

Well, not unless southy is able to rewrite the laws of physics.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tootle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tootle[/bold] wrote: Personally I don't care about the view, loss of property value, being a NIMBY(mainly because it isn't) as the Docks are a working area which have changed massively since they were first constructed and will, hopefully, continue to change and flourish. However nobody has actually put forward an argument to prove just how building the power station, importing the fuel and burning wood is actually green!. Therefore I object, just as I do to wind turbines which are another costly and not very green way to make energy. We should be looking at schemes using locally sourced materials - the core water one springs to mind. Be creative, innovative rather than jumping on the bandwagon. That said the Government won't know how people feel if the Council don't find out and tell them. Referendum -Waste of time as Council don't make the decision, not a waste of time if it informs the decision.[/p][/quote]Tootle the reason nobody has put forward a "green" justification is because generating power is not a hobby or a game - it is literally a matter of life and death. We never built coal power stations for "fun" or because we liked the smoke - it was because we absolutely have to have the power continuously and reliably. Over 90% of all the power we need nationally has to be "on tap" ie not dependent on wind, sun or tide. Thermal,(including nuclear) and some hydro power plants deliver power reliably and predictably - and because they are reliable it is also cheap. On this basis it is possible to make the economic case for wood chip - much of what is being spouted by Eloisa Gil Arranz and some shamefully ignorant councillors is uninformed uneducated rubbish. I have said that I can refute any claim made by her on this site and so far she has chosen to stop posting rather than take up the challenge.By the way I have no connection whatsoever with Helius and no financial stake in any outcome.[/p][/quote]Exactly - we need reliable power. However this is being touted as better, cleaner, greener - all of which I doubt. Not even going cheaper!. I fail to see any justification to date that would mean This particular power station should be built. Apart from Helius making a profit or getting a subsidy for providing green power I fail to see the benefit to us.[/p][/quote]The cleanest is water driven power, but even this is not clean of co2, one system is, we can only get close as we can. returning back to the water wheel is the answer, and stop thinking about having a dam to produce the water power to produce power on mass, go back to how the first industary revolution was started but using modern materials and techonolgy.[/p][/quote]What about the water screws that are installed & are seen to be fish friendly along the Test? Southy I'm for the Bio mass but if we could use our rivers & Southampton water to place water generators with out damming them why don't we do it? this type of thing falls into sustainable development which brings about government money so could be set up with government money?[/p][/quote].. all very well said loosehead, but there is just one tinsy wincy small snag to southy's scheme. It don't work. Well, not unless southy is able to rewrite the laws of physics. freefinker

3:46pm Thu 26 Jul 12

Georgem says...

southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem
Air changes to co2? Err, air is a lovely mixture that CONTAINS co2. How can it change to something it already is?
I'll remind you that 'air' is not a well-defined substance.

But co2 in the air do not burn, its a snuffer of flames, and your forgetting that fact of life Georgem
What does that have to do with anything? You said "air turns to co2" and I said it doesn't. How it affects flames is irrelevant.
what is the main gas in air, you need it to be able to breath. and when you put a flame to air its only the snuffer gasses that will not burn, the rest will and turn to co2. and its all very relenant when some thing like this is trying to work the green condential to get approval.
What this power station is all about is gaining Tax payers money, same as wind farms, in reality it should only be state owned industary that should tax payers money because any profit is pump back into the country.
Ah, I see. So it's not that AIR will turn to co2, it's that CO2 will turn to co2. Right, got it.

Glad we got that sorted out.

Jebus, you couldn't make this up.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Georgem Air changes to co2? Err, air is a lovely mixture that CONTAINS co2. How can it change to something it already is? I'll remind you that 'air' is not a well-defined substance. But co2 in the air do not burn, its a snuffer of flames, and your forgetting that fact of life Georgem[/p][/quote]What does that have to do with anything? You said "air turns to co2" and I said it doesn't. How it affects flames is irrelevant.[/p][/quote]what is the main gas in air, you need it to be able to breath. and when you put a flame to air its only the snuffer gasses that will not burn, the rest will and turn to co2. and its all very relenant when some thing like this is trying to work the green condential to get approval. What this power station is all about is gaining Tax payers money, same as wind farms, in reality it should only be state owned industary that should tax payers money because any profit is pump back into the country.[/p][/quote]Ah, I see. So it's not that AIR will turn to co2, it's that CO2 will turn to co2. Right, got it. Glad we got that sorted out. Jebus, you couldn't make this up. Georgem

3:47pm Thu 26 Jul 12

Georgem says...

freefinker wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
tootle wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
tootle wrote:
Personally I don't care about the view, loss of property value, being a NIMBY(mainly because it isn't) as the Docks are a working area which have changed massively since they were first constructed and will, hopefully, continue to change and flourish. However nobody has actually put forward an argument to prove just how building the power station, importing the fuel and burning wood is actually green!. Therefore I object, just as I do to wind turbines which are another costly and not very green way to make energy.
We should be looking at schemes using locally sourced materials - the core water one springs to mind. Be creative, innovative rather than jumping on the bandwagon.
That said the Government won't know how people feel if the Council don't find out and tell them. Referendum -Waste of time as Council don't make the decision, not a waste of time if it informs the decision.
Tootle the reason nobody has put forward a "green" justification is because generating power is not a hobby or a game - it is literally a matter of life and death. We never built coal power stations for "fun" or because we liked the smoke - it was because we absolutely have to have the power continuously and reliably. Over 90% of all the power we need nationally has to be "on tap" ie not dependent on wind, sun or tide. Thermal,(including nuclear) and some hydro power plants deliver power reliably and predictably - and because they are reliable it is also cheap. On this basis it is possible to make the economic case for wood chip - much of what is being spouted by Eloisa Gil Arranz and some shamefully ignorant councillors is uninformed uneducated rubbish. I have said that I can refute any claim made by her on this site and so far she has chosen to stop posting rather than take up the challenge.By the way I have no connection whatsoever with Helius and no financial stake in any outcome.
Exactly - we need reliable power. However this is being touted as better, cleaner, greener - all of which I doubt. Not even going cheaper!. I fail to see any justification to date that would mean This particular power station should be built. Apart from Helius making a profit or getting a subsidy for providing green power I fail to see the benefit to us.
The cleanest is water driven power, but even this is not clean of co2, one system is, we can only get close as we can.
returning back to the water wheel is the answer, and stop thinking about having a dam to produce the water power to produce power on mass, go back to how the first industary revolution was started but using modern materials and techonolgy.
What about the water screws that are installed & are seen to be fish friendly along the Test?
Southy I'm for the Bio mass but if we could use our rivers & Southampton water to place water generators with out damming them why don't we do it?
this type of thing falls into sustainable development which brings about government money so could be set up with government money?
.. all very well said loosehead, but there is just one tinsy wincy small snag to southy's scheme. It don't work.

Well, not unless southy is able to rewrite the laws of physics.
He can turn documents into people and religions into languages, I see no reason why he should be bothered by a mere re-writing of physics.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tootle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tootle[/bold] wrote: Personally I don't care about the view, loss of property value, being a NIMBY(mainly because it isn't) as the Docks are a working area which have changed massively since they were first constructed and will, hopefully, continue to change and flourish. However nobody has actually put forward an argument to prove just how building the power station, importing the fuel and burning wood is actually green!. Therefore I object, just as I do to wind turbines which are another costly and not very green way to make energy. We should be looking at schemes using locally sourced materials - the core water one springs to mind. Be creative, innovative rather than jumping on the bandwagon. That said the Government won't know how people feel if the Council don't find out and tell them. Referendum -Waste of time as Council don't make the decision, not a waste of time if it informs the decision.[/p][/quote]Tootle the reason nobody has put forward a "green" justification is because generating power is not a hobby or a game - it is literally a matter of life and death. We never built coal power stations for "fun" or because we liked the smoke - it was because we absolutely have to have the power continuously and reliably. Over 90% of all the power we need nationally has to be "on tap" ie not dependent on wind, sun or tide. Thermal,(including nuclear) and some hydro power plants deliver power reliably and predictably - and because they are reliable it is also cheap. On this basis it is possible to make the economic case for wood chip - much of what is being spouted by Eloisa Gil Arranz and some shamefully ignorant councillors is uninformed uneducated rubbish. I have said that I can refute any claim made by her on this site and so far she has chosen to stop posting rather than take up the challenge.By the way I have no connection whatsoever with Helius and no financial stake in any outcome.[/p][/quote]Exactly - we need reliable power. However this is being touted as better, cleaner, greener - all of which I doubt. Not even going cheaper!. I fail to see any justification to date that would mean This particular power station should be built. Apart from Helius making a profit or getting a subsidy for providing green power I fail to see the benefit to us.[/p][/quote]The cleanest is water driven power, but even this is not clean of co2, one system is, we can only get close as we can. returning back to the water wheel is the answer, and stop thinking about having a dam to produce the water power to produce power on mass, go back to how the first industary revolution was started but using modern materials and techonolgy.[/p][/quote]What about the water screws that are installed & are seen to be fish friendly along the Test? Southy I'm for the Bio mass but if we could use our rivers & Southampton water to place water generators with out damming them why don't we do it? this type of thing falls into sustainable development which brings about government money so could be set up with government money?[/p][/quote].. all very well said loosehead, but there is just one tinsy wincy small snag to southy's scheme. It don't work. Well, not unless southy is able to rewrite the laws of physics.[/p][/quote]He can turn documents into people and religions into languages, I see no reason why he should be bothered by a mere re-writing of physics. Georgem

3:56pm Thu 26 Jul 12

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem
Air changes to co2? Err, air is a lovely mixture that CONTAINS co2. How can it change to something it already is?
I'll remind you that 'air' is not a well-defined substance.

But co2 in the air do not burn, its a snuffer of flames, and your forgetting that fact of life Georgem
What does that have to do with anything? You said "air turns to co2" and I said it doesn't. How it affects flames is irrelevant.
what is the main gas in air, you need it to be able to breath. and when you put a flame to air its only the snuffer gasses that will not burn, the rest will and turn to co2. and its all very relenant when some thing like this is trying to work the green condential to get approval.
What this power station is all about is gaining Tax payers money, same as wind farms, in reality it should only be state owned industary that should tax payers money because any profit is pump back into the country.
.. no, no, no, southy.

The oxygen in the air does NOT turn into CO2 when something is burnt.

It remains as oxygen because oxygen is an element. It can, and does, combine with any of the element carbon that is being burnt ‘in the air’; but neither oxygen nor the other elements that constitute ‘air’ can turn into CO2.

Your knowledge of the properties of elements is at about the intellectual level of a 7 year old.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Georgem Air changes to co2? Err, air is a lovely mixture that CONTAINS co2. How can it change to something it already is? I'll remind you that 'air' is not a well-defined substance. But co2 in the air do not burn, its a snuffer of flames, and your forgetting that fact of life Georgem[/p][/quote]What does that have to do with anything? You said "air turns to co2" and I said it doesn't. How it affects flames is irrelevant.[/p][/quote]what is the main gas in air, you need it to be able to breath. and when you put a flame to air its only the snuffer gasses that will not burn, the rest will and turn to co2. and its all very relenant when some thing like this is trying to work the green condential to get approval. What this power station is all about is gaining Tax payers money, same as wind farms, in reality it should only be state owned industary that should tax payers money because any profit is pump back into the country.[/p][/quote].. no, no, no, southy. The oxygen in the air does NOT turn into CO2 when something is burnt. It remains as oxygen because oxygen is an element. It can, and does, combine with any of the element carbon that is being burnt ‘in the air’; but neither oxygen nor the other elements that constitute ‘air’ can turn into CO2. Your knowledge of the properties of elements is at about the intellectual level of a 7 year old. freefinker

4:07pm Thu 26 Jul 12

loosehead says...

freefinker wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
tootle wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
tootle wrote:
Personally I don't care about the view, loss of property value, being a NIMBY(mainly because it isn't) as the Docks are a working area which have changed massively since they were first constructed and will, hopefully, continue to change and flourish. However nobody has actually put forward an argument to prove just how building the power station, importing the fuel and burning wood is actually green!. Therefore I object, just as I do to wind turbines which are another costly and not very green way to make energy.
We should be looking at schemes using locally sourced materials - the core water one springs to mind. Be creative, innovative rather than jumping on the bandwagon.
That said the Government won't know how people feel if the Council don't find out and tell them. Referendum -Waste of time as Council don't make the decision, not a waste of time if it informs the decision.
Tootle the reason nobody has put forward a "green" justification is because generating power is not a hobby or a game - it is literally a matter of life and death. We never built coal power stations for "fun" or because we liked the smoke - it was because we absolutely have to have the power continuously and reliably. Over 90% of all the power we need nationally has to be "on tap" ie not dependent on wind, sun or tide. Thermal,(including nuclear) and some hydro power plants deliver power reliably and predictably - and because they are reliable it is also cheap. On this basis it is possible to make the economic case for wood chip - much of what is being spouted by Eloisa Gil Arranz and some shamefully ignorant councillors is uninformed uneducated rubbish. I have said that I can refute any claim made by her on this site and so far she has chosen to stop posting rather than take up the challenge.By the way I have no connection whatsoever with Helius and no financial stake in any outcome.
Exactly - we need reliable power. However this is being touted as better, cleaner, greener - all of which I doubt. Not even going cheaper!. I fail to see any justification to date that would mean This particular power station should be built. Apart from Helius making a profit or getting a subsidy for providing green power I fail to see the benefit to us.
The cleanest is water driven power, but even this is not clean of co2, one system is, we can only get close as we can.
returning back to the water wheel is the answer, and stop thinking about having a dam to produce the water power to produce power on mass, go back to how the first industary revolution was started but using modern materials and techonolgy.
What about the water screws that are installed & are seen to be fish friendly along the Test?
Southy I'm for the Bio mass but if we could use our rivers & Southampton water to place water generators with out damming them why don't we do it?
this type of thing falls into sustainable development which brings about government money so could be set up with government money?
.. all very well said loosehead, but there is just one tinsy wincy small snag to southy's scheme. It don't work.

Well, not unless southy is able to rewrite the laws of physics.
I wasn't really agreeing with Southy's scheme but there are working water screws along the river Test.
we are also the world's leaders on tidal/wave generation & have serious trials going on in the North sea so these could be used here with our two rivers & our four tides
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tootle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tootle[/bold] wrote: Personally I don't care about the view, loss of property value, being a NIMBY(mainly because it isn't) as the Docks are a working area which have changed massively since they were first constructed and will, hopefully, continue to change and flourish. However nobody has actually put forward an argument to prove just how building the power station, importing the fuel and burning wood is actually green!. Therefore I object, just as I do to wind turbines which are another costly and not very green way to make energy. We should be looking at schemes using locally sourced materials - the core water one springs to mind. Be creative, innovative rather than jumping on the bandwagon. That said the Government won't know how people feel if the Council don't find out and tell them. Referendum -Waste of time as Council don't make the decision, not a waste of time if it informs the decision.[/p][/quote]Tootle the reason nobody has put forward a "green" justification is because generating power is not a hobby or a game - it is literally a matter of life and death. We never built coal power stations for "fun" or because we liked the smoke - it was because we absolutely have to have the power continuously and reliably. Over 90% of all the power we need nationally has to be "on tap" ie not dependent on wind, sun or tide. Thermal,(including nuclear) and some hydro power plants deliver power reliably and predictably - and because they are reliable it is also cheap. On this basis it is possible to make the economic case for wood chip - much of what is being spouted by Eloisa Gil Arranz and some shamefully ignorant councillors is uninformed uneducated rubbish. I have said that I can refute any claim made by her on this site and so far she has chosen to stop posting rather than take up the challenge.By the way I have no connection whatsoever with Helius and no financial stake in any outcome.[/p][/quote]Exactly - we need reliable power. However this is being touted as better, cleaner, greener - all of which I doubt. Not even going cheaper!. I fail to see any justification to date that would mean This particular power station should be built. Apart from Helius making a profit or getting a subsidy for providing green power I fail to see the benefit to us.[/p][/quote]The cleanest is water driven power, but even this is not clean of co2, one system is, we can only get close as we can. returning back to the water wheel is the answer, and stop thinking about having a dam to produce the water power to produce power on mass, go back to how the first industary revolution was started but using modern materials and techonolgy.[/p][/quote]What about the water screws that are installed & are seen to be fish friendly along the Test? Southy I'm for the Bio mass but if we could use our rivers & Southampton water to place water generators with out damming them why don't we do it? this type of thing falls into sustainable development which brings about government money so could be set up with government money?[/p][/quote].. all very well said loosehead, but there is just one tinsy wincy small snag to southy's scheme. It don't work. Well, not unless southy is able to rewrite the laws of physics.[/p][/quote]I wasn't really agreeing with Southy's scheme but there are working water screws along the river Test. we are also the world's leaders on tidal/wave generation & have serious trials going on in the North sea so these could be used here with our two rivers & our four tides loosehead

4:11pm Thu 26 Jul 12

Georgem says...

Typical southy straw man antics.
Typical southy straw man antics. Georgem

5:16pm Thu 26 Jul 12

freefinker says...

Georgem wrote:
Typical southy straw man antics.
.. yep, he disappears - yet again
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: Typical southy straw man antics.[/p][/quote].. yep, he disappears - yet again freefinker

5:22pm Thu 26 Jul 12

freefinker says...

loosehead wrote:
freefinker wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
tootle wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
tootle wrote:
Personally I don't care about the view, loss of property value, being a NIMBY(mainly because it isn't) as the Docks are a working area which have changed massively since they were first constructed and will, hopefully, continue to change and flourish. However nobody has actually put forward an argument to prove just how building the power station, importing the fuel and burning wood is actually green!. Therefore I object, just as I do to wind turbines which are another costly and not very green way to make energy.
We should be looking at schemes using locally sourced materials - the core water one springs to mind. Be creative, innovative rather than jumping on the bandwagon.
That said the Government won't know how people feel if the Council don't find out and tell them. Referendum -Waste of time as Council don't make the decision, not a waste of time if it informs the decision.
Tootle the reason nobody has put forward a "green" justification is because generating power is not a hobby or a game - it is literally a matter of life and death. We never built coal power stations for "fun" or because we liked the smoke - it was because we absolutely have to have the power continuously and reliably. Over 90% of all the power we need nationally has to be "on tap" ie not dependent on wind, sun or tide. Thermal,(including nuclear) and some hydro power plants deliver power reliably and predictably - and because they are reliable it is also cheap. On this basis it is possible to make the economic case for wood chip - much of what is being spouted by Eloisa Gil Arranz and some shamefully ignorant councillors is uninformed uneducated rubbish. I have said that I can refute any claim made by her on this site and so far she has chosen to stop posting rather than take up the challenge.By the way I have no connection whatsoever with Helius and no financial stake in any outcome.
Exactly - we need reliable power. However this is being touted as better, cleaner, greener - all of which I doubt. Not even going cheaper!. I fail to see any justification to date that would mean This particular power station should be built. Apart from Helius making a profit or getting a subsidy for providing green power I fail to see the benefit to us.
The cleanest is water driven power, but even this is not clean of co2, one system is, we can only get close as we can.
returning back to the water wheel is the answer, and stop thinking about having a dam to produce the water power to produce power on mass, go back to how the first industary revolution was started but using modern materials and techonolgy.
What about the water screws that are installed & are seen to be fish friendly along the Test?
Southy I'm for the Bio mass but if we could use our rivers & Southampton water to place water generators with out damming them why don't we do it?
this type of thing falls into sustainable development which brings about government money so could be set up with government money?
.. all very well said loosehead, but there is just one tinsy wincy small snag to southy's scheme. It don't work.

Well, not unless southy is able to rewrite the laws of physics.
I wasn't really agreeing with Southy's scheme but there are working water screws along the river Test.
we are also the world's leaders on tidal/wave generation & have serious trials going on in the North sea so these could be used here with our two rivers & our four tides
.. quite agree with you, we should be investing much more in tidal, wave and sea current generation. And tapping our rivers to the maximum should also be on.

However, as Andy, Locks Heath, has demonstrated in intricate detail to southy, his stupid ideas for modern day water wheels just doesn't add up.

Water wheels were discarded for steam power during the industrial revolution for a very good reason. They didn't provide enough power.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tootle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tootle[/bold] wrote: Personally I don't care about the view, loss of property value, being a NIMBY(mainly because it isn't) as the Docks are a working area which have changed massively since they were first constructed and will, hopefully, continue to change and flourish. However nobody has actually put forward an argument to prove just how building the power station, importing the fuel and burning wood is actually green!. Therefore I object, just as I do to wind turbines which are another costly and not very green way to make energy. We should be looking at schemes using locally sourced materials - the core water one springs to mind. Be creative, innovative rather than jumping on the bandwagon. That said the Government won't know how people feel if the Council don't find out and tell them. Referendum -Waste of time as Council don't make the decision, not a waste of time if it informs the decision.[/p][/quote]Tootle the reason nobody has put forward a "green" justification is because generating power is not a hobby or a game - it is literally a matter of life and death. We never built coal power stations for "fun" or because we liked the smoke - it was because we absolutely have to have the power continuously and reliably. Over 90% of all the power we need nationally has to be "on tap" ie not dependent on wind, sun or tide. Thermal,(including nuclear) and some hydro power plants deliver power reliably and predictably - and because they are reliable it is also cheap. On this basis it is possible to make the economic case for wood chip - much of what is being spouted by Eloisa Gil Arranz and some shamefully ignorant councillors is uninformed uneducated rubbish. I have said that I can refute any claim made by her on this site and so far she has chosen to stop posting rather than take up the challenge.By the way I have no connection whatsoever with Helius and no financial stake in any outcome.[/p][/quote]Exactly - we need reliable power. However this is being touted as better, cleaner, greener - all of which I doubt. Not even going cheaper!. I fail to see any justification to date that would mean This particular power station should be built. Apart from Helius making a profit or getting a subsidy for providing green power I fail to see the benefit to us.[/p][/quote]The cleanest is water driven power, but even this is not clean of co2, one system is, we can only get close as we can. returning back to the water wheel is the answer, and stop thinking about having a dam to produce the water power to produce power on mass, go back to how the first industary revolution was started but using modern materials and techonolgy.[/p][/quote]What about the water screws that are installed & are seen to be fish friendly along the Test? Southy I'm for the Bio mass but if we could use our rivers & Southampton water to place water generators with out damming them why don't we do it? this type of thing falls into sustainable development which brings about government money so could be set up with government money?[/p][/quote].. all very well said loosehead, but there is just one tinsy wincy small snag to southy's scheme. It don't work. Well, not unless southy is able to rewrite the laws of physics.[/p][/quote]I wasn't really agreeing with Southy's scheme but there are working water screws along the river Test. we are also the world's leaders on tidal/wave generation & have serious trials going on in the North sea so these could be used here with our two rivers & our four tides[/p][/quote].. quite agree with you, we should be investing much more in tidal, wave and sea current generation. And tapping our rivers to the maximum should also be on. However, as Andy, Locks Heath, has demonstrated in intricate detail to southy, his stupid ideas for modern day water wheels just doesn't add up. Water wheels were discarded for steam power during the industrial revolution for a very good reason. They didn't provide enough power. freefinker

6:28pm Thu 26 Jul 12

phil maccavity says...

southy wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
southy wrote:
If it built in this location, Continental Animal Feeds will pull out of Southampton all together.
Another figment of Southy's fervent imagination.!!!!!!!!



He is 10 years behind the times with this post.
Continental pulled out of the port about 10 years ago and their old silo site is now home for the Ocean Cruise Terminal
At 107 berth western docks right next to where this Bio-mas plant will be built, where all that scrap metal is ect, there is no Ocean Cruise Terminal at that end of the Western Docks. the sheds are still being used by Continenatal sister companys.
Southy
Get yourself down to the library and have a look at Bert Moodys 'Pictorial History of Southampton Docks'
It has pictures so you should be OK.
Page 58 shows a picture of the Continental(UK) Ltd facility at 47 berth in the Eastern Docks (where the new Ocean Terminal is now)
The Continental silo was demolished about 15 years ago.
I have checked the current port directory and there is no company by the name of Continental Animal Feeds operating in the port.
That being so it beats me who can tell you that a non existent company is about to pull out of the port.
As I said the figment of a fervent (and selective) imagination
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: If it built in this location, Continental Animal Feeds will pull out of Southampton all together.[/p][/quote]Another figment of Southy's fervent imagination.!!!!!!!! He is 10 years behind the times with this post. Continental pulled out of the port about 10 years ago and their old silo site is now home for the Ocean Cruise Terminal[/p][/quote]At 107 berth western docks right next to where this Bio-mas plant will be built, where all that scrap metal is ect, there is no Ocean Cruise Terminal at that end of the Western Docks. the sheds are still being used by Continenatal sister companys.[/p][/quote]Southy Get yourself down to the library and have a look at Bert Moodys 'Pictorial History of Southampton Docks' It has pictures so you should be OK. Page 58 shows a picture of the Continental(UK) Ltd facility at 47 berth in the Eastern Docks (where the new Ocean Terminal is now) The Continental silo was demolished about 15 years ago. I have checked the current port directory and there is no company by the name of Continental Animal Feeds operating in the port. That being so it beats me who can tell you that a non existent company is about to pull out of the port. As I said the figment of a fervent (and selective) imagination phil maccavity

6:32pm Thu 26 Jul 12

freefinker says...

phil maccavity wrote:
southy wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
southy wrote:
If it built in this location, Continental Animal Feeds will pull out of Southampton all together.
Another figment of Southy's fervent imagination.!!!!!!!!




He is 10 years behind the times with this post.
Continental pulled out of the port about 10 years ago and their old silo site is now home for the Ocean Cruise Terminal
At 107 berth western docks right next to where this Bio-mas plant will be built, where all that scrap metal is ect, there is no Ocean Cruise Terminal at that end of the Western Docks. the sheds are still being used by Continenatal sister companys.
Southy
Get yourself down to the library and have a look at Bert Moodys 'Pictorial History of Southampton Docks'
It has pictures so you should be OK.
Page 58 shows a picture of the Continental(UK) Ltd facility at 47 berth in the Eastern Docks (where the new Ocean Terminal is now)
The Continental silo was demolished about 15 years ago.
I have checked the current port directory and there is no company by the name of Continental Animal Feeds operating in the port.
That being so it beats me who can tell you that a non existent company is about to pull out of the port.
As I said the figment of a fervent (and selective) imagination
.. there you go southy, a book.
Not this new-fangled interweb thingy.
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: If it built in this location, Continental Animal Feeds will pull out of Southampton all together.[/p][/quote]Another figment of Southy's fervent imagination.!!!!!!!! He is 10 years behind the times with this post. Continental pulled out of the port about 10 years ago and their old silo site is now home for the Ocean Cruise Terminal[/p][/quote]At 107 berth western docks right next to where this Bio-mas plant will be built, where all that scrap metal is ect, there is no Ocean Cruise Terminal at that end of the Western Docks. the sheds are still being used by Continenatal sister companys.[/p][/quote]Southy Get yourself down to the library and have a look at Bert Moodys 'Pictorial History of Southampton Docks' It has pictures so you should be OK. Page 58 shows a picture of the Continental(UK) Ltd facility at 47 berth in the Eastern Docks (where the new Ocean Terminal is now) The Continental silo was demolished about 15 years ago. I have checked the current port directory and there is no company by the name of Continental Animal Feeds operating in the port. That being so it beats me who can tell you that a non existent company is about to pull out of the port. As I said the figment of a fervent (and selective) imagination[/p][/quote].. there you go southy, a book. Not this new-fangled interweb thingy. freefinker

7:42pm Thu 26 Jul 12

loosehead says...

freefinker wrote:
loosehead wrote:
freefinker wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
tootle wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
tootle wrote:
Personally I don't care about the view, loss of property value, being a NIMBY(mainly because it isn't) as the Docks are a working area which have changed massively since they were first constructed and will, hopefully, continue to change and flourish. However nobody has actually put forward an argument to prove just how building the power station, importing the fuel and burning wood is actually green!. Therefore I object, just as I do to wind turbines which are another costly and not very green way to make energy.
We should be looking at schemes using locally sourced materials - the core water one springs to mind. Be creative, innovative rather than jumping on the bandwagon.
That said the Government won't know how people feel if the Council don't find out and tell them. Referendum -Waste of time as Council don't make the decision, not a waste of time if it informs the decision.
Tootle the reason nobody has put forward a "green" justification is because generating power is not a hobby or a game - it is literally a matter of life and death. We never built coal power stations for "fun" or because we liked the smoke - it was because we absolutely have to have the power continuously and reliably. Over 90% of all the power we need nationally has to be "on tap" ie not dependent on wind, sun or tide. Thermal,(including nuclear) and some hydro power plants deliver power reliably and predictably - and because they are reliable it is also cheap. On this basis it is possible to make the economic case for wood chip - much of what is being spouted by Eloisa Gil Arranz and some shamefully ignorant councillors is uninformed uneducated rubbish. I have said that I can refute any claim made by her on this site and so far she has chosen to stop posting rather than take up the challenge.By the way I have no connection whatsoever with Helius and no financial stake in any outcome.
Exactly - we need reliable power. However this is being touted as better, cleaner, greener - all of which I doubt. Not even going cheaper!. I fail to see any justification to date that would mean This particular power station should be built. Apart from Helius making a profit or getting a subsidy for providing green power I fail to see the benefit to us.
The cleanest is water driven power, but even this is not clean of co2, one system is, we can only get close as we can.
returning back to the water wheel is the answer, and stop thinking about having a dam to produce the water power to produce power on mass, go back to how the first industary revolution was started but using modern materials and techonolgy.
What about the water screws that are installed & are seen to be fish friendly along the Test?
Southy I'm for the Bio mass but if we could use our rivers & Southampton water to place water generators with out damming them why don't we do it?
this type of thing falls into sustainable development which brings about government money so could be set up with government money?
.. all very well said loosehead, but there is just one tinsy wincy small snag to southy's scheme. It don't work.

Well, not unless southy is able to rewrite the laws of physics.
I wasn't really agreeing with Southy's scheme but there are working water screws along the river Test.
we are also the world's leaders on tidal/wave generation & have serious trials going on in the North sea so these could be used here with our two rivers & our four tides
.. quite agree with you, we should be investing much more in tidal, wave and sea current generation. And tapping our rivers to the maximum should also be on.

However, as Andy, Locks Heath, has demonstrated in intricate detail to southy, his stupid ideas for modern day water wheels just doesn't add up.

Water wheels were discarded for steam power during the industrial revolution for a very good reason. They didn't provide enough power.
I have watched many programs on renewable energy.
Yes the old style heavy water wheel isn't going to work but ! there is a place where a farmer decided to branch out to make some extra cash.
He changed the big heavy wheel got rid of all milling stones & equipment & installed a lightweight wheel geared up to a electricity producing device & it runs as long as there's water there.
But there are many devices to use our rivers & coastline look at Poole?
Bio Mass yes for now but we have to use all other forms of Green?water energy production
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tootle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tootle[/bold] wrote: Personally I don't care about the view, loss of property value, being a NIMBY(mainly because it isn't) as the Docks are a working area which have changed massively since they were first constructed and will, hopefully, continue to change and flourish. However nobody has actually put forward an argument to prove just how building the power station, importing the fuel and burning wood is actually green!. Therefore I object, just as I do to wind turbines which are another costly and not very green way to make energy. We should be looking at schemes using locally sourced materials - the core water one springs to mind. Be creative, innovative rather than jumping on the bandwagon. That said the Government won't know how people feel if the Council don't find out and tell them. Referendum -Waste of time as Council don't make the decision, not a waste of time if it informs the decision.[/p][/quote]Tootle the reason nobody has put forward a "green" justification is because generating power is not a hobby or a game - it is literally a matter of life and death. We never built coal power stations for "fun" or because we liked the smoke - it was because we absolutely have to have the power continuously and reliably. Over 90% of all the power we need nationally has to be "on tap" ie not dependent on wind, sun or tide. Thermal,(including nuclear) and some hydro power plants deliver power reliably and predictably - and because they are reliable it is also cheap. On this basis it is possible to make the economic case for wood chip - much of what is being spouted by Eloisa Gil Arranz and some shamefully ignorant councillors is uninformed uneducated rubbish. I have said that I can refute any claim made by her on this site and so far she has chosen to stop posting rather than take up the challenge.By the way I have no connection whatsoever with Helius and no financial stake in any outcome.[/p][/quote]Exactly - we need reliable power. However this is being touted as better, cleaner, greener - all of which I doubt. Not even going cheaper!. I fail to see any justification to date that would mean This particular power station should be built. Apart from Helius making a profit or getting a subsidy for providing green power I fail to see the benefit to us.[/p][/quote]The cleanest is water driven power, but even this is not clean of co2, one system is, we can only get close as we can. returning back to the water wheel is the answer, and stop thinking about having a dam to produce the water power to produce power on mass, go back to how the first industary revolution was started but using modern materials and techonolgy.[/p][/quote]What about the water screws that are installed & are seen to be fish friendly along the Test? Southy I'm for the Bio mass but if we could use our rivers & Southampton water to place water generators with out damming them why don't we do it? this type of thing falls into sustainable development which brings about government money so could be set up with government money?[/p][/quote].. all very well said loosehead, but there is just one tinsy wincy small snag to southy's scheme. It don't work. Well, not unless southy is able to rewrite the laws of physics.[/p][/quote]I wasn't really agreeing with Southy's scheme but there are working water screws along the river Test. we are also the world's leaders on tidal/wave generation & have serious trials going on in the North sea so these could be used here with our two rivers & our four tides[/p][/quote].. quite agree with you, we should be investing much more in tidal, wave and sea current generation. And tapping our rivers to the maximum should also be on. However, as Andy, Locks Heath, has demonstrated in intricate detail to southy, his stupid ideas for modern day water wheels just doesn't add up. Water wheels were discarded for steam power during the industrial revolution for a very good reason. They didn't provide enough power.[/p][/quote]I have watched many programs on renewable energy. Yes the old style heavy water wheel isn't going to work but ! there is a place where a farmer decided to branch out to make some extra cash. He changed the big heavy wheel got rid of all milling stones & equipment & installed a lightweight wheel geared up to a electricity producing device & it runs as long as there's water there. But there are many devices to use our rivers & coastline look at Poole? Bio Mass yes for now but we have to use all other forms of Green?water energy production loosehead

10:08pm Thu 26 Jul 12

freefinker says...

loosehead wrote:
freefinker wrote:
loosehead wrote:
freefinker wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
tootle wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
tootle wrote:
Personally I don't care about the view, loss of property value, being a NIMBY(mainly because it isn't) as the Docks are a working area which have changed massively since they were first constructed and will, hopefully, continue to change and flourish. However nobody has actually put forward an argument to prove just how building the power station, importing the fuel and burning wood is actually green!. Therefore I object, just as I do to wind turbines which are another costly and not very green way to make energy.
We should be looking at schemes using locally sourced materials - the core water one springs to mind. Be creative, innovative rather than jumping on the bandwagon.
That said the Government won't know how people feel if the Council don't find out and tell them. Referendum -Waste of time as Council don't make the decision, not a waste of time if it informs the decision.
Tootle the reason nobody has put forward a "green" justification is because generating power is not a hobby or a game - it is literally a matter of life and death. We never built coal power stations for "fun" or because we liked the smoke - it was because we absolutely have to have the power continuously and reliably. Over 90% of all the power we need nationally has to be "on tap" ie not dependent on wind, sun or tide. Thermal,(including nuclear) and some hydro power plants deliver power reliably and predictably - and because they are reliable it is also cheap. On this basis it is possible to make the economic case for wood chip - much of what is being spouted by Eloisa Gil Arranz and some shamefully ignorant councillors is uninformed uneducated rubbish. I have said that I can refute any claim made by her on this site and so far she has chosen to stop posting rather than take up the challenge.By the way I have no connection whatsoever with Helius and no financial stake in any outcome.
Exactly - we need reliable power. However this is being touted as better, cleaner, greener - all of which I doubt. Not even going cheaper!. I fail to see any justification to date that would mean This particular power station should be built. Apart from Helius making a profit or getting a subsidy for providing green power I fail to see the benefit to us.
The cleanest is water driven power, but even this is not clean of co2, one system is, we can only get close as we can.
returning back to the water wheel is the answer, and stop thinking about having a dam to produce the water power to produce power on mass, go back to how the first industary revolution was started but using modern materials and techonolgy.
What about the water screws that are installed & are seen to be fish friendly along the Test?
Southy I'm for the Bio mass but if we could use our rivers & Southampton water to place water generators with out damming them why don't we do it?
this type of thing falls into sustainable development which brings about government money so could be set up with government money?
.. all very well said loosehead, but there is just one tinsy wincy small snag to southy's scheme. It don't work.

Well, not unless southy is able to rewrite the laws of physics.
I wasn't really agreeing with Southy's scheme but there are working water screws along the river Test.
we are also the world's leaders on tidal/wave generation & have serious trials going on in the North sea so these could be used here with our two rivers & our four tides
.. quite agree with you, we should be investing much more in tidal, wave and sea current generation. And tapping our rivers to the maximum should also be on.

However, as Andy, Locks Heath, has demonstrated in intricate detail to southy, his stupid ideas for modern day water wheels just doesn't add up.

Water wheels were discarded for steam power during the industrial revolution for a very good reason. They didn't provide enough power.
I have watched many programs on renewable energy.
Yes the old style heavy water wheel isn't going to work but ! there is a place where a farmer decided to branch out to make some extra cash.
He changed the big heavy wheel got rid of all milling stones & equipment & installed a lightweight wheel geared up to a electricity producing device & it runs as long as there's water there.
But there are many devices to use our rivers & coastline look at Poole?
Bio Mass yes for now but we have to use all other forms of Green?water energy production
.. don't get me wrong, I'm with you on this one.

Sure, efficiency can be greatly improved on 17th century waterwheels.

But don’t listen to southy – he thinks you can get more energy ‘out’ than the river actually possesses.

And next, I’m sure his perpetual motion machine will be a winner.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tootle[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tootle[/bold] wrote: Personally I don't care about the view, loss of property value, being a NIMBY(mainly because it isn't) as the Docks are a working area which have changed massively since they were first constructed and will, hopefully, continue to change and flourish. However nobody has actually put forward an argument to prove just how building the power station, importing the fuel and burning wood is actually green!. Therefore I object, just as I do to wind turbines which are another costly and not very green way to make energy. We should be looking at schemes using locally sourced materials - the core water one springs to mind. Be creative, innovative rather than jumping on the bandwagon. That said the Government won't know how people feel if the Council don't find out and tell them. Referendum -Waste of time as Council don't make the decision, not a waste of time if it informs the decision.[/p][/quote]Tootle the reason nobody has put forward a "green" justification is because generating power is not a hobby or a game - it is literally a matter of life and death. We never built coal power stations for "fun" or because we liked the smoke - it was because we absolutely have to have the power continuously and reliably. Over 90% of all the power we need nationally has to be "on tap" ie not dependent on wind, sun or tide. Thermal,(including nuclear) and some hydro power plants deliver power reliably and predictably - and because they are reliable it is also cheap. On this basis it is possible to make the economic case for wood chip - much of what is being spouted by Eloisa Gil Arranz and some shamefully ignorant councillors is uninformed uneducated rubbish. I have said that I can refute any claim made by her on this site and so far she has chosen to stop posting rather than take up the challenge.By the way I have no connection whatsoever with Helius and no financial stake in any outcome.[/p][/quote]Exactly - we need reliable power. However this is being touted as better, cleaner, greener - all of which I doubt. Not even going cheaper!. I fail to see any justification to date that would mean This particular power station should be built. Apart from Helius making a profit or getting a subsidy for providing green power I fail to see the benefit to us.[/p][/quote]The cleanest is water driven power, but even this is not clean of co2, one system is, we can only get close as we can. returning back to the water wheel is the answer, and stop thinking about having a dam to produce the water power to produce power on mass, go back to how the first industary revolution was started but using modern materials and techonolgy.[/p][/quote]What about the water screws that are installed & are seen to be fish friendly along the Test? Southy I'm for the Bio mass but if we could use our rivers & Southampton water to place water generators with out damming them why don't we do it? this type of thing falls into sustainable development which brings about government money so could be set up with government money?[/p][/quote].. all very well said loosehead, but there is just one tinsy wincy small snag to southy's scheme. It don't work. Well, not unless southy is able to rewrite the laws of physics.[/p][/quote]I wasn't really agreeing with Southy's scheme but there are working water screws along the river Test. we are also the world's leaders on tidal/wave generation & have serious trials going on in the North sea so these could be used here with our two rivers & our four tides[/p][/quote].. quite agree with you, we should be investing much more in tidal, wave and sea current generation. And tapping our rivers to the maximum should also be on. However, as Andy, Locks Heath, has demonstrated in intricate detail to southy, his stupid ideas for modern day water wheels just doesn't add up. Water wheels were discarded for steam power during the industrial revolution for a very good reason. They didn't provide enough power.[/p][/quote]I have watched many programs on renewable energy. Yes the old style heavy water wheel isn't going to work but ! there is a place where a farmer decided to branch out to make some extra cash. He changed the big heavy wheel got rid of all milling stones & equipment & installed a lightweight wheel geared up to a electricity producing device & it runs as long as there's water there. But there are many devices to use our rivers & coastline look at Poole? Bio Mass yes for now but we have to use all other forms of Green?water energy production[/p][/quote].. don't get me wrong, I'm with you on this one. Sure, efficiency can be greatly improved on 17th century waterwheels. But don’t listen to southy – he thinks you can get more energy ‘out’ than the river actually possesses. And next, I’m sure his perpetual motion machine will be a winner. freefinker

6:05pm Fri 27 Jul 12

Dan Soton says...

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


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

Six Acres of solar panels can power 199 homes.


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

-



Daily Echo.. Estate creates huge solar panel farm.

9:37am Friday 13th July 2012.

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

-

http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/business/9815
892.Estate_creates_h
uge_solar_panel_farm
/
Today Bells peeled across Southampton to welcome the Olympics.. cover your ear's here's the Biomas Alarm Bells For evey home Helius could be incinerating Six Acres of Canadian Miscanthus grass per year . Six Acres of solar panels can power 199 homes. One home Helius Biomas Vs One hundred and ninety nine homes Solar Panels. - Daily Echo.. Estate creates huge solar panel farm. 9:37am Friday 13th July 2012. Nearly 19,000 solar panels have been installed on 30 acres of land on the Cadland Estate at Fawley to generate enough electricity to power 1,000 homes. - http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/business/9815 892.Estate_creates_h uge_solar_panel_farm / Dan Soton

2:24pm Sun 29 Jul 12

Dan Soton says...

Europe needs 30 million plus tonnes of biomass pellets per year.

-

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

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

When it comes to profits incinerating tall grass wins out over timber it's that simple

-


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

environmentally Helius is 20 years behind the times.


Helius is the wrong company at the wrong time.
Europe needs 30 million plus tonnes of biomass pellets per year. - According to Canadian miscanthus growers, Europe needs 30 million-plus tonnes of grass pellets per year grown on 4.5 million acres or about 7,031 square miles of land. That's 1000 square miles more land than Egypt's Nile Valley ( not the best comparison ) that helps to feed Egypt's estimate 90 million population. When it comes to profits incinerating tall grass wins out over timber it's that simple - AFAIK: this Government or I should say the EU's support for biomass/biofuel isn't centred on incinerating timber or grass but Helius's Southampton plans are. environmentally Helius is 20 years behind the times. Helius is the wrong company at the wrong time. Dan Soton

1:40am Wed 1 Aug 12

Dan Soton says...

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

-


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

-

YouTube Video.. Robert Llewellyn.


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


-



The Energy Efficient House | Fully Charged

Published on 25 Jul 2012 by

Robert Llewellyn visits an energy efficient house in Berlin.

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

In 2010, the UK could produce on a sunny midsummer day, 74,000kW of energy from solar electricity. Compare this to Germany who under the same conditions producer 17,000,000kW of energy.
If one solar home can power three who needs Helius's timber/grass incinerator ? - By 2020 one Southampton solar home could be generating 16,000kWh of energy and only using 4,000-5,000kWh a year. - YouTube Video.. Robert Llewellyn. http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=Ac0cPOZMT Tk - The Energy Efficient House | Fully Charged Published on 25 Jul 2012 by Robert Llewellyn visits an energy efficient house in Berlin. Robert is back in Berlin, where he speaks to Jörg Welke who lives in a house which produces 16,000kWh of energy a year, when it only uses 4,000-5,000kWh. With it's great insulation, solar panels, and a 40kWh storage battery, it is truly energy efficient. In 2010, the UK could produce on a sunny midsummer day, 74,000kW of energy from solar electricity. Compare this to Germany who under the same conditions producer 17,000,000kW of energy. Dan Soton

12:18pm Thu 2 Aug 12

Dan Soton says...

An inquiry headed by David Attenborough ?


-
 

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

-

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


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


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

-



UK Renewable Energy Roadmap.

July 2011.

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

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

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

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


Plant Biomass

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-


http://www.decc.gov.
uk/assets/decc/11/me
eting-energy-demand/
renewable-energy/216
7-uk-renewable-energ
y-roadmap.pdf
An inquiry headed by David Attenborough ? -   Going by the below UK Renewable Energy Roadmap this Coalition Government hasn't carried out an in-depth inquiry into the sustainability of Wood/Grass Biomass Energy. - An inquiry headed by David Attenborough could keep everyone happy?.. He supported Glyndebourne in their successful application to obtain planning permission for a wind turbine in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and gave evidence at the planning inquiry arguing in favour of the proposal. 1) This Coalition Government says Biomass heat technologies supply chains have not yet been tested at scale, the key issue of whether the global supply of sustainable feedstocks can fuel it, given that supplies are finite and there are competing uses in the bio-economy. 2) This Coalition Government says Cost reductions are expected for offshore wind and solar PV as supply chains and technologies develop to 2020.. AFAIK this Government sees no such Cost reductions for Wood/Grass Biomass Energy. - UK Renewable Energy Roadmap. July 2011. The nations of the United Kingdom are endowed with vast and varied renewable energy resources. We have the best wind, wave and tidal resources in Europe. The UK leads the world in offshore wind, with more than 700 turbines already installed, and is accelerating the deployment of onshore wind with the biggest projects in Europe already operating and under construction in Scotland and Wales. Taken together onshore and offshore wind provide enough power for more than two and a half million homes. But we could do so much more. Our challenge is to bring costs down and deployment up. This document – the UK’s first Renewable Energy Roadmap – sets out our shared approach to unlocking our renewable energy potential. Plant Biomass The range of cost uncertainty is particularly large for technologies such as marine, which is at the early stages of commercial deployment in the UK, and biomass heat technologies, for which supply chains have not yet been tested at scale. Cost reductions are expected to be most pronounced for electricity technologies, particularly offshore wind and solar PV, as supply chains and technologies develop to 2020. The cost of generating heat and electricity from fossil fuels is also expected to rise over time. It is essential that costs of renewable technologies fall over the decade as deployment increases. Our goal in the medium to long term is to help renewables compete on a level playing field against other low carbon technologies. We will regularly review our subsidy programmes to take account of cost changes from supply chain development, learning, and technical breakthrough. Figure 19 sets out the results of analysis of the potential for growth in biomass electricity generation to 2020. The breadth of the central range reflects the dynamic potential of the large-scale biomass sector and the key issue of whether the global supply of sustainable feedstocks can fuel it, given that supplies are finite and there are competing uses in the bio-economy. The low and high scenarios reflect initial views from industry on the upside potential and downside risks. Dedicated biomass electricity offers great potential for cost effective renewable electricity generation, provided that it is generated from sustainable feedstocks. As noted above, the Government’s ambition for biomass electricity depends on the availability of suitable feedstocks. The Government considers that sustainable biomass should be cultivated, processed and transported in a way which delivers real and significant greenhouse gas savings compared to the fossil fuel it is replacing. In particular, forest and woodlands must be sustainably managed to ensure continuing supplies in future years. There would also be significant public concern to projects delivering unsustainable generation. - http://www.decc.gov. uk/assets/decc/11/me eting-energy-demand/ renewable-energy/216 7-uk-renewable-energ y-roadmap.pdf Dan Soton

12:35pm Tue 7 Aug 12

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Europe needs 30 million plus tonnes of biomass pellets per year.

-

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

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

When it comes to profits incinerating tall grass wins out over timber it's that simple

-


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

environmentally Helius is 20 years behind the times.


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


-


Greens warn biomass plan could reduce food supplies.

Sunday 05 August 2012 by Tony Patey.

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

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

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

-

http://www.morningst
aronline.co.uk/news/
content/view/full/12
2307?
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Europe needs 30 million plus tonnes of biomass pellets per year. - According to Canadian miscanthus growers, Europe needs 30 million-plus tonnes of grass pellets per year grown on 4.5 million acres or about 7,031 square miles of land. That's 1000 square miles more land than Egypt's Nile Valley ( not the best comparison ) that helps to feed Egypt's estimate 90 million population. When it comes to profits incinerating tall grass wins out over timber it's that simple - AFAIK: this Government or I should say the EU's support for biomass/biofuel isn't centred on incinerating timber or grass but Helius's Southampton plans are. environmentally Helius is 20 years behind the times. Helius is the wrong company at the wrong time.[/p][/quote]Helius is competing with agricultural land. - Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means EU/Helius could be incinerating 4.5 million acres/7,031 square miles of Miscanthus grass/Elephant grass per year.. - Greens warn biomass plan could reduce food supplies. Sunday 05 August 2012 by Tony Patey. Its report Fuelling a BioMess questioned assertions that biomass fuel is clean and carbon neutral - in fact using forests for energy could be worse for the climate than burning coal. "This will mean more deforestation, more carbon emissions and land-grabbing overseas." Farmers are realising they can made big profits out of growing miscanthus - elephant grass - for biomass use as well as getting grants for a half of start-up costs. - http://www.morningst aronline.co.uk/news/ content/view/full/12 2307? Dan Soton

3:16pm Tue 7 Aug 12

loosehead says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Europe needs 30 million plus tonnes of biomass pellets per year.

-

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

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

When it comes to profits incinerating tall grass wins out over timber it's that simple

-


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

environmentally Helius is 20 years behind the times.


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


-


Greens warn biomass plan could reduce food supplies.

Sunday 05 August 2012 by Tony Patey.

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

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

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

-

http://www.morningst

aronline.co.uk/news/

content/view/full/12

2307?
Yawn heard it before
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Europe needs 30 million plus tonnes of biomass pellets per year. - According to Canadian miscanthus growers, Europe needs 30 million-plus tonnes of grass pellets per year grown on 4.5 million acres or about 7,031 square miles of land. That's 1000 square miles more land than Egypt's Nile Valley ( not the best comparison ) that helps to feed Egypt's estimate 90 million population. When it comes to profits incinerating tall grass wins out over timber it's that simple - AFAIK: this Government or I should say the EU's support for biomass/biofuel isn't centred on incinerating timber or grass but Helius's Southampton plans are. environmentally Helius is 20 years behind the times. Helius is the wrong company at the wrong time.[/p][/quote]Helius is competing with agricultural land. - Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means EU/Helius could be incinerating 4.5 million acres/7,031 square miles of Miscanthus grass/Elephant grass per year.. - Greens warn biomass plan could reduce food supplies. Sunday 05 August 2012 by Tony Patey. Its report Fuelling a BioMess questioned assertions that biomass fuel is clean and carbon neutral - in fact using forests for energy could be worse for the climate than burning coal. "This will mean more deforestation, more carbon emissions and land-grabbing overseas." Farmers are realising they can made big profits out of growing miscanthus - elephant grass - for biomass use as well as getting grants for a half of start-up costs. - http://www.morningst aronline.co.uk/news/ content/view/full/12 2307?[/p][/quote]Yawn heard it before loosehead

5:22pm Tue 7 Aug 12

Dan Soton says...

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

-

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


-


Almost a billion go hungry worldwide

SARAH MORRISON SUNDAY 05 AUGUST 2012.

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

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

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

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

-

http://www.independe
nt.co.uk/news/world/
politics/almost-a-bi
llion-go-hungry-worl
dwide-8007759.html
Oxfam calls for an end to biofuel subsidies.. almost a billion go hungry worldwide - loosehead, Helius will be fried crispy and disappear up its own flue if David Cameron takes heed of Oxfam, Unicef and Save the Children - Almost a billion go hungry worldwide SARAH MORRISON SUNDAY 05 AUGUST 2012. An unparalleled number of severe food shortages has added 43 million to the number of people going hungry worldwide this year. And millions of children are now at risk of acute malnutrition, charities are warning. One week ahead of David Cameron's "hunger summit", they say that unless action is taken urgently, many more could fall victim. Barbara Stocking, Oxfam GB's chief executive, called the summit "a positive step forward", but stressed: "It must be the start of concerted action to address the shocking fact that while we produce enough food to feed everyone on the planet, about a billion will tonight go to bed hungry. "Dwindling natural resources and the gathering pace of climate change mean that without urgent action, things will only get worse, and multiple major crises could quickly move from being an exception to being the norm." She added that Mr Cameron should call for increased investment in small farmers, greater transparency in commodity markets and an end to biofuel subsidies. - http://www.independe nt.co.uk/news/world/ politics/almost-a-bi llion-go-hungry-worl dwide-8007759.html 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