City councillors agree objections to power plant at Southampton docks

Council agrees objection to city power plant

How the new power plant at Southampton docks could look

A view of the proposed biomass plant from Foundry Lane

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

COUNCILLORS in Southampton have this morning agreed holding objections to controversial plans for a wood-fired power station at the city's western docks.

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

The No Southampton Biomass campaign group said it was an "ill conceived monstrosity" that was still too big, too close to homes and still not green.

Councillors approved recommendations from planners who said “insufficient” detail has been provided to properly assess the scheme's impact on air quality and that “inappropriate size” and “poor architectural” quality of the proposed power plant was not acceptable.

While the council has no objection to the principle of biomass as a renewable energy source, councillors also wanted specific details about how steam and hot water from the plant could be reused in a district heating scheme.

Councillors also said the amount 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.

A formal planning application is expected to be submitted to the National Infrastructure Directorate in the autumn, which will recommend to the Government whether the project should go ahead.

Helius planning director Paul Brighton defended the public consultation and insisted the biomass power plant was needed to help tackle climate change.

It would generate enough electricity for 200,000 homes.

Council leader Richard Williams said: “Today 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.

“Unless they can address questions about air quality, impact on the environment and the reuse of waste heat and power generated on site, we will continue to object to this enormous eyesore being built in our city.”

Comments (96)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:52am Tue 24 Jul 12

southy says...

Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.
Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on. southy
  • Score: 0

10:34am Tue 24 Jul 12

UKIPsouthampton says...

southy wrote:
Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.
I dont think a wood burner is quite a replacement for Fawley Power Station somehow.
.
There is no chance of Fawley closing anytime soon.
.
This really needs to be looked into properly and carefully and not to objected to because of peoples concerns it may ruin the view from there back gardens. If after careful consideration the power provided from the station is fit for pupous and energy efficient then it should be built. If there is of no benefit to it then of course it needs to be revised. Maybe have a Nuclear Power Plant and some huge wind turbines instead?
.
Maybe the same protestors would be interested in getting involved in the no gravel pit campaign in Hamble?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.[/p][/quote]I dont think a wood burner is quite a replacement for Fawley Power Station somehow. . There is no chance of Fawley closing anytime soon. . This really needs to be looked into properly and carefully and not to objected to because of peoples concerns it may ruin the view from there back gardens. If after careful consideration the power provided from the station is fit for pupous and energy efficient then it should be built. If there is of no benefit to it then of course it needs to be revised. Maybe have a Nuclear Power Plant and some huge wind turbines instead? . Maybe the same protestors would be interested in getting involved in the no gravel pit campaign in Hamble? UKIPsouthampton
  • Score: 0

10:36am Tue 24 Jul 12

Fieldbean says...

There be a little quip from Southy. Will he hold his own today against the wolves, who may well have all bunked off to the beach?
There be a little quip from Southy. Will he hold his own today against the wolves, who may well have all bunked off to the beach? Fieldbean
  • Score: 0

10:44am Tue 24 Jul 12

Dan Soton says...

The council should have objections to Helius plans on the principle Helius is competing with agricultural land.


-


Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means Helius could be incinerating 120,000 acres of Canadan Miscanthus grass per year.. if as below 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass pellets

-


Biomass pellets becoming a hot commodity in Europe.

By Diana Martin, QMI Agency.
Posted 12 days ago.

“Last year, Europe consumed 13 million tonnes of biomass pellets,” said Ian Moncrieff, president and CEO of Canadian Biofuel. “By 2015, they will be using 20 million; by 2020, it will be 30 million-plus.”

European countries don’t have the landmass to produce enough biomass pellets to meet the demand, which is why they are looking at Canada to fill the void, he said.

Moncrieff added Canadian Biofuels would need 12,000 to 15,000 acres of miscanthus to produces 100,000 tonnes to support a new plant.

-

http://tinyurl.com/c
srdlee
The council should have objections to Helius plans on the principle Helius is competing with agricultural land. - Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means Helius could be incinerating 120,000 acres of Canadan Miscanthus grass per year.. if as below 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass pellets - Biomass pellets becoming a hot commodity in Europe. By Diana Martin, QMI Agency. Posted 12 days ago. “Last year, Europe consumed 13 million tonnes of biomass pellets,” said Ian Moncrieff, president and CEO of Canadian Biofuel. “By 2015, they will be using 20 million; by 2020, it will be 30 million-plus.” European countries don’t have the landmass to produce enough biomass pellets to meet the demand, which is why they are looking at Canada to fill the void, he said. Moncrieff added Canadian Biofuels would need 12,000 to 15,000 acres of miscanthus to produces 100,000 tonnes to support a new plant. - http://tinyurl.com/c srdlee Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

10:45am Tue 24 Jul 12

georgetheseventh says...

I think it looks really nice..who wouldnt want that in their back garden ???
I think it looks really nice..who wouldnt want that in their back garden ??? georgetheseventh
  • Score: 0

10:45am Tue 24 Jul 12

southy says...

UKIPsouthampton wrote:
southy wrote:
Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.
I dont think a wood burner is quite a replacement for Fawley Power Station somehow.
.
There is no chance of Fawley closing anytime soon.
.
This really needs to be looked into properly and carefully and not to objected to because of peoples concerns it may ruin the view from there back gardens. If after careful consideration the power provided from the station is fit for pupous and energy efficient then it should be built. If there is of no benefit to it then of course it needs to be revised. Maybe have a Nuclear Power Plant and some huge wind turbines instead?
.
Maybe the same protestors would be interested in getting involved in the no gravel pit campaign in Hamble?
Fawley as all ready got a closing date. and it is soon.
[quote][p][bold]UKIPsouthampton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.[/p][/quote]I dont think a wood burner is quite a replacement for Fawley Power Station somehow. . There is no chance of Fawley closing anytime soon. . This really needs to be looked into properly and carefully and not to objected to because of peoples concerns it may ruin the view from there back gardens. If after careful consideration the power provided from the station is fit for pupous and energy efficient then it should be built. If there is of no benefit to it then of course it needs to be revised. Maybe have a Nuclear Power Plant and some huge wind turbines instead? . Maybe the same protestors would be interested in getting involved in the no gravel pit campaign in Hamble?[/p][/quote]Fawley as all ready got a closing date. and it is soon. southy
  • Score: 0

10:46am Tue 24 Jul 12

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
The council should have objections to Helius plans on the principle Helius is competing with agricultural land.


-


Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means Helius could be incinerating 120,000 acres of Canadan Miscanthus grass per year.. if as below 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass pellets

-


Biomass pellets becoming a hot commodity in Europe.

By Diana Martin, QMI Agency.
Posted 12 days ago.

“Last year, Europe consumed 13 million tonnes of biomass pellets,” said Ian Moncrieff, president and CEO of Canadian Biofuel. “By 2015, they will be using 20 million; by 2020, it will be 30 million-plus.”

European countries don’t have the landmass to produce enough biomass pellets to meet the demand, which is why they are looking at Canada to fill the void, he said.

Moncrieff added Canadian Biofuels would need 12,000 to 15,000 acres of miscanthus to produces 100,000 tonnes to support a new plant.

-

http://tinyurl.com/c

srdlee
Helius competing with agricultural land.. 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass Pellets.


-

In this youtube video @ 03:40 mins.. a Canadian farmer says he grows Tobacco, Soya, and Wheat but Miscanthus grass for biofuel pellets is his future.

-

www.youtube.com/watc
h?v=-ix1n2RfMpA

-

Given Helius/European countries are looking to Canada for Biomass pellets, I say this video goes some way to prove Helius will be competing with agricultural land.

-

Thats 120,000 acres of Canadian agricultural land incinerated every year to keep 20,000 homes supplied with power/lights and some (GAS) heat = Six Acres of agricultural land per home per year.
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: The council should have objections to Helius plans on the principle Helius is competing with agricultural land. - Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means Helius could be incinerating 120,000 acres of Canadan Miscanthus grass per year.. if as below 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass pellets - Biomass pellets becoming a hot commodity in Europe. By Diana Martin, QMI Agency. Posted 12 days ago. “Last year, Europe consumed 13 million tonnes of biomass pellets,” said Ian Moncrieff, president and CEO of Canadian Biofuel. “By 2015, they will be using 20 million; by 2020, it will be 30 million-plus.” European countries don’t have the landmass to produce enough biomass pellets to meet the demand, which is why they are looking at Canada to fill the void, he said. Moncrieff added Canadian Biofuels would need 12,000 to 15,000 acres of miscanthus to produces 100,000 tonnes to support a new plant. - http://tinyurl.com/c srdlee[/p][/quote]Helius competing with agricultural land.. 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass Pellets. - In this youtube video @ 03:40 mins.. a Canadian farmer says he grows Tobacco, Soya, and Wheat but Miscanthus grass for biofuel pellets is his future. - www.youtube.com/watc h?v=-ix1n2RfMpA - Given Helius/European countries are looking to Canada for Biomass pellets, I say this video goes some way to prove Helius will be competing with agricultural land. - Thats 120,000 acres of Canadian agricultural land incinerated every year to keep 20,000 homes supplied with power/lights and some (GAS) heat = Six Acres of agricultural land per home per year. Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

10:50am Tue 24 Jul 12

Georgem says...

southy wrote:
UKIPsouthampton wrote:
southy wrote:
Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.
I dont think a wood burner is quite a replacement for Fawley Power Station somehow.
.
There is no chance of Fawley closing anytime soon.
.
This really needs to be looked into properly and carefully and not to objected to because of peoples concerns it may ruin the view from there back gardens. If after careful consideration the power provided from the station is fit for pupous and energy efficient then it should be built. If there is of no benefit to it then of course it needs to be revised. Maybe have a Nuclear Power Plant and some huge wind turbines instead?
.
Maybe the same protestors would be interested in getting involved in the no gravel pit campaign in Hamble?
Fawley as all ready got a closing date. and it is soon.
2015?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]UKIPsouthampton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.[/p][/quote]I dont think a wood burner is quite a replacement for Fawley Power Station somehow. . There is no chance of Fawley closing anytime soon. . This really needs to be looked into properly and carefully and not to objected to because of peoples concerns it may ruin the view from there back gardens. If after careful consideration the power provided from the station is fit for pupous and energy efficient then it should be built. If there is of no benefit to it then of course it needs to be revised. Maybe have a Nuclear Power Plant and some huge wind turbines instead? . Maybe the same protestors would be interested in getting involved in the no gravel pit campaign in Hamble?[/p][/quote]Fawley as all ready got a closing date. and it is soon.[/p][/quote]2015? Georgem
  • Score: 0

10:52am Tue 24 Jul 12

southy says...

Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
UKIPsouthampton wrote:
southy wrote:
Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.
I dont think a wood burner is quite a replacement for Fawley Power Station somehow.
.
There is no chance of Fawley closing anytime soon.
.
This really needs to be looked into properly and carefully and not to objected to because of peoples concerns it may ruin the view from there back gardens. If after careful consideration the power provided from the station is fit for pupous and energy efficient then it should be built. If there is of no benefit to it then of course it needs to be revised. Maybe have a Nuclear Power Plant and some huge wind turbines instead?
.
Maybe the same protestors would be interested in getting involved in the no gravel pit campaign in Hamble?
Fawley as all ready got a closing date. and it is soon.
2015?
No earlier so I been told, it will be totally closed down by sept/oct 2014
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]UKIPsouthampton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.[/p][/quote]I dont think a wood burner is quite a replacement for Fawley Power Station somehow. . There is no chance of Fawley closing anytime soon. . This really needs to be looked into properly and carefully and not to objected to because of peoples concerns it may ruin the view from there back gardens. If after careful consideration the power provided from the station is fit for pupous and energy efficient then it should be built. If there is of no benefit to it then of course it needs to be revised. Maybe have a Nuclear Power Plant and some huge wind turbines instead? . Maybe the same protestors would be interested in getting involved in the no gravel pit campaign in Hamble?[/p][/quote]Fawley as all ready got a closing date. and it is soon.[/p][/quote]2015?[/p][/quote]No earlier so I been told, it will be totally closed down by sept/oct 2014 southy
  • Score: 0

10:54am Tue 24 Jul 12

Fieldbean says...

southy wrote:
UKIPsouthampton wrote:
southy wrote: Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.
I dont think a wood burner is quite a replacement for Fawley Power Station somehow. . There is no chance of Fawley closing anytime soon. . This really needs to be looked into properly and carefully and not to objected to because of peoples concerns it may ruin the view from there back gardens. If after careful consideration the power provided from the station is fit for pupous and energy efficient then it should be built. If there is of no benefit to it then of course it needs to be revised. Maybe have a Nuclear Power Plant and some huge wind turbines instead? . Maybe the same protestors would be interested in getting involved in the no gravel pit campaign in Hamble?
Fawley as all ready got a closing date. and it is soon.
Fawley must close by 2015,

Southy 1 - Others 0
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]UKIPsouthampton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.[/p][/quote]I dont think a wood burner is quite a replacement for Fawley Power Station somehow. . There is no chance of Fawley closing anytime soon. . This really needs to be looked into properly and carefully and not to objected to because of peoples concerns it may ruin the view from there back gardens. If after careful consideration the power provided from the station is fit for pupous and energy efficient then it should be built. If there is of no benefit to it then of course it needs to be revised. Maybe have a Nuclear Power Plant and some huge wind turbines instead? . Maybe the same protestors would be interested in getting involved in the no gravel pit campaign in Hamble?[/p][/quote]Fawley as all ready got a closing date. and it is soon.[/p][/quote]Fawley must close by 2015, Southy 1 - Others 0 Fieldbean
  • Score: 0

10:56am Tue 24 Jul 12

Georgem says...

southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
UKIPsouthampton wrote:
southy wrote:
Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.
I dont think a wood burner is quite a replacement for Fawley Power Station somehow.
.
There is no chance of Fawley closing anytime soon.
.
This really needs to be looked into properly and carefully and not to objected to because of peoples concerns it may ruin the view from there back gardens. If after careful consideration the power provided from the station is fit for pupous and energy efficient then it should be built. If there is of no benefit to it then of course it needs to be revised. Maybe have a Nuclear Power Plant and some huge wind turbines instead?
.
Maybe the same protestors would be interested in getting involved in the no gravel pit campaign in Hamble?
Fawley as all ready got a closing date. and it is soon.
2015?
No earlier so I been told, it will be totally closed down by sept/oct 2014
End of 2015 according to RWE NPower, who own it:

http://www.rwe.com/w
eb/cms/en/97626/rwe-
npower/about-us/our-
businesses/power-gen
eration/fawley/

Where did you hear 2014? Not that it matters, point is, it is indeed closing down, as you said.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]UKIPsouthampton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.[/p][/quote]I dont think a wood burner is quite a replacement for Fawley Power Station somehow. . There is no chance of Fawley closing anytime soon. . This really needs to be looked into properly and carefully and not to objected to because of peoples concerns it may ruin the view from there back gardens. If after careful consideration the power provided from the station is fit for pupous and energy efficient then it should be built. If there is of no benefit to it then of course it needs to be revised. Maybe have a Nuclear Power Plant and some huge wind turbines instead? . Maybe the same protestors would be interested in getting involved in the no gravel pit campaign in Hamble?[/p][/quote]Fawley as all ready got a closing date. and it is soon.[/p][/quote]2015?[/p][/quote]No earlier so I been told, it will be totally closed down by sept/oct 2014[/p][/quote]End of 2015 according to RWE NPower, who own it: http://www.rwe.com/w eb/cms/en/97626/rwe- npower/about-us/our- businesses/power-gen eration/fawley/ Where did you hear 2014? Not that it matters, point is, it is indeed closing down, as you said. Georgem
  • Score: 0

11:00am Tue 24 Jul 12

The Watcher says...

Poor decision from the Council on this one and although I can understand and sympathise with local Councillors representing their constituents, I do think that sometimes some has to take a broader view on these issues.
.
I'm afraid the NIMBY lobby need to be overruled. Biomass will be an integral part of a balanced energy portfolio formtis country.
.
The only objection is on aesthetic reasons as the arguments citing pollution, unsustainabke biomass fuel requirements, its lack of "green" green credentials have been comprehensively debunked.
.
And as for aesthetic objections it is being built on industrial land that has been the site, or near to a number, of factories etc.
.
Poor decision from the Council on this one and although I can understand and sympathise with local Councillors representing their constituents, I do think that sometimes some has to take a broader view on these issues. . I'm afraid the NIMBY lobby need to be overruled. Biomass will be an integral part of a balanced energy portfolio formtis country. . The only objection is on aesthetic reasons as the arguments citing pollution, unsustainabke biomass fuel requirements, its lack of "green" green credentials have been comprehensively debunked. . And as for aesthetic objections it is being built on industrial land that has been the site, or near to a number, of factories etc. . The Watcher
  • Score: 0

11:05am Tue 24 Jul 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

southy wrote:
Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.
I mentioned several times why it is not ideal Southy - There is no deepwater channel as charts prove, and the existing plant is unsuitable or unusable, it has no rail link and inferior road links. I sailed to Ashlett Creek last week and everyone who knows Ashlett knows there is no deepwater channel to the power station - the cooling water inlet is far too small. You keep referring to those moored bulk carriers as being off Fawley but as every sailor knows they were moored off Netley on the ship moorings! You cite environmental reasons for preferring Fawley but simple eyesight and common sense should tell you and any other local resident that that the place of least envionmental impact of any chimney is right next to it - yet you have this strange belief that 10 miles upwind is somehow going to be cleaner or better when it is actually worse. What is your reasoning for this?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.[/p][/quote]I mentioned several times why it is not ideal Southy - There is no deepwater channel as charts prove, and the existing plant is unsuitable or unusable, it has no rail link and inferior road links. I sailed to Ashlett Creek last week and everyone who knows Ashlett knows there is no deepwater channel to the power station - the cooling water inlet is far too small. You keep referring to those moored bulk carriers as being off Fawley but as every sailor knows they were moored off Netley on the ship moorings! You cite environmental reasons for preferring Fawley but simple eyesight and common sense should tell you and any other local resident that that the place of least envionmental impact of any chimney is right next to it - yet you have this strange belief that 10 miles upwind is somehow going to be cleaner or better when it is actually worse. What is your reasoning for this? Andy Locks Heath
  • Score: 0

11:08am Tue 24 Jul 12

loosehead says...

While the council has no objection to the principle of biomass as a renewable energy source, planners also want specific details about how steam and hot water from the plant can be reused.
They could use it to heat local homes & businesses for a fraction of the price of any power provider( energy).
So if they can do this as with Geo thermal will the council then agree with it?
Dan Soton you've said Canadian farmers said they won't be growing tobacco anymore is that a bad thing?
Dan this council should get this heating/hot water supply for local residents.
It then should look at resourcing wood chip from the UK & using rail as a means of transporting it here.
The commission set up to look at National Parks has said that more commercial forests should be grown so there will be the resource there if this council can get Helius to buy UK wood chip.
Surely this is the way to go & talk about house prices? cheap hot water & heating close proximity to town with parks & shops this could only help increase the value of these properties surely?
While the council has no objection to the principle of biomass as a renewable energy source, planners also want specific details about how steam and hot water from the plant can be reused. They could use it to heat local homes & businesses for a fraction of the price of any power provider( energy). So if they can do this as with Geo thermal will the council then agree with it? Dan Soton you've said Canadian farmers said they won't be growing tobacco anymore is that a bad thing? Dan this council should get this heating/hot water supply for local residents. It then should look at resourcing wood chip from the UK & using rail as a means of transporting it here. The commission set up to look at National Parks has said that more commercial forests should be grown so there will be the resource there if this council can get Helius to buy UK wood chip. Surely this is the way to go & talk about house prices? cheap hot water & heating close proximity to town with parks & shops this could only help increase the value of these properties surely? loosehead
  • Score: 0

11:10am Tue 24 Jul 12

southy says...

Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
UKIPsouthampton wrote:
southy wrote:
Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.
I dont think a wood burner is quite a replacement for Fawley Power Station somehow.
.
There is no chance of Fawley closing anytime soon.
.
This really needs to be looked into properly and carefully and not to objected to because of peoples concerns it may ruin the view from there back gardens. If after careful consideration the power provided from the station is fit for pupous and energy efficient then it should be built. If there is of no benefit to it then of course it needs to be revised. Maybe have a Nuclear Power Plant and some huge wind turbines instead?
.
Maybe the same protestors would be interested in getting involved in the no gravel pit campaign in Hamble?
Fawley as all ready got a closing date. and it is soon.
2015?
No earlier so I been told, it will be totally closed down by sept/oct 2014
End of 2015 according to RWE NPower, who own it:

http://www.rwe.com/w

eb/cms/en/97626/rwe-

npower/about-us/our-

businesses/power-gen

eration/fawley/

Where did you hear 2014? Not that it matters, point is, it is indeed closing down, as you said.
Talks are all ready going on between the Union and RWE, if agreement on redundancys are agree to, it could even be sept/oct this year at the time when the lease runs out on the land that the buildings stand on (even lo its stands on reclaim land, that land is connected to Lord Drummond and makes him the owner of the reclaim land, and was lease out) they have a years grace from the date of the endding of the lease, RWE have all ready decided not to renew the lease.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]UKIPsouthampton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.[/p][/quote]I dont think a wood burner is quite a replacement for Fawley Power Station somehow. . There is no chance of Fawley closing anytime soon. . This really needs to be looked into properly and carefully and not to objected to because of peoples concerns it may ruin the view from there back gardens. If after careful consideration the power provided from the station is fit for pupous and energy efficient then it should be built. If there is of no benefit to it then of course it needs to be revised. Maybe have a Nuclear Power Plant and some huge wind turbines instead? . Maybe the same protestors would be interested in getting involved in the no gravel pit campaign in Hamble?[/p][/quote]Fawley as all ready got a closing date. and it is soon.[/p][/quote]2015?[/p][/quote]No earlier so I been told, it will be totally closed down by sept/oct 2014[/p][/quote]End of 2015 according to RWE NPower, who own it: http://www.rwe.com/w eb/cms/en/97626/rwe- npower/about-us/our- businesses/power-gen eration/fawley/ Where did you hear 2014? Not that it matters, point is, it is indeed closing down, as you said.[/p][/quote]Talks are all ready going on between the Union and RWE, if agreement on redundancys are agree to, it could even be sept/oct this year at the time when the lease runs out on the land that the buildings stand on (even lo its stands on reclaim land, that land is connected to Lord Drummond and makes him the owner of the reclaim land, and was lease out) they have a years grace from the date of the endding of the lease, RWE have all ready decided not to renew the lease. southy
  • Score: 0

11:13am Tue 24 Jul 12

Georgem says...

southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
UKIPsouthampton wrote:
southy wrote:
Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.
I dont think a wood burner is quite a replacement for Fawley Power Station somehow.
.
There is no chance of Fawley closing anytime soon.
.
This really needs to be looked into properly and carefully and not to objected to because of peoples concerns it may ruin the view from there back gardens. If after careful consideration the power provided from the station is fit for pupous and energy efficient then it should be built. If there is of no benefit to it then of course it needs to be revised. Maybe have a Nuclear Power Plant and some huge wind turbines instead?
.
Maybe the same protestors would be interested in getting involved in the no gravel pit campaign in Hamble?
Fawley as all ready got a closing date. and it is soon.
2015?
No earlier so I been told, it will be totally closed down by sept/oct 2014
End of 2015 according to RWE NPower, who own it:

http://www.rwe.com/w


eb/cms/en/97626/rwe-


npower/about-us/our-


businesses/power-gen


eration/fawley/

Where did you hear 2014? Not that it matters, point is, it is indeed closing down, as you said.
Talks are all ready going on between the Union and RWE, if agreement on redundancys are agree to, it could even be sept/oct this year at the time when the lease runs out on the land that the buildings stand on (even lo its stands on reclaim land, that land is connected to Lord Drummond and makes him the owner of the reclaim land, and was lease out) they have a years grace from the date of the endding of the lease, RWE have all ready decided not to renew the lease.
I'd like to believe you, southy, but as you've shown on this thread

http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/news/9832154.
Rail_staff_work_to_r
ule_during_Olympics/


you are quite happy to tell endless bare-faced lies simply in order to 'one-up' anybody else posting on any story.

Cite your sources, or don't bother claiming facts.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]UKIPsouthampton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.[/p][/quote]I dont think a wood burner is quite a replacement for Fawley Power Station somehow. . There is no chance of Fawley closing anytime soon. . This really needs to be looked into properly and carefully and not to objected to because of peoples concerns it may ruin the view from there back gardens. If after careful consideration the power provided from the station is fit for pupous and energy efficient then it should be built. If there is of no benefit to it then of course it needs to be revised. Maybe have a Nuclear Power Plant and some huge wind turbines instead? . Maybe the same protestors would be interested in getting involved in the no gravel pit campaign in Hamble?[/p][/quote]Fawley as all ready got a closing date. and it is soon.[/p][/quote]2015?[/p][/quote]No earlier so I been told, it will be totally closed down by sept/oct 2014[/p][/quote]End of 2015 according to RWE NPower, who own it: http://www.rwe.com/w eb/cms/en/97626/rwe- npower/about-us/our- businesses/power-gen eration/fawley/ Where did you hear 2014? Not that it matters, point is, it is indeed closing down, as you said.[/p][/quote]Talks are all ready going on between the Union and RWE, if agreement on redundancys are agree to, it could even be sept/oct this year at the time when the lease runs out on the land that the buildings stand on (even lo its stands on reclaim land, that land is connected to Lord Drummond and makes him the owner of the reclaim land, and was lease out) they have a years grace from the date of the endding of the lease, RWE have all ready decided not to renew the lease.[/p][/quote]I'd like to believe you, southy, but as you've shown on this thread http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/news/9832154. Rail_staff_work_to_r ule_during_Olympics/ you are quite happy to tell endless bare-faced lies simply in order to 'one-up' anybody else posting on any story. Cite your sources, or don't bother claiming facts. Georgem
  • Score: 0

11:15am Tue 24 Jul 12

UKIPsouthampton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
The council should have objections to Helius plans on the principle Helius is competing with agricultural land. - Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means Helius could be incinerating 120,000 acres of Canadan Miscanthus grass per year.. if as below 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass pellets - Biomass pellets becoming a hot commodity in Europe. By Diana Martin, QMI Agency. Posted 12 days ago. “Last year, Europe consumed 13 million tonnes of biomass pellets,” said Ian Moncrieff, president and CEO of Canadian Biofuel. “By 2015, they will be using 20 million; by 2020, it will be 30 million-plus.” European countries don’t have the landmass to produce enough biomass pellets to meet the demand, which is why they are looking at Canada to fill the void, he said. Moncrieff added Canadian Biofuels would need 12,000 to 15,000 acres of miscanthus to produces 100,000 tonnes to support a new plant. - http://tinyurl.com/c srdlee
Yes but we also dont have enough land to grow food and crops to support the amount of numbers in this country.
.
We fill the void by purchasing land around the world including Africa!
.
The UK must be self sustaining, and if this is a good enough reason not to have the biomass plant then I agree.
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: The council should have objections to Helius plans on the principle Helius is competing with agricultural land. - Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means Helius could be incinerating 120,000 acres of Canadan Miscanthus grass per year.. if as below 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass pellets - Biomass pellets becoming a hot commodity in Europe. By Diana Martin, QMI Agency. Posted 12 days ago. “Last year, Europe consumed 13 million tonnes of biomass pellets,” said Ian Moncrieff, president and CEO of Canadian Biofuel. “By 2015, they will be using 20 million; by 2020, it will be 30 million-plus.” European countries don’t have the landmass to produce enough biomass pellets to meet the demand, which is why they are looking at Canada to fill the void, he said. Moncrieff added Canadian Biofuels would need 12,000 to 15,000 acres of miscanthus to produces 100,000 tonnes to support a new plant. - http://tinyurl.com/c srdlee[/p][/quote]Yes but we also dont have enough land to grow food and crops to support the amount of numbers in this country. . We fill the void by purchasing land around the world including Africa! . The UK must be self sustaining, and if this is a good enough reason not to have the biomass plant then I agree. UKIPsouthampton
  • Score: 0

11:16am Tue 24 Jul 12

loosehead says...

The Watcher wrote:
Poor decision from the Council on this one and although I can understand and sympathise with local Councillors representing their constituents, I do think that sometimes some has to take a broader view on these issues.
.
I'm afraid the NIMBY lobby need to be overruled. Biomass will be an integral part of a balanced energy portfolio formtis country.
.
The only objection is on aesthetic reasons as the arguments citing pollution, unsustainabke biomass fuel requirements, its lack of "green" green credentials have been comprehensively debunked.
.
And as for aesthetic objections it is being built on industrial land that has been the site, or near to a number, of factories etc.
.
Unbelievable! I totally agree with you but read the article this council might as well admit they want it but want the votes more?
[quote][p][bold]The Watcher[/bold] wrote: Poor decision from the Council on this one and although I can understand and sympathise with local Councillors representing their constituents, I do think that sometimes some has to take a broader view on these issues. . I'm afraid the NIMBY lobby need to be overruled. Biomass will be an integral part of a balanced energy portfolio formtis country. . The only objection is on aesthetic reasons as the arguments citing pollution, unsustainabke biomass fuel requirements, its lack of "green" green credentials have been comprehensively debunked. . And as for aesthetic objections it is being built on industrial land that has been the site, or near to a number, of factories etc. .[/p][/quote]Unbelievable! I totally agree with you but read the article this council might as well admit they want it but want the votes more? loosehead
  • Score: 0

11:25am Tue 24 Jul 12

The Watcher says...

loosehead wrote:
The Watcher wrote:
Poor decision from the Council on this one and although I can understand and sympathise with local Councillors representing their constituents, I do think that sometimes some has to take a broader view on these issues.
.
I'm afraid the NIMBY lobby need to be overruled. Biomass will be an integral part of a balanced energy portfolio formtis country.
.
The only objection is on aesthetic reasons as the arguments citing pollution, unsustainabke biomass fuel requirements, its lack of "green" green credentials have been comprehensively debunked.
.
And as for aesthetic objections it is being built on industrial land that has been the site, or near to a number, of factories etc.
.
Unbelievable! I totally agree with you but read the article this council might as well admit they want it but want the votes more?
You didn't reply to the pool never being under the remit/ownership of Oasis though ;-)
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Watcher[/bold] wrote: Poor decision from the Council on this one and although I can understand and sympathise with local Councillors representing their constituents, I do think that sometimes some has to take a broader view on these issues. . I'm afraid the NIMBY lobby need to be overruled. Biomass will be an integral part of a balanced energy portfolio formtis country. . The only objection is on aesthetic reasons as the arguments citing pollution, unsustainabke biomass fuel requirements, its lack of "green" green credentials have been comprehensively debunked. . And as for aesthetic objections it is being built on industrial land that has been the site, or near to a number, of factories etc. .[/p][/quote]Unbelievable! I totally agree with you but read the article this council might as well admit they want it but want the votes more?[/p][/quote]You didn't reply to the pool never being under the remit/ownership of Oasis though ;-) The Watcher
  • Score: 0

11:29am Tue 24 Jul 12

southy says...

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.
I mentioned several times why it is not ideal Southy - There is no deepwater channel as charts prove, and the existing plant is unsuitable or unusable, it has no rail link and inferior road links. I sailed to Ashlett Creek last week and everyone who knows Ashlett knows there is no deepwater channel to the power station - the cooling water inlet is far too small. You keep referring to those moored bulk carriers as being off Fawley but as every sailor knows they were moored off Netley on the ship moorings! You cite environmental reasons for preferring Fawley but simple eyesight and common sense should tell you and any other local resident that that the place of least envionmental impact of any chimney is right next to it - yet you have this strange belief that 10 miles upwind is somehow going to be cleaner or better when it is actually worse. What is your reasoning for this?
Andy read your charts, one is the intake is not located at Ashlett creek, what is located at Ashlett Creek is the old Tidal Mill which is now a Pub, the power station is located down river from Ashlett its closer to Calshot village than Ashlett village.
The channel leading into the intake where they was going to have the dock before change of plans,is 4m deep at at 0-0 spring low water, add on to that high water springs of 4-9 and you have a channal that is more than deep enough to take bulk carriers, it is as deep as the spot they call the natural deep in Southampton Waters,
Those bulk carriers was not just moored on netley moorings, there was also one in Southampton western docks the biggest one of them all, there was another over in machwood, and the one I told you about that was moored in Fawley intake channal,
Esso Refinery some times use the quay wall inside Fawley power station to off load vessels that are built in Italy, most of the vessels tanks came in though Fawley apart from the 3 biggest ones they came in from the Marchwood Military camp that was for the Residerfinder plant when it was being built.
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.[/p][/quote]I mentioned several times why it is not ideal Southy - There is no deepwater channel as charts prove, and the existing plant is unsuitable or unusable, it has no rail link and inferior road links. I sailed to Ashlett Creek last week and everyone who knows Ashlett knows there is no deepwater channel to the power station - the cooling water inlet is far too small. You keep referring to those moored bulk carriers as being off Fawley but as every sailor knows they were moored off Netley on the ship moorings! You cite environmental reasons for preferring Fawley but simple eyesight and common sense should tell you and any other local resident that that the place of least envionmental impact of any chimney is right next to it - yet you have this strange belief that 10 miles upwind is somehow going to be cleaner or better when it is actually worse. What is your reasoning for this?[/p][/quote]Andy read your charts, one is the intake is not located at Ashlett creek, what is located at Ashlett Creek is the old Tidal Mill which is now a Pub, the power station is located down river from Ashlett its closer to Calshot village than Ashlett village. The channel leading into the intake where they was going to have the dock before change of plans,is 4m deep at at 0-0 spring low water, add on to that high water springs of 4-9 and you have a channal that is more than deep enough to take bulk carriers, it is as deep as the spot they call the natural deep in Southampton Waters, Those bulk carriers was not just moored on netley moorings, there was also one in Southampton western docks the biggest one of them all, there was another over in machwood, and the one I told you about that was moored in Fawley intake channal, Esso Refinery some times use the quay wall inside Fawley power station to off load vessels that are built in Italy, most of the vessels tanks came in though Fawley apart from the 3 biggest ones they came in from the Marchwood Military camp that was for the Residerfinder plant when it was being built. southy
  • Score: 0

11:36am Tue 24 Jul 12

southy says...

Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
UKIPsouthampton wrote:
southy wrote:
Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.
I dont think a wood burner is quite a replacement for Fawley Power Station somehow.
.
There is no chance of Fawley closing anytime soon.
.
This really needs to be looked into properly and carefully and not to objected to because of peoples concerns it may ruin the view from there back gardens. If after careful consideration the power provided from the station is fit for pupous and energy efficient then it should be built. If there is of no benefit to it then of course it needs to be revised. Maybe have a Nuclear Power Plant and some huge wind turbines instead?
.
Maybe the same protestors would be interested in getting involved in the no gravel pit campaign in Hamble?
Fawley as all ready got a closing date. and it is soon.
2015?
No earlier so I been told, it will be totally closed down by sept/oct 2014
End of 2015 according to RWE NPower, who own it:

http://www.rwe.com/w



eb/cms/en/97626/rwe-



npower/about-us/our-



businesses/power-gen



eration/fawley/

Where did you hear 2014? Not that it matters, point is, it is indeed closing down, as you said.
Talks are all ready going on between the Union and RWE, if agreement on redundancys are agree to, it could even be sept/oct this year at the time when the lease runs out on the land that the buildings stand on (even lo its stands on reclaim land, that land is connected to Lord Drummond and makes him the owner of the reclaim land, and was lease out) they have a years grace from the date of the endding of the lease, RWE have all ready decided not to renew the lease.
I'd like to believe you, southy, but as you've shown on this thread

http://www.dailyecho

.co.uk/news/9832154.

Rail_staff_work_to_r

ule_during_Olympics/



you are quite happy to tell endless bare-faced lies simply in order to 'one-up' anybody else posting on any story.

Cite your sources, or don't bother claiming facts.
There was no lies there, I warned you and others what working to rule meant, its what you want and your kind wanted and now you got it you don't like it.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]UKIPsouthampton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.[/p][/quote]I dont think a wood burner is quite a replacement for Fawley Power Station somehow. . There is no chance of Fawley closing anytime soon. . This really needs to be looked into properly and carefully and not to objected to because of peoples concerns it may ruin the view from there back gardens. If after careful consideration the power provided from the station is fit for pupous and energy efficient then it should be built. If there is of no benefit to it then of course it needs to be revised. Maybe have a Nuclear Power Plant and some huge wind turbines instead? . Maybe the same protestors would be interested in getting involved in the no gravel pit campaign in Hamble?[/p][/quote]Fawley as all ready got a closing date. and it is soon.[/p][/quote]2015?[/p][/quote]No earlier so I been told, it will be totally closed down by sept/oct 2014[/p][/quote]End of 2015 according to RWE NPower, who own it: http://www.rwe.com/w eb/cms/en/97626/rwe- npower/about-us/our- businesses/power-gen eration/fawley/ Where did you hear 2014? Not that it matters, point is, it is indeed closing down, as you said.[/p][/quote]Talks are all ready going on between the Union and RWE, if agreement on redundancys are agree to, it could even be sept/oct this year at the time when the lease runs out on the land that the buildings stand on (even lo its stands on reclaim land, that land is connected to Lord Drummond and makes him the owner of the reclaim land, and was lease out) they have a years grace from the date of the endding of the lease, RWE have all ready decided not to renew the lease.[/p][/quote]I'd like to believe you, southy, but as you've shown on this thread http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/news/9832154. Rail_staff_work_to_r ule_during_Olympics/ you are quite happy to tell endless bare-faced lies simply in order to 'one-up' anybody else posting on any story. Cite your sources, or don't bother claiming facts.[/p][/quote]There was no lies there, I warned you and others what working to rule meant, its what you want and your kind wanted and now you got it you don't like it. southy
  • Score: 0

11:38am Tue 24 Jul 12

Lone Ranger. says...

The Watcher wrote:
Poor decision from the Council on this one and although I can understand and sympathise with local Councillors representing their constituents, I do think that sometimes some has to take a broader view on these issues.
.
I'm afraid the NIMBY lobby need to be overruled. Biomass will be an integral part of a balanced energy portfolio formtis country.
.
The only objection is on aesthetic reasons as the arguments citing pollution, unsustainabke biomass fuel requirements, its lack of "green" green credentials have been comprehensively debunked.
.
And as for aesthetic objections it is being built on industrial land that has been the site, or near to a number, of factories etc.
.
I am not sure that that i fully undersatand or agree about the only objections being aesthetic.
.
Quote:- Councillors approved recommendations from planners who said “insufficient” detail has been provided to properly assess the scheme's impact on air quality and that “inappropriate size” and “poor architectural” quality of the proposed power plant is not acceptable.
.
"Poor Architechturalty" ... as i understand it, does not necasarily refer only to its aesthetics ...........
.... what do you think !!
[quote][p][bold]The Watcher[/bold] wrote: Poor decision from the Council on this one and although I can understand and sympathise with local Councillors representing their constituents, I do think that sometimes some has to take a broader view on these issues. . I'm afraid the NIMBY lobby need to be overruled. Biomass will be an integral part of a balanced energy portfolio formtis country. . The only objection is on aesthetic reasons as the arguments citing pollution, unsustainabke biomass fuel requirements, its lack of "green" green credentials have been comprehensively debunked. . And as for aesthetic objections it is being built on industrial land that has been the site, or near to a number, of factories etc. .[/p][/quote]I am not sure that that i fully undersatand or agree about the only objections being aesthetic. . Quote:- Councillors approved recommendations from planners who said “insufficient” detail has been provided to properly assess the scheme's impact on air quality and that “inappropriate size” and “poor architectural” quality of the proposed power plant is not acceptable. . "Poor Architechturalty" ... as i understand it, does not necasarily refer only to its aesthetics ........... .... what do you think !! Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

11:40am Tue 24 Jul 12

Georgem says...

southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
UKIPsouthampton wrote:
southy wrote:
Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.
I dont think a wood burner is quite a replacement for Fawley Power Station somehow.
.
There is no chance of Fawley closing anytime soon.
.
This really needs to be looked into properly and carefully and not to objected to because of peoples concerns it may ruin the view from there back gardens. If after careful consideration the power provided from the station is fit for pupous and energy efficient then it should be built. If there is of no benefit to it then of course it needs to be revised. Maybe have a Nuclear Power Plant and some huge wind turbines instead?
.
Maybe the same protestors would be interested in getting involved in the no gravel pit campaign in Hamble?
Fawley as all ready got a closing date. and it is soon.
2015?
No earlier so I been told, it will be totally closed down by sept/oct 2014
End of 2015 according to RWE NPower, who own it:

http://www.rwe.com/w




eb/cms/en/97626/rwe-




npower/about-us/our-




businesses/power-gen




eration/fawley/

Where did you hear 2014? Not that it matters, point is, it is indeed closing down, as you said.
Talks are all ready going on between the Union and RWE, if agreement on redundancys are agree to, it could even be sept/oct this year at the time when the lease runs out on the land that the buildings stand on (even lo its stands on reclaim land, that land is connected to Lord Drummond and makes him the owner of the reclaim land, and was lease out) they have a years grace from the date of the endding of the lease, RWE have all ready decided not to renew the lease.
I'd like to believe you, southy, but as you've shown on this thread

http://www.dailyecho


.co.uk/news/9832154.


Rail_staff_work_to_r


ule_during_Olympics/




you are quite happy to tell endless bare-faced lies simply in order to 'one-up' anybody else posting on any story.

Cite your sources, or don't bother claiming facts.
There was no lies there, I warned you and others what working to rule meant, its what you want and your kind wanted and now you got it you don't like it.
What on earth are you talking about? Work to rule? You're rambling, southy.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]UKIPsouthampton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.[/p][/quote]I dont think a wood burner is quite a replacement for Fawley Power Station somehow. . There is no chance of Fawley closing anytime soon. . This really needs to be looked into properly and carefully and not to objected to because of peoples concerns it may ruin the view from there back gardens. If after careful consideration the power provided from the station is fit for pupous and energy efficient then it should be built. If there is of no benefit to it then of course it needs to be revised. Maybe have a Nuclear Power Plant and some huge wind turbines instead? . Maybe the same protestors would be interested in getting involved in the no gravel pit campaign in Hamble?[/p][/quote]Fawley as all ready got a closing date. and it is soon.[/p][/quote]2015?[/p][/quote]No earlier so I been told, it will be totally closed down by sept/oct 2014[/p][/quote]End of 2015 according to RWE NPower, who own it: http://www.rwe.com/w eb/cms/en/97626/rwe- npower/about-us/our- businesses/power-gen eration/fawley/ Where did you hear 2014? Not that it matters, point is, it is indeed closing down, as you said.[/p][/quote]Talks are all ready going on between the Union and RWE, if agreement on redundancys are agree to, it could even be sept/oct this year at the time when the lease runs out on the land that the buildings stand on (even lo its stands on reclaim land, that land is connected to Lord Drummond and makes him the owner of the reclaim land, and was lease out) they have a years grace from the date of the endding of the lease, RWE have all ready decided not to renew the lease.[/p][/quote]I'd like to believe you, southy, but as you've shown on this thread http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/news/9832154. Rail_staff_work_to_r ule_during_Olympics/ you are quite happy to tell endless bare-faced lies simply in order to 'one-up' anybody else posting on any story. Cite your sources, or don't bother claiming facts.[/p][/quote]There was no lies there, I warned you and others what working to rule meant, its what you want and your kind wanted and now you got it you don't like it.[/p][/quote]What on earth are you talking about? Work to rule? You're rambling, southy. Georgem
  • Score: 0

11:42am Tue 24 Jul 12

southy says...

Fieldbean wrote:
southy wrote:
UKIPsouthampton wrote:
southy wrote: Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.
I dont think a wood burner is quite a replacement for Fawley Power Station somehow. . There is no chance of Fawley closing anytime soon. . This really needs to be looked into properly and carefully and not to objected to because of peoples concerns it may ruin the view from there back gardens. If after careful consideration the power provided from the station is fit for pupous and energy efficient then it should be built. If there is of no benefit to it then of course it needs to be revised. Maybe have a Nuclear Power Plant and some huge wind turbines instead? . Maybe the same protestors would be interested in getting involved in the no gravel pit campaign in Hamble?
Fawley as all ready got a closing date. and it is soon.
Fawley must close by 2015,

Southy 1 - Others 0
That is correct and that means any thing left there on Jan 1st 2015 will become the property of Lord Dummond, who is the land owner when the lease runs out.
[quote][p][bold]Fieldbean[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]UKIPsouthampton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.[/p][/quote]I dont think a wood burner is quite a replacement for Fawley Power Station somehow. . There is no chance of Fawley closing anytime soon. . This really needs to be looked into properly and carefully and not to objected to because of peoples concerns it may ruin the view from there back gardens. If after careful consideration the power provided from the station is fit for pupous and energy efficient then it should be built. If there is of no benefit to it then of course it needs to be revised. Maybe have a Nuclear Power Plant and some huge wind turbines instead? . Maybe the same protestors would be interested in getting involved in the no gravel pit campaign in Hamble?[/p][/quote]Fawley as all ready got a closing date. and it is soon.[/p][/quote]Fawley must close by 2015, Southy 1 - Others 0[/p][/quote]That is correct and that means any thing left there on Jan 1st 2015 will become the property of Lord Dummond, who is the land owner when the lease runs out. southy
  • Score: 0

11:44am Tue 24 Jul 12

Georgem says...

southy wrote:
Fieldbean wrote:
southy wrote:
UKIPsouthampton wrote:
southy wrote: Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.
I dont think a wood burner is quite a replacement for Fawley Power Station somehow. . There is no chance of Fawley closing anytime soon. . This really needs to be looked into properly and carefully and not to objected to because of peoples concerns it may ruin the view from there back gardens. If after careful consideration the power provided from the station is fit for pupous and energy efficient then it should be built. If there is of no benefit to it then of course it needs to be revised. Maybe have a Nuclear Power Plant and some huge wind turbines instead? . Maybe the same protestors would be interested in getting involved in the no gravel pit campaign in Hamble?
Fawley as all ready got a closing date. and it is soon.
Fawley must close by 2015,

Southy 1 - Others 0
That is correct and that means any thing left there on Jan 1st 2015 will become the property of Lord Dummond, who is the land owner when the lease runs out.
Cite your source for that. I've cited a source, a credible source, from the owners of the plant, that disagrees. If you're going to say otherwise, show us why.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fieldbean[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]UKIPsouthampton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.[/p][/quote]I dont think a wood burner is quite a replacement for Fawley Power Station somehow. . There is no chance of Fawley closing anytime soon. . This really needs to be looked into properly and carefully and not to objected to because of peoples concerns it may ruin the view from there back gardens. If after careful consideration the power provided from the station is fit for pupous and energy efficient then it should be built. If there is of no benefit to it then of course it needs to be revised. Maybe have a Nuclear Power Plant and some huge wind turbines instead? . Maybe the same protestors would be interested in getting involved in the no gravel pit campaign in Hamble?[/p][/quote]Fawley as all ready got a closing date. and it is soon.[/p][/quote]Fawley must close by 2015, Southy 1 - Others 0[/p][/quote]That is correct and that means any thing left there on Jan 1st 2015 will become the property of Lord Dummond, who is the land owner when the lease runs out.[/p][/quote]Cite your source for that. I've cited a source, a credible source, from the owners of the plant, that disagrees. If you're going to say otherwise, show us why. Georgem
  • Score: 0

12:06pm Tue 24 Jul 12

The Watcher says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
The Watcher wrote:
Poor decision from the Council on this one and although I can understand and sympathise with local Councillors representing their constituents, I do think that sometimes some has to take a broader view on these issues.
.
I'm afraid the NIMBY lobby need to be overruled. Biomass will be an integral part of a balanced energy portfolio formtis country.
.
The only objection is on aesthetic reasons as the arguments citing pollution, unsustainabke biomass fuel requirements, its lack of "green" green credentials have been comprehensively debunked.
.
And as for aesthetic objections it is being built on industrial land that has been the site, or near to a number, of factories etc.
.
I am not sure that that i fully undersatand or agree about the only objections being aesthetic.
.
Quote:- Councillors approved recommendations from planners who said “insufficient” detail has been provided to properly assess the scheme's impact on air quality and that “inappropriate size” and “poor architectural” quality of the proposed power plant is not acceptable.
.
"Poor Architechturalty" ... as i understand it, does not necasarily refer only to its aesthetics ...........
.... what do you think !!
Well the issue here is that Biomass energy is widely accepted as being an integral part of a diverse energy mix for the future. And this includes research and safeguards relating to pollution (noise, air etc).
.
We are not the first Administraton to be siting one and so I think it is stretching it somewhat to be opposing it on any of the various myths being peddled by the No camp that have already been debunked.
.
The only opposition can be related to aesthetics and how it fits in with the local area. Given this was and still is an industrial heartland, it seems somewhat ridiculous to oppose a power plant that will reside next to cranes, factories, storage facilities, salt and gravel mountains etc.
.
Now if it was suggested to be built on St James', The Common or Green Park, than aesthetic impact and loss of green fields might come in to play.
.
But as it stands, it is NIMBYism at its worst, whipped up by those citing false evidence, supported by oppurtunistic Councillors and an oppurtunistic Council, aided and abetted by a sensational newspaper.
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Watcher[/bold] wrote: Poor decision from the Council on this one and although I can understand and sympathise with local Councillors representing their constituents, I do think that sometimes some has to take a broader view on these issues. . I'm afraid the NIMBY lobby need to be overruled. Biomass will be an integral part of a balanced energy portfolio formtis country. . The only objection is on aesthetic reasons as the arguments citing pollution, unsustainabke biomass fuel requirements, its lack of "green" green credentials have been comprehensively debunked. . And as for aesthetic objections it is being built on industrial land that has been the site, or near to a number, of factories etc. .[/p][/quote]I am not sure that that i fully undersatand or agree about the only objections being aesthetic. . Quote:- Councillors approved recommendations from planners who said “insufficient” detail has been provided to properly assess the scheme's impact on air quality and that “inappropriate size” and “poor architectural” quality of the proposed power plant is not acceptable. . "Poor Architechturalty" ... as i understand it, does not necasarily refer only to its aesthetics ........... .... what do you think !![/p][/quote]Well the issue here is that Biomass energy is widely accepted as being an integral part of a diverse energy mix for the future. And this includes research and safeguards relating to pollution (noise, air etc). . We are not the first Administraton to be siting one and so I think it is stretching it somewhat to be opposing it on any of the various myths being peddled by the No camp that have already been debunked. . The only opposition can be related to aesthetics and how it fits in with the local area. Given this was and still is an industrial heartland, it seems somewhat ridiculous to oppose a power plant that will reside next to cranes, factories, storage facilities, salt and gravel mountains etc. . Now if it was suggested to be built on St James', The Common or Green Park, than aesthetic impact and loss of green fields might come in to play. . But as it stands, it is NIMBYism at its worst, whipped up by those citing false evidence, supported by oppurtunistic Councillors and an oppurtunistic Council, aided and abetted by a sensational newspaper. The Watcher
  • Score: 0

12:08pm Tue 24 Jul 12

The Watcher says...

Opportunistic!!
.
**** iPads!!!
Opportunistic!! . **** iPads!!! The Watcher
  • Score: 0

12:10pm Tue 24 Jul 12

southy says...

Citing of the internet is not a credible source it will change and with out reason, books are a credidle source they are wrinten in black and white and can not change apart from amement editions ay a later date.
Now if you want to find out what is going on get some one who works there and belongs to the Unions that are in that place.
the lease runs out this year, there is a years grace on the lease after the years grace you have a settling period. that will bring you to December 31st 2012.
Unions are in Talks now and have been for the last 2 mths of my knowledge, all that is needed to be sorted out is the redundancys payoff.
Citing of the internet is not a credible source it will change and with out reason, books are a credidle source they are wrinten in black and white and can not change apart from amement editions ay a later date. Now if you want to find out what is going on get some one who works there and belongs to the Unions that are in that place. the lease runs out this year, there is a years grace on the lease after the years grace you have a settling period. that will bring you to December 31st 2012. Unions are in Talks now and have been for the last 2 mths of my knowledge, all that is needed to be sorted out is the redundancys payoff. southy
  • Score: 0

12:14pm Tue 24 Jul 12

Georgem says...

southy wrote:
Citing of the internet is not a credible source it will change and with out reason, books are a credidle source they are wrinten in black and white and can not change apart from amement editions ay a later date.
Now if you want to find out what is going on get some one who works there and belongs to the Unions that are in that place.
the lease runs out this year, there is a years grace on the lease after the years grace you have a settling period. that will bring you to December 31st 2012.
Unions are in Talks now and have been for the last 2 mths of my knowledge, all that is needed to be sorted out is the redundancys payoff.
Citing online sources is good enough for the entire scientific community southy. This isn't 1995, where the Internet was some wild west. Information on official organisational websites is every bit as credible as a book. You cannot repeatedly use that to wriggle out of things. The internet was certainly good enough for you last week when you claimed to have quoted a man who did not even exist.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Citing of the internet is not a credible source it will change and with out reason, books are a credidle source they are wrinten in black and white and can not change apart from amement editions ay a later date. Now if you want to find out what is going on get some one who works there and belongs to the Unions that are in that place. the lease runs out this year, there is a years grace on the lease after the years grace you have a settling period. that will bring you to December 31st 2012. Unions are in Talks now and have been for the last 2 mths of my knowledge, all that is needed to be sorted out is the redundancys payoff.[/p][/quote]Citing online sources is good enough for the entire scientific community southy. This isn't 1995, where the Internet was some wild west. Information on official organisational websites is every bit as credible as a book. You cannot repeatedly use that to wriggle out of things. The internet was certainly good enough for you last week when you claimed to have quoted a man who did not even exist. Georgem
  • Score: 0

12:18pm Tue 24 Jul 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.
I mentioned several times why it is not ideal Southy - There is no deepwater channel as charts prove, and the existing plant is unsuitable or unusable, it has no rail link and inferior road links. I sailed to Ashlett Creek last week and everyone who knows Ashlett knows there is no deepwater channel to the power station - the cooling water inlet is far too small. You keep referring to those moored bulk carriers as being off Fawley but as every sailor knows they were moored off Netley on the ship moorings! You cite environmental reasons for preferring Fawley but simple eyesight and common sense should tell you and any other local resident that that the place of least envionmental impact of any chimney is right next to it - yet you have this strange belief that 10 miles upwind is somehow going to be cleaner or better when it is actually worse. What is your reasoning for this?
Andy read your charts, one is the intake is not located at Ashlett creek, what is located at Ashlett Creek is the old Tidal Mill which is now a Pub, the power station is located down river from Ashlett its closer to Calshot village than Ashlett village.
The channel leading into the intake where they was going to have the dock before change of plans,is 4m deep at at 0-0 spring low water, add on to that high water springs of 4-9 and you have a channal that is more than deep enough to take bulk carriers, it is as deep as the spot they call the natural deep in Southampton Waters,
Those bulk carriers was not just moored on netley moorings, there was also one in Southampton western docks the biggest one of them all, there was another over in machwood, and the one I told you about that was moored in Fawley intake channal,
Esso Refinery some times use the quay wall inside Fawley power station to off load vessels that are built in Italy, most of the vessels tanks came in though Fawley apart from the 3 biggest ones they came in from the Marchwood Military camp that was for the Residerfinder plant when it was being built.
For Gods sake Southy that is just mixture of irrelevance, random fact and innacuracy. Do you think I don;t know which channel I'm sailing up? Where you seem to think there is a deepwater channel there is nothing but a small tidal creek - and you are suggesting bulk carriers are just going to sail up it and then moor next to the nonexistent quay and be unloaded by nonexistent cranes onto nonexistent hardstanding? Of course Esso do not use a facility that does not exist and don't take my word for it either - just go onto Multimap or Google Earth and select the aerial view - you and everyone else can see that you are talking rubbish. Don't bother to reply until you've signed on and checked this for yourself.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.[/p][/quote]I mentioned several times why it is not ideal Southy - There is no deepwater channel as charts prove, and the existing plant is unsuitable or unusable, it has no rail link and inferior road links. I sailed to Ashlett Creek last week and everyone who knows Ashlett knows there is no deepwater channel to the power station - the cooling water inlet is far too small. You keep referring to those moored bulk carriers as being off Fawley but as every sailor knows they were moored off Netley on the ship moorings! You cite environmental reasons for preferring Fawley but simple eyesight and common sense should tell you and any other local resident that that the place of least envionmental impact of any chimney is right next to it - yet you have this strange belief that 10 miles upwind is somehow going to be cleaner or better when it is actually worse. What is your reasoning for this?[/p][/quote]Andy read your charts, one is the intake is not located at Ashlett creek, what is located at Ashlett Creek is the old Tidal Mill which is now a Pub, the power station is located down river from Ashlett its closer to Calshot village than Ashlett village. The channel leading into the intake where they was going to have the dock before change of plans,is 4m deep at at 0-0 spring low water, add on to that high water springs of 4-9 and you have a channal that is more than deep enough to take bulk carriers, it is as deep as the spot they call the natural deep in Southampton Waters, Those bulk carriers was not just moored on netley moorings, there was also one in Southampton western docks the biggest one of them all, there was another over in machwood, and the one I told you about that was moored in Fawley intake channal, Esso Refinery some times use the quay wall inside Fawley power station to off load vessels that are built in Italy, most of the vessels tanks came in though Fawley apart from the 3 biggest ones they came in from the Marchwood Military camp that was for the Residerfinder plant when it was being built.[/p][/quote]For Gods sake Southy that is just mixture of irrelevance, random fact and innacuracy. Do you think I don;t know which channel I'm sailing up? Where you seem to think there is a deepwater channel there is nothing but a small tidal creek - and you are suggesting bulk carriers are just going to sail up it and then moor next to the nonexistent quay and be unloaded by nonexistent cranes onto nonexistent hardstanding? Of course Esso do not use a facility that does not exist and don't take my word for it either - just go onto Multimap or Google Earth and select the aerial view - you and everyone else can see that you are talking rubbish. Don't bother to reply until you've signed on and checked this for yourself. Andy Locks Heath
  • Score: 0

12:21pm Tue 24 Jul 12

Georgem says...

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.
I mentioned several times why it is not ideal Southy - There is no deepwater channel as charts prove, and the existing plant is unsuitable or unusable, it has no rail link and inferior road links. I sailed to Ashlett Creek last week and everyone who knows Ashlett knows there is no deepwater channel to the power station - the cooling water inlet is far too small. You keep referring to those moored bulk carriers as being off Fawley but as every sailor knows they were moored off Netley on the ship moorings! You cite environmental reasons for preferring Fawley but simple eyesight and common sense should tell you and any other local resident that that the place of least envionmental impact of any chimney is right next to it - yet you have this strange belief that 10 miles upwind is somehow going to be cleaner or better when it is actually worse. What is your reasoning for this?
Andy read your charts, one is the intake is not located at Ashlett creek, what is located at Ashlett Creek is the old Tidal Mill which is now a Pub, the power station is located down river from Ashlett its closer to Calshot village than Ashlett village.
The channel leading into the intake where they was going to have the dock before change of plans,is 4m deep at at 0-0 spring low water, add on to that high water springs of 4-9 and you have a channal that is more than deep enough to take bulk carriers, it is as deep as the spot they call the natural deep in Southampton Waters,
Those bulk carriers was not just moored on netley moorings, there was also one in Southampton western docks the biggest one of them all, there was another over in machwood, and the one I told you about that was moored in Fawley intake channal,
Esso Refinery some times use the quay wall inside Fawley power station to off load vessels that are built in Italy, most of the vessels tanks came in though Fawley apart from the 3 biggest ones they came in from the Marchwood Military camp that was for the Residerfinder plant when it was being built.
For Gods sake Southy that is just mixture of irrelevance, random fact and innacuracy. Do you think I don;t know which channel I'm sailing up? Where you seem to think there is a deepwater channel there is nothing but a small tidal creek - and you are suggesting bulk carriers are just going to sail up it and then moor next to the nonexistent quay and be unloaded by nonexistent cranes onto nonexistent hardstanding? Of course Esso do not use a facility that does not exist and don't take my word for it either - just go onto Multimap or Google Earth and select the aerial view - you and everyone else can see that you are talking rubbish. Don't bother to reply until you've signed on and checked this for yourself.
The Internet is a work of fiction, don't forget.
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.[/p][/quote]I mentioned several times why it is not ideal Southy - There is no deepwater channel as charts prove, and the existing plant is unsuitable or unusable, it has no rail link and inferior road links. I sailed to Ashlett Creek last week and everyone who knows Ashlett knows there is no deepwater channel to the power station - the cooling water inlet is far too small. You keep referring to those moored bulk carriers as being off Fawley but as every sailor knows they were moored off Netley on the ship moorings! You cite environmental reasons for preferring Fawley but simple eyesight and common sense should tell you and any other local resident that that the place of least envionmental impact of any chimney is right next to it - yet you have this strange belief that 10 miles upwind is somehow going to be cleaner or better when it is actually worse. What is your reasoning for this?[/p][/quote]Andy read your charts, one is the intake is not located at Ashlett creek, what is located at Ashlett Creek is the old Tidal Mill which is now a Pub, the power station is located down river from Ashlett its closer to Calshot village than Ashlett village. The channel leading into the intake where they was going to have the dock before change of plans,is 4m deep at at 0-0 spring low water, add on to that high water springs of 4-9 and you have a channal that is more than deep enough to take bulk carriers, it is as deep as the spot they call the natural deep in Southampton Waters, Those bulk carriers was not just moored on netley moorings, there was also one in Southampton western docks the biggest one of them all, there was another over in machwood, and the one I told you about that was moored in Fawley intake channal, Esso Refinery some times use the quay wall inside Fawley power station to off load vessels that are built in Italy, most of the vessels tanks came in though Fawley apart from the 3 biggest ones they came in from the Marchwood Military camp that was for the Residerfinder plant when it was being built.[/p][/quote]For Gods sake Southy that is just mixture of irrelevance, random fact and innacuracy. Do you think I don;t know which channel I'm sailing up? Where you seem to think there is a deepwater channel there is nothing but a small tidal creek - and you are suggesting bulk carriers are just going to sail up it and then moor next to the nonexistent quay and be unloaded by nonexistent cranes onto nonexistent hardstanding? Of course Esso do not use a facility that does not exist and don't take my word for it either - just go onto Multimap or Google Earth and select the aerial view - you and everyone else can see that you are talking rubbish. Don't bother to reply until you've signed on and checked this for yourself.[/p][/quote]The Internet is a work of fiction, don't forget. Georgem
  • Score: 0

12:25pm Tue 24 Jul 12

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
Citing of the internet is not a credible source it will change and with out reason, books are a credidle source they are wrinten in black and white and can not change apart from amement editions ay a later date.
Now if you want to find out what is going on get some one who works there and belongs to the Unions that are in that place.
the lease runs out this year, there is a years grace on the lease after the years grace you have a settling period. that will bring you to December 31st 2012.
Unions are in Talks now and have been for the last 2 mths of my knowledge, all that is needed to be sorted out is the redundancys payoff.
Citing the Internet gives everyone the latest information because it can be kept up to date so easily whereas your local library won't buy reference books every time there is an update. In a nutshell, you are the one most in danger of quoting the wrong facts like for example there being a 'Residerfinder' plant on the refinery at Fawley. For the latest information on the refinery you can call 02380-892511 but I don't suppose you'll believe anything that the owners of the refinery tell you.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Citing of the internet is not a credible source it will change and with out reason, books are a credidle source they are wrinten in black and white and can not change apart from amement editions ay a later date. Now if you want to find out what is going on get some one who works there and belongs to the Unions that are in that place. the lease runs out this year, there is a years grace on the lease after the years grace you have a settling period. that will bring you to December 31st 2012. Unions are in Talks now and have been for the last 2 mths of my knowledge, all that is needed to be sorted out is the redundancys payoff.[/p][/quote]Citing the Internet gives everyone the latest information because it can be kept up to date so easily whereas your local library won't buy reference books every time there is an update. In a nutshell, you are the one most in danger of quoting the wrong facts like for example there being a 'Residerfinder' plant on the refinery at Fawley. For the latest information on the refinery you can call 02380-892511 but I don't suppose you'll believe anything that the owners of the refinery tell you. Torchie1
  • Score: 0

12:44pm Tue 24 Jul 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

There is nothing wrong with the internet as I suspect most here know but even a pencil is dangerous in the hands of an idiot. Here is a copy of the chart showing the nonexistent channel to the noneexistent quayside
http://www.visitmyha
rbour.com/viewchart.
asp?chart=D7BA25F528
7F32406
and in case you think that is some some sort of weird conspiracy to hide the channel here is a link to a power station aerial view http://www.bing.com/
maps/?FORM=MMREDR#Jn
E9LmZhd2xleSU3ZXNzdC
4wJTdlcGcuMSZiYj01My
42NDc2OTk0MzEzMDQzJT
dlNS43MTE3NDkxOTY1JT
dlNDcuODc1NjA4NDExND
A4MiU3ZS04LjI2Mjg2MD
E3ODU= - Just select birds eye view. It would take a second Dibden Bay to create the wharfage necessary to land the feedstock so Southampton Western Docks is clearly, obviously and economically the only place where this station could be located in this region
There is nothing wrong with the internet as I suspect most here know but even a pencil is dangerous in the hands of an idiot. Here is a copy of the chart showing the nonexistent channel to the noneexistent quayside http://www.visitmyha rbour.com/viewchart. asp?chart=D7BA25F528 7F32406 and in case you think that is some some sort of weird conspiracy to hide the channel here is a link to a power station aerial view http://www.bing.com/ maps/?FORM=MMREDR#Jn E9LmZhd2xleSU3ZXNzdC 4wJTdlcGcuMSZiYj01My 42NDc2OTk0MzEzMDQzJT dlNS43MTE3NDkxOTY1JT dlNDcuODc1NjA4NDExND A4MiU3ZS04LjI2Mjg2MD E3ODU= - Just select birds eye view. It would take a second Dibden Bay to create the wharfage necessary to land the feedstock so Southampton Western Docks is clearly, obviously and economically the only place where this station could be located in this region Andy Locks Heath
  • Score: 0

1:03pm Tue 24 Jul 12

southy says...

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.
I mentioned several times why it is not ideal Southy - There is no deepwater channel as charts prove, and the existing plant is unsuitable or unusable, it has no rail link and inferior road links. I sailed to Ashlett Creek last week and everyone who knows Ashlett knows there is no deepwater channel to the power station - the cooling water inlet is far too small. You keep referring to those moored bulk carriers as being off Fawley but as every sailor knows they were moored off Netley on the ship moorings! You cite environmental reasons for preferring Fawley but simple eyesight and common sense should tell you and any other local resident that that the place of least envionmental impact of any chimney is right next to it - yet you have this strange belief that 10 miles upwind is somehow going to be cleaner or better when it is actually worse. What is your reasoning for this?
Andy read your charts, one is the intake is not located at Ashlett creek, what is located at Ashlett Creek is the old Tidal Mill which is now a Pub, the power station is located down river from Ashlett its closer to Calshot village than Ashlett village.
The channel leading into the intake where they was going to have the dock before change of plans,is 4m deep at at 0-0 spring low water, add on to that high water springs of 4-9 and you have a channal that is more than deep enough to take bulk carriers, it is as deep as the spot they call the natural deep in Southampton Waters,
Those bulk carriers was not just moored on netley moorings, there was also one in Southampton western docks the biggest one of them all, there was another over in machwood, and the one I told you about that was moored in Fawley intake channal,
Esso Refinery some times use the quay wall inside Fawley power station to off load vessels that are built in Italy, most of the vessels tanks came in though Fawley apart from the 3 biggest ones they came in from the Marchwood Military camp that was for the Residerfinder plant when it was being built.
For Gods sake Southy that is just mixture of irrelevance, random fact and innacuracy. Do you think I don;t know which channel I'm sailing up? Where you seem to think there is a deepwater channel there is nothing but a small tidal creek - and you are suggesting bulk carriers are just going to sail up it and then moor next to the nonexistent quay and be unloaded by nonexistent cranes onto nonexistent hardstanding? Of course Esso do not use a facility that does not exist and don't take my word for it either - just go onto Multimap or Google Earth and select the aerial view - you and everyone else can see that you are talking rubbish. Don't bother to reply until you've signed on and checked this for yourself.
Was not sure Andy
if you was or was't, if you had you would not off be the first to do so it happens.
Is not small Andy far from it, and its not a creek, its a channel that was cut out and dredge, for the purpose for the intake and be use for Coal bulk carriers, Once you get pass the bridge you have about a 300 meter docking area (each secton is just over 100 meter long), purpose build chip bulk carriers are a lot smaller and shallow draft ships, they are nothing like the size of a iron ore or grain carriers, also these ships carry there own lifting gear, and discharge by there own crew.
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.[/p][/quote]I mentioned several times why it is not ideal Southy - There is no deepwater channel as charts prove, and the existing plant is unsuitable or unusable, it has no rail link and inferior road links. I sailed to Ashlett Creek last week and everyone who knows Ashlett knows there is no deepwater channel to the power station - the cooling water inlet is far too small. You keep referring to those moored bulk carriers as being off Fawley but as every sailor knows they were moored off Netley on the ship moorings! You cite environmental reasons for preferring Fawley but simple eyesight and common sense should tell you and any other local resident that that the place of least envionmental impact of any chimney is right next to it - yet you have this strange belief that 10 miles upwind is somehow going to be cleaner or better when it is actually worse. What is your reasoning for this?[/p][/quote]Andy read your charts, one is the intake is not located at Ashlett creek, what is located at Ashlett Creek is the old Tidal Mill which is now a Pub, the power station is located down river from Ashlett its closer to Calshot village than Ashlett village. The channel leading into the intake where they was going to have the dock before change of plans,is 4m deep at at 0-0 spring low water, add on to that high water springs of 4-9 and you have a channal that is more than deep enough to take bulk carriers, it is as deep as the spot they call the natural deep in Southampton Waters, Those bulk carriers was not just moored on netley moorings, there was also one in Southampton western docks the biggest one of them all, there was another over in machwood, and the one I told you about that was moored in Fawley intake channal, Esso Refinery some times use the quay wall inside Fawley power station to off load vessels that are built in Italy, most of the vessels tanks came in though Fawley apart from the 3 biggest ones they came in from the Marchwood Military camp that was for the Residerfinder plant when it was being built.[/p][/quote]For Gods sake Southy that is just mixture of irrelevance, random fact and innacuracy. Do you think I don;t know which channel I'm sailing up? Where you seem to think there is a deepwater channel there is nothing but a small tidal creek - and you are suggesting bulk carriers are just going to sail up it and then moor next to the nonexistent quay and be unloaded by nonexistent cranes onto nonexistent hardstanding? Of course Esso do not use a facility that does not exist and don't take my word for it either - just go onto Multimap or Google Earth and select the aerial view - you and everyone else can see that you are talking rubbish. Don't bother to reply until you've signed on and checked this for yourself.[/p][/quote]Was not sure Andy if you was or was't, if you had you would not off be the first to do so it happens. Is not small Andy far from it, and its not a creek, its a channel that was cut out and dredge, for the purpose for the intake and be use for Coal bulk carriers, Once you get pass the bridge you have about a 300 meter docking area (each secton is just over 100 meter long), purpose build chip bulk carriers are a lot smaller and shallow draft ships, they are nothing like the size of a iron ore or grain carriers, also these ships carry there own lifting gear, and discharge by there own crew. southy
  • Score: 0

1:20pm Tue 24 Jul 12

southy says...

Andy go and buy a real chart that is done by the Navy hydrographers and learn to read the what the numbers mean on the chart, and look for the C.E.O.B. approach. That is the channel to the intake, and on the sea ward side of the bridge there is a turning round area 300m x 300m that is bigger than berry turning around area.
Andy go and buy a real chart that is done by the Navy hydrographers and learn to read the what the numbers mean on the chart, and look for the C.E.O.B. approach. That is the channel to the intake, and on the sea ward side of the bridge there is a turning round area 300m x 300m that is bigger than berry turning around area. southy
  • Score: 0

1:21pm Tue 24 Jul 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.
I mentioned several times why it is not ideal Southy - There is no deepwater channel as charts prove, and the existing plant is unsuitable or unusable, it has no rail link and inferior road links. I sailed to Ashlett Creek last week and everyone who knows Ashlett knows there is no deepwater channel to the power station - the cooling water inlet is far too small. You keep referring to those moored bulk carriers as being off Fawley but as every sailor knows they were moored off Netley on the ship moorings! You cite environmental reasons for preferring Fawley but simple eyesight and common sense should tell you and any other local resident that that the place of least envionmental impact of any chimney is right next to it - yet you have this strange belief that 10 miles upwind is somehow going to be cleaner or better when it is actually worse. What is your reasoning for this?
Andy read your charts, one is the intake is not located at Ashlett creek, what is located at Ashlett Creek is the old Tidal Mill which is now a Pub, the power station is located down river from Ashlett its closer to Calshot village than Ashlett village.
The channel leading into the intake where they was going to have the dock before change of plans,is 4m deep at at 0-0 spring low water, add on to that high water springs of 4-9 and you have a channal that is more than deep enough to take bulk carriers, it is as deep as the spot they call the natural deep in Southampton Waters,
Those bulk carriers was not just moored on netley moorings, there was also one in Southampton western docks the biggest one of them all, there was another over in machwood, and the one I told you about that was moored in Fawley intake channal,
Esso Refinery some times use the quay wall inside Fawley power station to off load vessels that are built in Italy, most of the vessels tanks came in though Fawley apart from the 3 biggest ones they came in from the Marchwood Military camp that was for the Residerfinder plant when it was being built.
For Gods sake Southy that is just mixture of irrelevance, random fact and innacuracy. Do you think I don;t know which channel I'm sailing up? Where you seem to think there is a deepwater channel there is nothing but a small tidal creek - and you are suggesting bulk carriers are just going to sail up it and then moor next to the nonexistent quay and be unloaded by nonexistent cranes onto nonexistent hardstanding? Of course Esso do not use a facility that does not exist and don't take my word for it either - just go onto Multimap or Google Earth and select the aerial view - you and everyone else can see that you are talking rubbish. Don't bother to reply until you've signed on and checked this for yourself.
Was not sure Andy
if you was or was't, if you had you would not off be the first to do so it happens.
Is not small Andy far from it, and its not a creek, its a channel that was cut out and dredge, for the purpose for the intake and be use for Coal bulk carriers, Once you get pass the bridge you have about a 300 meter docking area (each secton is just over 100 meter long), purpose build chip bulk carriers are a lot smaller and shallow draft ships, they are nothing like the size of a iron ore or grain carriers, also these ships carry there own lifting gear, and discharge by there own crew.
Southy you are mixing up Fawley "A" which is what we see today and Fawley "B" which was never built. I have copies of all the plans for Fawley B and you are correct that it included a wharf for the import of coal. (probably from South America). Had Fawley B been built much of what you say would have been true, but none of it ever got beyond the planning stage including dredging and piling.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.[/p][/quote]I mentioned several times why it is not ideal Southy - There is no deepwater channel as charts prove, and the existing plant is unsuitable or unusable, it has no rail link and inferior road links. I sailed to Ashlett Creek last week and everyone who knows Ashlett knows there is no deepwater channel to the power station - the cooling water inlet is far too small. You keep referring to those moored bulk carriers as being off Fawley but as every sailor knows they were moored off Netley on the ship moorings! You cite environmental reasons for preferring Fawley but simple eyesight and common sense should tell you and any other local resident that that the place of least envionmental impact of any chimney is right next to it - yet you have this strange belief that 10 miles upwind is somehow going to be cleaner or better when it is actually worse. What is your reasoning for this?[/p][/quote]Andy read your charts, one is the intake is not located at Ashlett creek, what is located at Ashlett Creek is the old Tidal Mill which is now a Pub, the power station is located down river from Ashlett its closer to Calshot village than Ashlett village. The channel leading into the intake where they was going to have the dock before change of plans,is 4m deep at at 0-0 spring low water, add on to that high water springs of 4-9 and you have a channal that is more than deep enough to take bulk carriers, it is as deep as the spot they call the natural deep in Southampton Waters, Those bulk carriers was not just moored on netley moorings, there was also one in Southampton western docks the biggest one of them all, there was another over in machwood, and the one I told you about that was moored in Fawley intake channal, Esso Refinery some times use the quay wall inside Fawley power station to off load vessels that are built in Italy, most of the vessels tanks came in though Fawley apart from the 3 biggest ones they came in from the Marchwood Military camp that was for the Residerfinder plant when it was being built.[/p][/quote]For Gods sake Southy that is just mixture of irrelevance, random fact and innacuracy. Do you think I don;t know which channel I'm sailing up? Where you seem to think there is a deepwater channel there is nothing but a small tidal creek - and you are suggesting bulk carriers are just going to sail up it and then moor next to the nonexistent quay and be unloaded by nonexistent cranes onto nonexistent hardstanding? Of course Esso do not use a facility that does not exist and don't take my word for it either - just go onto Multimap or Google Earth and select the aerial view - you and everyone else can see that you are talking rubbish. Don't bother to reply until you've signed on and checked this for yourself.[/p][/quote]Was not sure Andy if you was or was't, if you had you would not off be the first to do so it happens. Is not small Andy far from it, and its not a creek, its a channel that was cut out and dredge, for the purpose for the intake and be use for Coal bulk carriers, Once you get pass the bridge you have about a 300 meter docking area (each secton is just over 100 meter long), purpose build chip bulk carriers are a lot smaller and shallow draft ships, they are nothing like the size of a iron ore or grain carriers, also these ships carry there own lifting gear, and discharge by there own crew.[/p][/quote]Southy you are mixing up Fawley "A" which is what we see today and Fawley "B" which was never built. I have copies of all the plans for Fawley B and you are correct that it included a wharf for the import of coal. (probably from South America). Had Fawley B been built much of what you say would have been true, but none of it ever got beyond the planning stage including dredging and piling. Andy Locks Heath
  • Score: 0

1:34pm Tue 24 Jul 12

southy says...

Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Citing of the internet is not a credible source it will change and with out reason, books are a credidle source they are wrinten in black and white and can not change apart from amement editions ay a later date.
Now if you want to find out what is going on get some one who works there and belongs to the Unions that are in that place.
the lease runs out this year, there is a years grace on the lease after the years grace you have a settling period. that will bring you to December 31st 2012.
Unions are in Talks now and have been for the last 2 mths of my knowledge, all that is needed to be sorted out is the redundancys payoff.
Citing the Internet gives everyone the latest information because it can be kept up to date so easily whereas your local library won't buy reference books every time there is an update. In a nutshell, you are the one most in danger of quoting the wrong facts like for example there being a 'Residerfinder' plant on the refinery at Fawley. For the latest information on the refinery you can call 02380-892511 but I don't suppose you'll believe anything that the owners of the refinery tell you.
I was on the contract that built the Residfinder plant, how about that for first hand information, The 3 largest plant vessals came in though Marchwood Military Quay and was taken to Fawley by road, the road carriers was built by Citreon, each wheel had a man steering it, each vessal also had an escort of not just the Police and Fire Service, it had the water board there and gas board also 12 riggers walking along side.
The Smaller plant vessels came in though Fawley power station it was a plant carrier ship that bought them in and moored up on Southern Road/ Quay Road inside the power station.
the residfinder was started in 1989 with the ground works that was Mowlems who had that contract, Davy had the bulk of the contract who subcontract the built of the plant to Costains. this is not lastest information on what is going on there today, this is first hand imformation that went on when the place was first built.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Citing of the internet is not a credible source it will change and with out reason, books are a credidle source they are wrinten in black and white and can not change apart from amement editions ay a later date. Now if you want to find out what is going on get some one who works there and belongs to the Unions that are in that place. the lease runs out this year, there is a years grace on the lease after the years grace you have a settling period. that will bring you to December 31st 2012. Unions are in Talks now and have been for the last 2 mths of my knowledge, all that is needed to be sorted out is the redundancys payoff.[/p][/quote]Citing the Internet gives everyone the latest information because it can be kept up to date so easily whereas your local library won't buy reference books every time there is an update. In a nutshell, you are the one most in danger of quoting the wrong facts like for example there being a 'Residerfinder' plant on the refinery at Fawley. For the latest information on the refinery you can call 02380-892511 but I don't suppose you'll believe anything that the owners of the refinery tell you.[/p][/quote]I was on the contract that built the Residfinder plant, how about that for first hand information, The 3 largest plant vessals came in though Marchwood Military Quay and was taken to Fawley by road, the road carriers was built by Citreon, each wheel had a man steering it, each vessal also had an escort of not just the Police and Fire Service, it had the water board there and gas board also 12 riggers walking along side. The Smaller plant vessels came in though Fawley power station it was a plant carrier ship that bought them in and moored up on Southern Road/ Quay Road inside the power station. the residfinder was started in 1989 with the ground works that was Mowlems who had that contract, Davy had the bulk of the contract who subcontract the built of the plant to Costains. this is not lastest information on what is going on there today, this is first hand imformation that went on when the place was first built. southy
  • Score: 0

1:39pm Tue 24 Jul 12

southy says...

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.
I mentioned several times why it is not ideal Southy - There is no deepwater channel as charts prove, and the existing plant is unsuitable or unusable, it has no rail link and inferior road links. I sailed to Ashlett Creek last week and everyone who knows Ashlett knows there is no deepwater channel to the power station - the cooling water inlet is far too small. You keep referring to those moored bulk carriers as being off Fawley but as every sailor knows they were moored off Netley on the ship moorings! You cite environmental reasons for preferring Fawley but simple eyesight and common sense should tell you and any other local resident that that the place of least envionmental impact of any chimney is right next to it - yet you have this strange belief that 10 miles upwind is somehow going to be cleaner or better when it is actually worse. What is your reasoning for this?
Andy read your charts, one is the intake is not located at Ashlett creek, what is located at Ashlett Creek is the old Tidal Mill which is now a Pub, the power station is located down river from Ashlett its closer to Calshot village than Ashlett village.
The channel leading into the intake where they was going to have the dock before change of plans,is 4m deep at at 0-0 spring low water, add on to that high water springs of 4-9 and you have a channal that is more than deep enough to take bulk carriers, it is as deep as the spot they call the natural deep in Southampton Waters,
Those bulk carriers was not just moored on netley moorings, there was also one in Southampton western docks the biggest one of them all, there was another over in machwood, and the one I told you about that was moored in Fawley intake channal,
Esso Refinery some times use the quay wall inside Fawley power station to off load vessels that are built in Italy, most of the vessels tanks came in though Fawley apart from the 3 biggest ones they came in from the Marchwood Military camp that was for the Residerfinder plant when it was being built.
For Gods sake Southy that is just mixture of irrelevance, random fact and innacuracy. Do you think I don;t know which channel I'm sailing up? Where you seem to think there is a deepwater channel there is nothing but a small tidal creek - and you are suggesting bulk carriers are just going to sail up it and then moor next to the nonexistent quay and be unloaded by nonexistent cranes onto nonexistent hardstanding? Of course Esso do not use a facility that does not exist and don't take my word for it either - just go onto Multimap or Google Earth and select the aerial view - you and everyone else can see that you are talking rubbish. Don't bother to reply until you've signed on and checked this for yourself.
Was not sure Andy
if you was or was't, if you had you would not off be the first to do so it happens.
Is not small Andy far from it, and its not a creek, its a channel that was cut out and dredge, for the purpose for the intake and be use for Coal bulk carriers, Once you get pass the bridge you have about a 300 meter docking area (each secton is just over 100 meter long), purpose build chip bulk carriers are a lot smaller and shallow draft ships, they are nothing like the size of a iron ore or grain carriers, also these ships carry there own lifting gear, and discharge by there own crew.
Southy you are mixing up Fawley "A" which is what we see today and Fawley "B" which was never built. I have copies of all the plans for Fawley B and you are correct that it included a wharf for the import of coal. (probably from South America). Had Fawley B been built much of what you say would have been true, but none of it ever got beyond the planning stage including dredging and piling.
O know andy one was never built, but the quay and docking are was built, some of the real heavy plant came in by water and not by road.
The dredging was compleated it was done before they even started building the frame work to the power house, westmister dredging had that job to do, they was also the ones that cut though the marsh lands so they could start dredging, there was no channel there before like there is now.
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.[/p][/quote]I mentioned several times why it is not ideal Southy - There is no deepwater channel as charts prove, and the existing plant is unsuitable or unusable, it has no rail link and inferior road links. I sailed to Ashlett Creek last week and everyone who knows Ashlett knows there is no deepwater channel to the power station - the cooling water inlet is far too small. You keep referring to those moored bulk carriers as being off Fawley but as every sailor knows they were moored off Netley on the ship moorings! You cite environmental reasons for preferring Fawley but simple eyesight and common sense should tell you and any other local resident that that the place of least envionmental impact of any chimney is right next to it - yet you have this strange belief that 10 miles upwind is somehow going to be cleaner or better when it is actually worse. What is your reasoning for this?[/p][/quote]Andy read your charts, one is the intake is not located at Ashlett creek, what is located at Ashlett Creek is the old Tidal Mill which is now a Pub, the power station is located down river from Ashlett its closer to Calshot village than Ashlett village. The channel leading into the intake where they was going to have the dock before change of plans,is 4m deep at at 0-0 spring low water, add on to that high water springs of 4-9 and you have a channal that is more than deep enough to take bulk carriers, it is as deep as the spot they call the natural deep in Southampton Waters, Those bulk carriers was not just moored on netley moorings, there was also one in Southampton western docks the biggest one of them all, there was another over in machwood, and the one I told you about that was moored in Fawley intake channal, Esso Refinery some times use the quay wall inside Fawley power station to off load vessels that are built in Italy, most of the vessels tanks came in though Fawley apart from the 3 biggest ones they came in from the Marchwood Military camp that was for the Residerfinder plant when it was being built.[/p][/quote]For Gods sake Southy that is just mixture of irrelevance, random fact and innacuracy. Do you think I don;t know which channel I'm sailing up? Where you seem to think there is a deepwater channel there is nothing but a small tidal creek - and you are suggesting bulk carriers are just going to sail up it and then moor next to the nonexistent quay and be unloaded by nonexistent cranes onto nonexistent hardstanding? Of course Esso do not use a facility that does not exist and don't take my word for it either - just go onto Multimap or Google Earth and select the aerial view - you and everyone else can see that you are talking rubbish. Don't bother to reply until you've signed on and checked this for yourself.[/p][/quote]Was not sure Andy if you was or was't, if you had you would not off be the first to do so it happens. Is not small Andy far from it, and its not a creek, its a channel that was cut out and dredge, for the purpose for the intake and be use for Coal bulk carriers, Once you get pass the bridge you have about a 300 meter docking area (each secton is just over 100 meter long), purpose build chip bulk carriers are a lot smaller and shallow draft ships, they are nothing like the size of a iron ore or grain carriers, also these ships carry there own lifting gear, and discharge by there own crew.[/p][/quote]Southy you are mixing up Fawley "A" which is what we see today and Fawley "B" which was never built. I have copies of all the plans for Fawley B and you are correct that it included a wharf for the import of coal. (probably from South America). Had Fawley B been built much of what you say would have been true, but none of it ever got beyond the planning stage including dredging and piling.[/p][/quote]O know andy one was never built, but the quay and docking are was built, some of the real heavy plant came in by water and not by road. The dredging was compleated it was done before they even started building the frame work to the power house, westmister dredging had that job to do, they was also the ones that cut though the marsh lands so they could start dredging, there was no channel there before like there is now. southy
  • Score: 0

1:47pm Tue 24 Jul 12

southy says...

Andy tell you what come on over and I show you on the chart, and i will explane to you what the numbers mean, well you be able to read the book that will tell you.
Andy tell you what come on over and I show you on the chart, and i will explane to you what the numbers mean, well you be able to read the book that will tell you. southy
  • Score: 0

1:50pm Tue 24 Jul 12

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Citing of the internet is not a credible source it will change and with out reason, books are a credidle source they are wrinten in black and white and can not change apart from amement editions ay a later date.
Now if you want to find out what is going on get some one who works there and belongs to the Unions that are in that place.
the lease runs out this year, there is a years grace on the lease after the years grace you have a settling period. that will bring you to December 31st 2012.
Unions are in Talks now and have been for the last 2 mths of my knowledge, all that is needed to be sorted out is the redundancys payoff.
Citing the Internet gives everyone the latest information because it can be kept up to date so easily whereas your local library won't buy reference books every time there is an update. In a nutshell, you are the one most in danger of quoting the wrong facts like for example there being a 'Residerfinder' plant on the refinery at Fawley. For the latest information on the refinery you can call 02380-892511 but I don't suppose you'll believe anything that the owners of the refinery tell you.
I was on the contract that built the Residfinder plant, how about that for first hand information, The 3 largest plant vessals came in though Marchwood Military Quay and was taken to Fawley by road, the road carriers was built by Citreon, each wheel had a man steering it, each vessal also had an escort of not just the Police and Fire Service, it had the water board there and gas board also 12 riggers walking along side.
The Smaller plant vessels came in though Fawley power station it was a plant carrier ship that bought them in and moored up on Southern Road/ Quay Road inside the power station.
the residfinder was started in 1989 with the ground works that was Mowlems who had that contract, Davy had the bulk of the contract who subcontract the built of the plant to Costains. this is not lastest information on what is going on there today, this is first hand imformation that went on when the place was first built.
Allowing you some leeway for the fact you can't read and write very well I'll accept that you read 'Residerfinder' for a plant that is called a 'Residfiner'. Like most of your 'first hand information' this account is also full of holes.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Citing of the internet is not a credible source it will change and with out reason, books are a credidle source they are wrinten in black and white and can not change apart from amement editions ay a later date. Now if you want to find out what is going on get some one who works there and belongs to the Unions that are in that place. the lease runs out this year, there is a years grace on the lease after the years grace you have a settling period. that will bring you to December 31st 2012. Unions are in Talks now and have been for the last 2 mths of my knowledge, all that is needed to be sorted out is the redundancys payoff.[/p][/quote]Citing the Internet gives everyone the latest information because it can be kept up to date so easily whereas your local library won't buy reference books every time there is an update. In a nutshell, you are the one most in danger of quoting the wrong facts like for example there being a 'Residerfinder' plant on the refinery at Fawley. For the latest information on the refinery you can call 02380-892511 but I don't suppose you'll believe anything that the owners of the refinery tell you.[/p][/quote]I was on the contract that built the Residfinder plant, how about that for first hand information, The 3 largest plant vessals came in though Marchwood Military Quay and was taken to Fawley by road, the road carriers was built by Citreon, each wheel had a man steering it, each vessal also had an escort of not just the Police and Fire Service, it had the water board there and gas board also 12 riggers walking along side. The Smaller plant vessels came in though Fawley power station it was a plant carrier ship that bought them in and moored up on Southern Road/ Quay Road inside the power station. the residfinder was started in 1989 with the ground works that was Mowlems who had that contract, Davy had the bulk of the contract who subcontract the built of the plant to Costains. this is not lastest information on what is going on there today, this is first hand imformation that went on when the place was first built.[/p][/quote]Allowing you some leeway for the fact you can't read and write very well I'll accept that you read 'Residerfinder' for a plant that is called a 'Residfiner'. Like most of your 'first hand information' this account is also full of holes. Torchie1
  • Score: 0

1:59pm Tue 24 Jul 12

southy says...

Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Citing of the internet is not a credible source it will change and with out reason, books are a credidle source they are wrinten in black and white and can not change apart from amement editions ay a later date.
Now if you want to find out what is going on get some one who works there and belongs to the Unions that are in that place.
the lease runs out this year, there is a years grace on the lease after the years grace you have a settling period. that will bring you to December 31st 2012.
Unions are in Talks now and have been for the last 2 mths of my knowledge, all that is needed to be sorted out is the redundancys payoff.
Citing the Internet gives everyone the latest information because it can be kept up to date so easily whereas your local library won't buy reference books every time there is an update. In a nutshell, you are the one most in danger of quoting the wrong facts like for example there being a 'Residerfinder' plant on the refinery at Fawley. For the latest information on the refinery you can call 02380-892511 but I don't suppose you'll believe anything that the owners of the refinery tell you.
I was on the contract that built the Residfinder plant, how about that for first hand information, The 3 largest plant vessals came in though Marchwood Military Quay and was taken to Fawley by road, the road carriers was built by Citreon, each wheel had a man steering it, each vessal also had an escort of not just the Police and Fire Service, it had the water board there and gas board also 12 riggers walking along side.
The Smaller plant vessels came in though Fawley power station it was a plant carrier ship that bought them in and moored up on Southern Road/ Quay Road inside the power station.
the residfinder was started in 1989 with the ground works that was Mowlems who had that contract, Davy had the bulk of the contract who subcontract the built of the plant to Costains. this is not lastest information on what is going on there today, this is first hand imformation that went on when the place was first built.
Allowing you some leeway for the fact you can't read and write very well I'll accept that you read 'Residerfinder' for a plant that is called a 'Residfiner'. Like most of your 'first hand information' this account is also full of holes.
Its not full of holes at all, spelling do not make it full of holes.
In the 80's I work on in the Refinery 2 Esso's turnarounds on the 5 year turnaround plants maintenance programs, the building of the Deleading Plant and the start for Costains Residfinder plant that ran onto 1991 was made redundant just before the hand over to another contractor for start up.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Citing of the internet is not a credible source it will change and with out reason, books are a credidle source they are wrinten in black and white and can not change apart from amement editions ay a later date. Now if you want to find out what is going on get some one who works there and belongs to the Unions that are in that place. the lease runs out this year, there is a years grace on the lease after the years grace you have a settling period. that will bring you to December 31st 2012. Unions are in Talks now and have been for the last 2 mths of my knowledge, all that is needed to be sorted out is the redundancys payoff.[/p][/quote]Citing the Internet gives everyone the latest information because it can be kept up to date so easily whereas your local library won't buy reference books every time there is an update. In a nutshell, you are the one most in danger of quoting the wrong facts like for example there being a 'Residerfinder' plant on the refinery at Fawley. For the latest information on the refinery you can call 02380-892511 but I don't suppose you'll believe anything that the owners of the refinery tell you.[/p][/quote]I was on the contract that built the Residfinder plant, how about that for first hand information, The 3 largest plant vessals came in though Marchwood Military Quay and was taken to Fawley by road, the road carriers was built by Citreon, each wheel had a man steering it, each vessal also had an escort of not just the Police and Fire Service, it had the water board there and gas board also 12 riggers walking along side. The Smaller plant vessels came in though Fawley power station it was a plant carrier ship that bought them in and moored up on Southern Road/ Quay Road inside the power station. the residfinder was started in 1989 with the ground works that was Mowlems who had that contract, Davy had the bulk of the contract who subcontract the built of the plant to Costains. this is not lastest information on what is going on there today, this is first hand imformation that went on when the place was first built.[/p][/quote]Allowing you some leeway for the fact you can't read and write very well I'll accept that you read 'Residerfinder' for a plant that is called a 'Residfiner'. Like most of your 'first hand information' this account is also full of holes.[/p][/quote]Its not full of holes at all, spelling do not make it full of holes. In the 80's I work on in the Refinery 2 Esso's turnarounds on the 5 year turnaround plants maintenance programs, the building of the Deleading Plant and the start for Costains Residfinder plant that ran onto 1991 was made redundant just before the hand over to another contractor for start up. southy
  • Score: 0

2:11pm Tue 24 Jul 12

southy says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Citing of the internet is not a credible source it will change and with out reason, books are a credidle source they are wrinten in black and white and can not change apart from amement editions ay a later date.
Now if you want to find out what is going on get some one who works there and belongs to the Unions that are in that place.
the lease runs out this year, there is a years grace on the lease after the years grace you have a settling period. that will bring you to December 31st 2012.
Unions are in Talks now and have been for the last 2 mths of my knowledge, all that is needed to be sorted out is the redundancys payoff.
Citing the Internet gives everyone the latest information because it can be kept up to date so easily whereas your local library won't buy reference books every time there is an update. In a nutshell, you are the one most in danger of quoting the wrong facts like for example there being a 'Residerfinder' plant on the refinery at Fawley. For the latest information on the refinery you can call 02380-892511 but I don't suppose you'll believe anything that the owners of the refinery tell you.
I was on the contract that built the Residfinder plant, how about that for first hand information, The 3 largest plant vessals came in though Marchwood Military Quay and was taken to Fawley by road, the road carriers was built by Citreon, each wheel had a man steering it, each vessal also had an escort of not just the Police and Fire Service, it had the water board there and gas board also 12 riggers walking along side.
The Smaller plant vessels came in though Fawley power station it was a plant carrier ship that bought them in and moored up on Southern Road/ Quay Road inside the power station.
the residfinder was started in 1989 with the ground works that was Mowlems who had that contract, Davy had the bulk of the contract who subcontract the built of the plant to Costains. this is not lastest information on what is going on there today, this is first hand imformation that went on when the place was first built.
Allowing you some leeway for the fact you can't read and write very well I'll accept that you read 'Residerfinder' for a plant that is called a 'Residfiner'. Like most of your 'first hand information' this account is also full of holes.
Its not full of holes at all, spelling do not make it full of holes.
In the 80's I work on in the Refinery 2 Esso's turnarounds on the 5 year turnaround plants maintenance programs, the building of the Deleading Plant and the start for Costains Residfinder plant that ran onto 1991 was made redundant just before the hand over to another contractor for start up.
This might have some interest to some of you, like your self Loose.

PUBLIC MEETING
Save Oakland's Swimming Pool
Lordshill Church
Lordshill District Centre
Lordshill
Friday 10th August at 7pm

Please come and show your support for the stand taken by local councillors, Keith Morrell and Don Thomas to stop the closure of the pool.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Citing of the internet is not a credible source it will change and with out reason, books are a credidle source they are wrinten in black and white and can not change apart from amement editions ay a later date. Now if you want to find out what is going on get some one who works there and belongs to the Unions that are in that place. the lease runs out this year, there is a years grace on the lease after the years grace you have a settling period. that will bring you to December 31st 2012. Unions are in Talks now and have been for the last 2 mths of my knowledge, all that is needed to be sorted out is the redundancys payoff.[/p][/quote]Citing the Internet gives everyone the latest information because it can be kept up to date so easily whereas your local library won't buy reference books every time there is an update. In a nutshell, you are the one most in danger of quoting the wrong facts like for example there being a 'Residerfinder' plant on the refinery at Fawley. For the latest information on the refinery you can call 02380-892511 but I don't suppose you'll believe anything that the owners of the refinery tell you.[/p][/quote]I was on the contract that built the Residfinder plant, how about that for first hand information, The 3 largest plant vessals came in though Marchwood Military Quay and was taken to Fawley by road, the road carriers was built by Citreon, each wheel had a man steering it, each vessal also had an escort of not just the Police and Fire Service, it had the water board there and gas board also 12 riggers walking along side. The Smaller plant vessels came in though Fawley power station it was a plant carrier ship that bought them in and moored up on Southern Road/ Quay Road inside the power station. the residfinder was started in 1989 with the ground works that was Mowlems who had that contract, Davy had the bulk of the contract who subcontract the built of the plant to Costains. this is not lastest information on what is going on there today, this is first hand imformation that went on when the place was first built.[/p][/quote]Allowing you some leeway for the fact you can't read and write very well I'll accept that you read 'Residerfinder' for a plant that is called a 'Residfiner'. Like most of your 'first hand information' this account is also full of holes.[/p][/quote]Its not full of holes at all, spelling do not make it full of holes. In the 80's I work on in the Refinery 2 Esso's turnarounds on the 5 year turnaround plants maintenance programs, the building of the Deleading Plant and the start for Costains Residfinder plant that ran onto 1991 was made redundant just before the hand over to another contractor for start up.[/p][/quote]This might have some interest to some of you, like your self Loose. PUBLIC MEETING Save Oakland's Swimming Pool Lordshill Church Lordshill District Centre Lordshill Friday 10th August at 7pm Please come and show your support for the stand taken by local councillors, Keith Morrell and Don Thomas to stop the closure of the pool. southy
  • Score: 0

2:11pm Tue 24 Jul 12

Georgem says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Citing of the internet is not a credible source it will change and with out reason, books are a credidle source they are wrinten in black and white and can not change apart from amement editions ay a later date.
Now if you want to find out what is going on get some one who works there and belongs to the Unions that are in that place.
the lease runs out this year, there is a years grace on the lease after the years grace you have a settling period. that will bring you to December 31st 2012.
Unions are in Talks now and have been for the last 2 mths of my knowledge, all that is needed to be sorted out is the redundancys payoff.
Citing the Internet gives everyone the latest information because it can be kept up to date so easily whereas your local library won't buy reference books every time there is an update. In a nutshell, you are the one most in danger of quoting the wrong facts like for example there being a 'Residerfinder' plant on the refinery at Fawley. For the latest information on the refinery you can call 02380-892511 but I don't suppose you'll believe anything that the owners of the refinery tell you.
I was on the contract that built the Residfinder plant, how about that for first hand information, The 3 largest plant vessals came in though Marchwood Military Quay and was taken to Fawley by road, the road carriers was built by Citreon, each wheel had a man steering it, each vessal also had an escort of not just the Police and Fire Service, it had the water board there and gas board also 12 riggers walking along side.
The Smaller plant vessels came in though Fawley power station it was a plant carrier ship that bought them in and moored up on Southern Road/ Quay Road inside the power station.
the residfinder was started in 1989 with the ground works that was Mowlems who had that contract, Davy had the bulk of the contract who subcontract the built of the plant to Costains. this is not lastest information on what is going on there today, this is first hand imformation that went on when the place was first built.
Allowing you some leeway for the fact you can't read and write very well I'll accept that you read 'Residerfinder' for a plant that is called a 'Residfiner'. Like most of your 'first hand information' this account is also full of holes.
Its not full of holes at all, spelling do not make it full of holes.
In the 80's I work on in the Refinery 2 Esso's turnarounds on the 5 year turnaround plants maintenance programs, the building of the Deleading Plant and the start for Costains Residfinder plant that ran onto 1991 was made redundant just before the hand over to another contractor for start up.
He hasn't said it's full of holes because of spelling. You know better than that. It's full of holes for the usual reasons - you're more interested in appearing correct, than you are in discussing facts.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Citing of the internet is not a credible source it will change and with out reason, books are a credidle source they are wrinten in black and white and can not change apart from amement editions ay a later date. Now if you want to find out what is going on get some one who works there and belongs to the Unions that are in that place. the lease runs out this year, there is a years grace on the lease after the years grace you have a settling period. that will bring you to December 31st 2012. Unions are in Talks now and have been for the last 2 mths of my knowledge, all that is needed to be sorted out is the redundancys payoff.[/p][/quote]Citing the Internet gives everyone the latest information because it can be kept up to date so easily whereas your local library won't buy reference books every time there is an update. In a nutshell, you are the one most in danger of quoting the wrong facts like for example there being a 'Residerfinder' plant on the refinery at Fawley. For the latest information on the refinery you can call 02380-892511 but I don't suppose you'll believe anything that the owners of the refinery tell you.[/p][/quote]I was on the contract that built the Residfinder plant, how about that for first hand information, The 3 largest plant vessals came in though Marchwood Military Quay and was taken to Fawley by road, the road carriers was built by Citreon, each wheel had a man steering it, each vessal also had an escort of not just the Police and Fire Service, it had the water board there and gas board also 12 riggers walking along side. The Smaller plant vessels came in though Fawley power station it was a plant carrier ship that bought them in and moored up on Southern Road/ Quay Road inside the power station. the residfinder was started in 1989 with the ground works that was Mowlems who had that contract, Davy had the bulk of the contract who subcontract the built of the plant to Costains. this is not lastest information on what is going on there today, this is first hand imformation that went on when the place was first built.[/p][/quote]Allowing you some leeway for the fact you can't read and write very well I'll accept that you read 'Residerfinder' for a plant that is called a 'Residfiner'. Like most of your 'first hand information' this account is also full of holes.[/p][/quote]Its not full of holes at all, spelling do not make it full of holes. In the 80's I work on in the Refinery 2 Esso's turnarounds on the 5 year turnaround plants maintenance programs, the building of the Deleading Plant and the start for Costains Residfinder plant that ran onto 1991 was made redundant just before the hand over to another contractor for start up.[/p][/quote]He hasn't said it's full of holes because of spelling. You know better than that. It's full of holes for the usual reasons - you're more interested in appearing correct, than you are in discussing facts. Georgem
  • Score: 0

3:09pm Tue 24 Jul 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

Southy I would love to come over and have a pint with you sometime. We will probably get on like a house on fire!
Southy I would love to come over and have a pint with you sometime. We will probably get on like a house on fire! Andy Locks Heath
  • Score: 0

3:15pm Tue 24 Jul 12

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Citing of the internet is not a credible source it will change and with out reason, books are a credidle source they are wrinten in black and white and can not change apart from amement editions ay a later date.
Now if you want to find out what is going on get some one who works there and belongs to the Unions that are in that place.
the lease runs out this year, there is a years grace on the lease after the years grace you have a settling period. that will bring you to December 31st 2012.
Unions are in Talks now and have been for the last 2 mths of my knowledge, all that is needed to be sorted out is the redundancys payoff.
Citing the Internet gives everyone the latest information because it can be kept up to date so easily whereas your local library won't buy reference books every time there is an update. In a nutshell, you are the one most in danger of quoting the wrong facts like for example there being a 'Residerfinder' plant on the refinery at Fawley. For the latest information on the refinery you can call 02380-892511 but I don't suppose you'll believe anything that the owners of the refinery tell you.
I was on the contract that built the Residfinder plant, how about that for first hand information, The 3 largest plant vessals came in though Marchwood Military Quay and was taken to Fawley by road, the road carriers was built by Citreon, each wheel had a man steering it, each vessal also had an escort of not just the Police and Fire Service, it had the water board there and gas board also 12 riggers walking along side.
The Smaller plant vessels came in though Fawley power station it was a plant carrier ship that bought them in and moored up on Southern Road/ Quay Road inside the power station.
the residfinder was started in 1989 with the ground works that was Mowlems who had that contract, Davy had the bulk of the contract who subcontract the built of the plant to Costains. this is not lastest information on what is going on there today, this is first hand imformation that went on when the place was first built.
Allowing you some leeway for the fact you can't read and write very well I'll accept that you read 'Residerfinder' for a plant that is called a 'Residfiner'. Like most of your 'first hand information' this account is also full of holes.
Its not full of holes at all, spelling do not make it full of holes.
In the 80's I work on in the Refinery 2 Esso's turnarounds on the 5 year turnaround plants maintenance programs, the building of the Deleading Plant and the start for Costains Residfinder plant that ran onto 1991 was made redundant just before the hand over to another contractor for start up.
Oh dear, those holes just keep getting bigger. First of all there is no 'Deleading' plant as Tetraethyl lead (TEL) stopped being added when 'leaded' fuel was no longer produced and even you must be able to work out that if something isn't added it won't need to be taken away. There's no plant with a name even close to that so what your smoking today isn't doing you any good. As for spelling, I've used the correct name for the Residfiner and you still can't copy it. When trying to appear as an expert most people will ask themselves if you can't even write properly, can you be trusted with anything complicated.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Citing of the internet is not a credible source it will change and with out reason, books are a credidle source they are wrinten in black and white and can not change apart from amement editions ay a later date. Now if you want to find out what is going on get some one who works there and belongs to the Unions that are in that place. the lease runs out this year, there is a years grace on the lease after the years grace you have a settling period. that will bring you to December 31st 2012. Unions are in Talks now and have been for the last 2 mths of my knowledge, all that is needed to be sorted out is the redundancys payoff.[/p][/quote]Citing the Internet gives everyone the latest information because it can be kept up to date so easily whereas your local library won't buy reference books every time there is an update. In a nutshell, you are the one most in danger of quoting the wrong facts like for example there being a 'Residerfinder' plant on the refinery at Fawley. For the latest information on the refinery you can call 02380-892511 but I don't suppose you'll believe anything that the owners of the refinery tell you.[/p][/quote]I was on the contract that built the Residfinder plant, how about that for first hand information, The 3 largest plant vessals came in though Marchwood Military Quay and was taken to Fawley by road, the road carriers was built by Citreon, each wheel had a man steering it, each vessal also had an escort of not just the Police and Fire Service, it had the water board there and gas board also 12 riggers walking along side. The Smaller plant vessels came in though Fawley power station it was a plant carrier ship that bought them in and moored up on Southern Road/ Quay Road inside the power station. the residfinder was started in 1989 with the ground works that was Mowlems who had that contract, Davy had the bulk of the contract who subcontract the built of the plant to Costains. this is not lastest information on what is going on there today, this is first hand imformation that went on when the place was first built.[/p][/quote]Allowing you some leeway for the fact you can't read and write very well I'll accept that you read 'Residerfinder' for a plant that is called a 'Residfiner'. Like most of your 'first hand information' this account is also full of holes.[/p][/quote]Its not full of holes at all, spelling do not make it full of holes. In the 80's I work on in the Refinery 2 Esso's turnarounds on the 5 year turnaround plants maintenance programs, the building of the Deleading Plant and the start for Costains Residfinder plant that ran onto 1991 was made redundant just before the hand over to another contractor for start up.[/p][/quote]Oh dear, those holes just keep getting bigger. First of all there is no 'Deleading' plant as Tetraethyl lead (TEL) stopped being added when 'leaded' fuel was no longer produced and even you must be able to work out that if something isn't added it won't need to be taken away. There's no plant with a name even close to that so what your smoking today isn't doing you any good. As for spelling, I've used the correct name for the Residfiner and you still can't copy it. When trying to appear as an expert most people will ask themselves if you can't even write properly, can you be trusted with anything complicated. Torchie1
  • Score: 0

3:26pm Tue 24 Jul 12

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Citing of the internet is not a credible source it will change and with out reason, books are a credidle source they are wrinten in black and white and can not change apart from amement editions ay a later date.
Now if you want to find out what is going on get some one who works there and belongs to the Unions that are in that place.
the lease runs out this year, there is a years grace on the lease after the years grace you have a settling period. that will bring you to December 31st 2012.
Unions are in Talks now and have been for the last 2 mths of my knowledge, all that is needed to be sorted out is the redundancys payoff.
Citing the Internet gives everyone the latest information because it can be kept up to date so easily whereas your local library won't buy reference books every time there is an update. In a nutshell, you are the one most in danger of quoting the wrong facts like for example there being a 'Residerfinder' plant on the refinery at Fawley. For the latest information on the refinery you can call 02380-892511 but I don't suppose you'll believe anything that the owners of the refinery tell you.
I was on the contract that built the Residfinder plant, how about that for first hand information, The 3 largest plant vessals came in though Marchwood Military Quay and was taken to Fawley by road, the road carriers was built by Citreon, each wheel had a man steering it, each vessal also had an escort of not just the Police and Fire Service, it had the water board there and gas board also 12 riggers walking along side.
The Smaller plant vessels came in though Fawley power station it was a plant carrier ship that bought them in and moored up on Southern Road/ Quay Road inside the power station.
the residfinder was started in 1989 with the ground works that was Mowlems who had that contract, Davy had the bulk of the contract who subcontract the built of the plant to Costains. this is not lastest information on what is going on there today, this is first hand imformation that went on when the place was first built.
Allowing you some leeway for the fact you can't read and write very well I'll accept that you read 'Residerfinder' for a plant that is called a 'Residfiner'. Like most of your 'first hand information' this account is also full of holes.
Its not full of holes at all, spelling do not make it full of holes.
In the 80's I work on in the Refinery 2 Esso's turnarounds on the 5 year turnaround plants maintenance programs, the building of the Deleading Plant and the start for Costains Residfinder plant that ran onto 1991 was made redundant just before the hand over to another contractor for start up.
This might have some interest to some of you, like your self Loose.

PUBLIC MEETING
Save Oakland's Swimming Pool
Lordshill Church
Lordshill District Centre
Lordshill
Friday 10th August at 7pm

Please come and show your support for the stand taken by local councillors, Keith Morrell and Don Thomas to stop the closure of the pool.
Will this meeting actually be about saving the swimming pool or will it be hijacked by a representative of the TUSC as a political platform?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Citing of the internet is not a credible source it will change and with out reason, books are a credidle source they are wrinten in black and white and can not change apart from amement editions ay a later date. Now if you want to find out what is going on get some one who works there and belongs to the Unions that are in that place. the lease runs out this year, there is a years grace on the lease after the years grace you have a settling period. that will bring you to December 31st 2012. Unions are in Talks now and have been for the last 2 mths of my knowledge, all that is needed to be sorted out is the redundancys payoff.[/p][/quote]Citing the Internet gives everyone the latest information because it can be kept up to date so easily whereas your local library won't buy reference books every time there is an update. In a nutshell, you are the one most in danger of quoting the wrong facts like for example there being a 'Residerfinder' plant on the refinery at Fawley. For the latest information on the refinery you can call 02380-892511 but I don't suppose you'll believe anything that the owners of the refinery tell you.[/p][/quote]I was on the contract that built the Residfinder plant, how about that for first hand information, The 3 largest plant vessals came in though Marchwood Military Quay and was taken to Fawley by road, the road carriers was built by Citreon, each wheel had a man steering it, each vessal also had an escort of not just the Police and Fire Service, it had the water board there and gas board also 12 riggers walking along side. The Smaller plant vessels came in though Fawley power station it was a plant carrier ship that bought them in and moored up on Southern Road/ Quay Road inside the power station. the residfinder was started in 1989 with the ground works that was Mowlems who had that contract, Davy had the bulk of the contract who subcontract the built of the plant to Costains. this is not lastest information on what is going on there today, this is first hand imformation that went on when the place was first built.[/p][/quote]Allowing you some leeway for the fact you can't read and write very well I'll accept that you read 'Residerfinder' for a plant that is called a 'Residfiner'. Like most of your 'first hand information' this account is also full of holes.[/p][/quote]Its not full of holes at all, spelling do not make it full of holes. In the 80's I work on in the Refinery 2 Esso's turnarounds on the 5 year turnaround plants maintenance programs, the building of the Deleading Plant and the start for Costains Residfinder plant that ran onto 1991 was made redundant just before the hand over to another contractor for start up.[/p][/quote]This might have some interest to some of you, like your self Loose. PUBLIC MEETING Save Oakland's Swimming Pool Lordshill Church Lordshill District Centre Lordshill Friday 10th August at 7pm Please come and show your support for the stand taken by local councillors, Keith Morrell and Don Thomas to stop the closure of the pool.[/p][/quote]Will this meeting actually be about saving the swimming pool or will it be hijacked by a representative of the TUSC as a political platform? Shoong
  • Score: 0

3:28pm Tue 24 Jul 12

Georgem says...

Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Citing of the internet is not a credible source it will change and with out reason, books are a credidle source they are wrinten in black and white and can not change apart from amement editions ay a later date.
Now if you want to find out what is going on get some one who works there and belongs to the Unions that are in that place.
the lease runs out this year, there is a years grace on the lease after the years grace you have a settling period. that will bring you to December 31st 2012.
Unions are in Talks now and have been for the last 2 mths of my knowledge, all that is needed to be sorted out is the redundancys payoff.
Citing the Internet gives everyone the latest information because it can be kept up to date so easily whereas your local library won't buy reference books every time there is an update. In a nutshell, you are the one most in danger of quoting the wrong facts like for example there being a 'Residerfinder' plant on the refinery at Fawley. For the latest information on the refinery you can call 02380-892511 but I don't suppose you'll believe anything that the owners of the refinery tell you.
I was on the contract that built the Residfinder plant, how about that for first hand information, The 3 largest plant vessals came in though Marchwood Military Quay and was taken to Fawley by road, the road carriers was built by Citreon, each wheel had a man steering it, each vessal also had an escort of not just the Police and Fire Service, it had the water board there and gas board also 12 riggers walking along side.
The Smaller plant vessels came in though Fawley power station it was a plant carrier ship that bought them in and moored up on Southern Road/ Quay Road inside the power station.
the residfinder was started in 1989 with the ground works that was Mowlems who had that contract, Davy had the bulk of the contract who subcontract the built of the plant to Costains. this is not lastest information on what is going on there today, this is first hand imformation that went on when the place was first built.
Allowing you some leeway for the fact you can't read and write very well I'll accept that you read 'Residerfinder' for a plant that is called a 'Residfiner'. Like most of your 'first hand information' this account is also full of holes.
Its not full of holes at all, spelling do not make it full of holes.
In the 80's I work on in the Refinery 2 Esso's turnarounds on the 5 year turnaround plants maintenance programs, the building of the Deleading Plant and the start for Costains Residfinder plant that ran onto 1991 was made redundant just before the hand over to another contractor for start up.
This might have some interest to some of you, like your self Loose.

PUBLIC MEETING
Save Oakland's Swimming Pool
Lordshill Church
Lordshill District Centre
Lordshill
Friday 10th August at 7pm

Please come and show your support for the stand taken by local councillors, Keith Morrell and Don Thomas to stop the closure of the pool.
Will this meeting actually be about saving the swimming pool or will it be hijacked by a representative of the TUSC as a political platform?
It will be hijacked by Rahid Maryada, who will speak in Sikh.
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Citing of the internet is not a credible source it will change and with out reason, books are a credidle source they are wrinten in black and white and can not change apart from amement editions ay a later date. Now if you want to find out what is going on get some one who works there and belongs to the Unions that are in that place. the lease runs out this year, there is a years grace on the lease after the years grace you have a settling period. that will bring you to December 31st 2012. Unions are in Talks now and have been for the last 2 mths of my knowledge, all that is needed to be sorted out is the redundancys payoff.[/p][/quote]Citing the Internet gives everyone the latest information because it can be kept up to date so easily whereas your local library won't buy reference books every time there is an update. In a nutshell, you are the one most in danger of quoting the wrong facts like for example there being a 'Residerfinder' plant on the refinery at Fawley. For the latest information on the refinery you can call 02380-892511 but I don't suppose you'll believe anything that the owners of the refinery tell you.[/p][/quote]I was on the contract that built the Residfinder plant, how about that for first hand information, The 3 largest plant vessals came in though Marchwood Military Quay and was taken to Fawley by road, the road carriers was built by Citreon, each wheel had a man steering it, each vessal also had an escort of not just the Police and Fire Service, it had the water board there and gas board also 12 riggers walking along side. The Smaller plant vessels came in though Fawley power station it was a plant carrier ship that bought them in and moored up on Southern Road/ Quay Road inside the power station. the residfinder was started in 1989 with the ground works that was Mowlems who had that contract, Davy had the bulk of the contract who subcontract the built of the plant to Costains. this is not lastest information on what is going on there today, this is first hand imformation that went on when the place was first built.[/p][/quote]Allowing you some leeway for the fact you can't read and write very well I'll accept that you read 'Residerfinder' for a plant that is called a 'Residfiner'. Like most of your 'first hand information' this account is also full of holes.[/p][/quote]Its not full of holes at all, spelling do not make it full of holes. In the 80's I work on in the Refinery 2 Esso's turnarounds on the 5 year turnaround plants maintenance programs, the building of the Deleading Plant and the start for Costains Residfinder plant that ran onto 1991 was made redundant just before the hand over to another contractor for start up.[/p][/quote]This might have some interest to some of you, like your self Loose. PUBLIC MEETING Save Oakland's Swimming Pool Lordshill Church Lordshill District Centre Lordshill Friday 10th August at 7pm Please come and show your support for the stand taken by local councillors, Keith Morrell and Don Thomas to stop the closure of the pool.[/p][/quote]Will this meeting actually be about saving the swimming pool or will it be hijacked by a representative of the TUSC as a political platform?[/p][/quote]It will be hijacked by Rahid Maryada, who will speak in Sikh. Georgem
  • Score: 0

3:31pm Tue 24 Jul 12

Shoong says...

Georgem wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Citing of the internet is not a credible source it will change and with out reason, books are a credidle source they are wrinten in black and white and can not change apart from amement editions ay a later date.
Now if you want to find out what is going on get some one who works there and belongs to the Unions that are in that place.
the lease runs out this year, there is a years grace on the lease after the years grace you have a settling period. that will bring you to December 31st 2012.
Unions are in Talks now and have been for the last 2 mths of my knowledge, all that is needed to be sorted out is the redundancys payoff.
Citing the Internet gives everyone the latest information because it can be kept up to date so easily whereas your local library won't buy reference books every time there is an update. In a nutshell, you are the one most in danger of quoting the wrong facts like for example there being a 'Residerfinder' plant on the refinery at Fawley. For the latest information on the refinery you can call 02380-892511 but I don't suppose you'll believe anything that the owners of the refinery tell you.
I was on the contract that built the Residfinder plant, how about that for first hand information, The 3 largest plant vessals came in though Marchwood Military Quay and was taken to Fawley by road, the road carriers was built by Citreon, each wheel had a man steering it, each vessal also had an escort of not just the Police and Fire Service, it had the water board there and gas board also 12 riggers walking along side.
The Smaller plant vessels came in though Fawley power station it was a plant carrier ship that bought them in and moored up on Southern Road/ Quay Road inside the power station.
the residfinder was started in 1989 with the ground works that was Mowlems who had that contract, Davy had the bulk of the contract who subcontract the built of the plant to Costains. this is not lastest information on what is going on there today, this is first hand imformation that went on when the place was first built.
Allowing you some leeway for the fact you can't read and write very well I'll accept that you read 'Residerfinder' for a plant that is called a 'Residfiner'. Like most of your 'first hand information' this account is also full of holes.
Its not full of holes at all, spelling do not make it full of holes.
In the 80's I work on in the Refinery 2 Esso's turnarounds on the 5 year turnaround plants maintenance programs, the building of the Deleading Plant and the start for Costains Residfinder plant that ran onto 1991 was made redundant just before the hand over to another contractor for start up.
This might have some interest to some of you, like your self Loose.

PUBLIC MEETING
Save Oakland's Swimming Pool
Lordshill Church
Lordshill District Centre
Lordshill
Friday 10th August at 7pm

Please come and show your support for the stand taken by local councillors, Keith Morrell and Don Thomas to stop the closure of the pool.
Will this meeting actually be about saving the swimming pool or will it be hijacked by a representative of the TUSC as a political platform?
It will be hijacked by Rahid Maryada, who will speak in Sikh.
We should all go for a laugh actually.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Citing of the internet is not a credible source it will change and with out reason, books are a credidle source they are wrinten in black and white and can not change apart from amement editions ay a later date. Now if you want to find out what is going on get some one who works there and belongs to the Unions that are in that place. the lease runs out this year, there is a years grace on the lease after the years grace you have a settling period. that will bring you to December 31st 2012. Unions are in Talks now and have been for the last 2 mths of my knowledge, all that is needed to be sorted out is the redundancys payoff.[/p][/quote]Citing the Internet gives everyone the latest information because it can be kept up to date so easily whereas your local library won't buy reference books every time there is an update. In a nutshell, you are the one most in danger of quoting the wrong facts like for example there being a 'Residerfinder' plant on the refinery at Fawley. For the latest information on the refinery you can call 02380-892511 but I don't suppose you'll believe anything that the owners of the refinery tell you.[/p][/quote]I was on the contract that built the Residfinder plant, how about that for first hand information, The 3 largest plant vessals came in though Marchwood Military Quay and was taken to Fawley by road, the road carriers was built by Citreon, each wheel had a man steering it, each vessal also had an escort of not just the Police and Fire Service, it had the water board there and gas board also 12 riggers walking along side. The Smaller plant vessels came in though Fawley power station it was a plant carrier ship that bought them in and moored up on Southern Road/ Quay Road inside the power station. the residfinder was started in 1989 with the ground works that was Mowlems who had that contract, Davy had the bulk of the contract who subcontract the built of the plant to Costains. this is not lastest information on what is going on there today, this is first hand imformation that went on when the place was first built.[/p][/quote]Allowing you some leeway for the fact you can't read and write very well I'll accept that you read 'Residerfinder' for a plant that is called a 'Residfiner'. Like most of your 'first hand information' this account is also full of holes.[/p][/quote]Its not full of holes at all, spelling do not make it full of holes. In the 80's I work on in the Refinery 2 Esso's turnarounds on the 5 year turnaround plants maintenance programs, the building of the Deleading Plant and the start for Costains Residfinder plant that ran onto 1991 was made redundant just before the hand over to another contractor for start up.[/p][/quote]This might have some interest to some of you, like your self Loose. PUBLIC MEETING Save Oakland's Swimming Pool Lordshill Church Lordshill District Centre Lordshill Friday 10th August at 7pm Please come and show your support for the stand taken by local councillors, Keith Morrell and Don Thomas to stop the closure of the pool.[/p][/quote]Will this meeting actually be about saving the swimming pool or will it be hijacked by a representative of the TUSC as a political platform?[/p][/quote]It will be hijacked by Rahid Maryada, who will speak in Sikh.[/p][/quote]We should all go for a laugh actually. Shoong
  • Score: 0

3:34pm Tue 24 Jul 12

loosehead says...

The Watcher wrote:
loosehead wrote:
The Watcher wrote:
Poor decision from the Council on this one and although I can understand and sympathise with local Councillors representing their constituents, I do think that sometimes some has to take a broader view on these issues.
.
I'm afraid the NIMBY lobby need to be overruled. Biomass will be an integral part of a balanced energy portfolio formtis country.
.
The only objection is on aesthetic reasons as the arguments citing pollution, unsustainabke biomass fuel requirements, its lack of "green" green credentials have been comprehensively debunked.
.
And as for aesthetic objections it is being built on industrial land that has been the site, or near to a number, of factories etc.
.
Unbelievable! I totally agree with you but read the article this council might as well admit they want it but want the votes more?
You didn't reply to the pool never being under the remit/ownership of Oasis though ;-)
As far as I knew it was part of Oaklands school.
I did say it was asked of Oasis if they would take over stewardship but refused & this is the reason it was not contracted out with the rest more's the pity
[quote][p][bold]The Watcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Watcher[/bold] wrote: Poor decision from the Council on this one and although I can understand and sympathise with local Councillors representing their constituents, I do think that sometimes some has to take a broader view on these issues. . I'm afraid the NIMBY lobby need to be overruled. Biomass will be an integral part of a balanced energy portfolio formtis country. . The only objection is on aesthetic reasons as the arguments citing pollution, unsustainabke biomass fuel requirements, its lack of "green" green credentials have been comprehensively debunked. . And as for aesthetic objections it is being built on industrial land that has been the site, or near to a number, of factories etc. .[/p][/quote]Unbelievable! I totally agree with you but read the article this council might as well admit they want it but want the votes more?[/p][/quote]You didn't reply to the pool never being under the remit/ownership of Oasis though ;-)[/p][/quote]As far as I knew it was part of Oaklands school. I did say it was asked of Oasis if they would take over stewardship but refused & this is the reason it was not contracted out with the rest more's the pity loosehead
  • Score: 0

3:36pm Tue 24 Jul 12

Georgem says...

Shoong wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Citing of the internet is not a credible source it will change and with out reason, books are a credidle source they are wrinten in black and white and can not change apart from amement editions ay a later date.
Now if you want to find out what is going on get some one who works there and belongs to the Unions that are in that place.
the lease runs out this year, there is a years grace on the lease after the years grace you have a settling period. that will bring you to December 31st 2012.
Unions are in Talks now and have been for the last 2 mths of my knowledge, all that is needed to be sorted out is the redundancys payoff.
Citing the Internet gives everyone the latest information because it can be kept up to date so easily whereas your local library won't buy reference books every time there is an update. In a nutshell, you are the one most in danger of quoting the wrong facts like for example there being a 'Residerfinder' plant on the refinery at Fawley. For the latest information on the refinery you can call 02380-892511 but I don't suppose you'll believe anything that the owners of the refinery tell you.
I was on the contract that built the Residfinder plant, how about that for first hand information, The 3 largest plant vessals came in though Marchwood Military Quay and was taken to Fawley by road, the road carriers was built by Citreon, each wheel had a man steering it, each vessal also had an escort of not just the Police and Fire Service, it had the water board there and gas board also 12 riggers walking along side.
The Smaller plant vessels came in though Fawley power station it was a plant carrier ship that bought them in and moored up on Southern Road/ Quay Road inside the power station.
the residfinder was started in 1989 with the ground works that was Mowlems who had that contract, Davy had the bulk of the contract who subcontract the built of the plant to Costains. this is not lastest information on what is going on there today, this is first hand imformation that went on when the place was first built.
Allowing you some leeway for the fact you can't read and write very well I'll accept that you read 'Residerfinder' for a plant that is called a 'Residfiner'. Like most of your 'first hand information' this account is also full of holes.
Its not full of holes at all, spelling do not make it full of holes.
In the 80's I work on in the Refinery 2 Esso's turnarounds on the 5 year turnaround plants maintenance programs, the building of the Deleading Plant and the start for Costains Residfinder plant that ran onto 1991 was made redundant just before the hand over to another contractor for start up.
This might have some interest to some of you, like your self Loose.

PUBLIC MEETING
Save Oakland's Swimming Pool
Lordshill Church
Lordshill District Centre
Lordshill
Friday 10th August at 7pm

Please come and show your support for the stand taken by local councillors, Keith Morrell and Don Thomas to stop the closure of the pool.
Will this meeting actually be about saving the swimming pool or will it be hijacked by a representative of the TUSC as a political platform?
It will be hijacked by Rahid Maryada, who will speak in Sikh.
We should all go for a laugh actually.
I would, but I'm on holiday.
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Citing of the internet is not a credible source it will change and with out reason, books are a credidle source they are wrinten in black and white and can not change apart from amement editions ay a later date. Now if you want to find out what is going on get some one who works there and belongs to the Unions that are in that place. the lease runs out this year, there is a years grace on the lease after the years grace you have a settling period. that will bring you to December 31st 2012. Unions are in Talks now and have been for the last 2 mths of my knowledge, all that is needed to be sorted out is the redundancys payoff.[/p][/quote]Citing the Internet gives everyone the latest information because it can be kept up to date so easily whereas your local library won't buy reference books every time there is an update. In a nutshell, you are the one most in danger of quoting the wrong facts like for example there being a 'Residerfinder' plant on the refinery at Fawley. For the latest information on the refinery you can call 02380-892511 but I don't suppose you'll believe anything that the owners of the refinery tell you.[/p][/quote]I was on the contract that built the Residfinder plant, how about that for first hand information, The 3 largest plant vessals came in though Marchwood Military Quay and was taken to Fawley by road, the road carriers was built by Citreon, each wheel had a man steering it, each vessal also had an escort of not just the Police and Fire Service, it had the water board there and gas board also 12 riggers walking along side. The Smaller plant vessels came in though Fawley power station it was a plant carrier ship that bought them in and moored up on Southern Road/ Quay Road inside the power station. the residfinder was started in 1989 with the ground works that was Mowlems who had that contract, Davy had the bulk of the contract who subcontract the built of the plant to Costains. this is not lastest information on what is going on there today, this is first hand imformation that went on when the place was first built.[/p][/quote]Allowing you some leeway for the fact you can't read and write very well I'll accept that you read 'Residerfinder' for a plant that is called a 'Residfiner'. Like most of your 'first hand information' this account is also full of holes.[/p][/quote]Its not full of holes at all, spelling do not make it full of holes. In the 80's I work on in the Refinery 2 Esso's turnarounds on the 5 year turnaround plants maintenance programs, the building of the Deleading Plant and the start for Costains Residfinder plant that ran onto 1991 was made redundant just before the hand over to another contractor for start up.[/p][/quote]This might have some interest to some of you, like your self Loose. PUBLIC MEETING Save Oakland's Swimming Pool Lordshill Church Lordshill District Centre Lordshill Friday 10th August at 7pm Please come and show your support for the stand taken by local councillors, Keith Morrell and Don Thomas to stop the closure of the pool.[/p][/quote]Will this meeting actually be about saving the swimming pool or will it be hijacked by a representative of the TUSC as a political platform?[/p][/quote]It will be hijacked by Rahid Maryada, who will speak in Sikh.[/p][/quote]We should all go for a laugh actually.[/p][/quote]I would, but I'm on holiday. Georgem
  • Score: 0

3:38pm Tue 24 Jul 12

loosehead says...

Could I please warn you all! on my other computer I received a warning from Microsoft saying it had detected spam & Trojan horses so I said fix it.
but then I got another one saying it had put it into a temporary file & it might be harmful.
I never opened the file but done a system restore back to another date & did a virus scan.
I hope I've done the right thing but I thought I'd better warn you all & ask you if I've done right?
Could I please warn you all! on my other computer I received a warning from Microsoft saying it had detected spam & Trojan horses so I said fix it. but then I got another one saying it had put it into a temporary file & it might be harmful. I never opened the file but done a system restore back to another date & did a virus scan. I hope I've done the right thing but I thought I'd better warn you all & ask you if I've done right? loosehead
  • Score: 0

3:57pm Tue 24 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

loosehead wrote:
Could I please warn you all! on my other computer I received a warning from Microsoft saying it had detected spam & Trojan horses so I said fix it.
but then I got another one saying it had put it into a temporary file & it might be harmful.
I never opened the file but done a system restore back to another date & did a virus scan.
I hope I've done the right thing but I thought I'd better warn you all & ask you if I've done right?
It pays to have good Virus detection, but even the good ones miss dangerous infections. I only wish there was a cyber Police Force to weed out the maggots that infest the Internet and give them plenty of time to twiddle their useless thumbs behind bars.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Could I please warn you all! on my other computer I received a warning from Microsoft saying it had detected spam & Trojan horses so I said fix it. but then I got another one saying it had put it into a temporary file & it might be harmful. I never opened the file but done a system restore back to another date & did a virus scan. I hope I've done the right thing but I thought I'd better warn you all & ask you if I've done right?[/p][/quote]It pays to have good Virus detection, but even the good ones miss dangerous infections. I only wish there was a cyber Police Force to weed out the maggots that infest the Internet and give them plenty of time to twiddle their useless thumbs behind bars. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

4:06pm Tue 24 Jul 12

Georgem says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Could I please warn you all! on my other computer I received a warning from Microsoft saying it had detected spam & Trojan horses so I said fix it.
but then I got another one saying it had put it into a temporary file & it might be harmful.
I never opened the file but done a system restore back to another date & did a virus scan.
I hope I've done the right thing but I thought I'd better warn you all & ask you if I've done right?
It pays to have good Virus detection, but even the good ones miss dangerous infections. I only wish there was a cyber Police Force to weed out the maggots that infest the Internet and give them plenty of time to twiddle their useless thumbs behind bars.
Tragically, it's an arms race, and the other side has the advantage.
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Could I please warn you all! on my other computer I received a warning from Microsoft saying it had detected spam & Trojan horses so I said fix it. but then I got another one saying it had put it into a temporary file & it might be harmful. I never opened the file but done a system restore back to another date & did a virus scan. I hope I've done the right thing but I thought I'd better warn you all & ask you if I've done right?[/p][/quote]It pays to have good Virus detection, but even the good ones miss dangerous infections. I only wish there was a cyber Police Force to weed out the maggots that infest the Internet and give them plenty of time to twiddle their useless thumbs behind bars.[/p][/quote]Tragically, it's an arms race, and the other side has the advantage. Georgem
  • Score: 0

4:07pm Tue 24 Jul 12

The Watcher says...

loosehead wrote:
The Watcher wrote:
loosehead wrote:
The Watcher wrote:
Poor decision from the Council on this one and although I can understand and sympathise with local Councillors representing their constituents, I do think that sometimes some has to take a broader view on these issues.
.
I'm afraid the NIMBY lobby need to be overruled. Biomass will be an integral part of a balanced energy portfolio formtis country.
.
The only objection is on aesthetic reasons as the arguments citing pollution, unsustainabke biomass fuel requirements, its lack of "green" green credentials have been comprehensively debunked.
.
And as for aesthetic objections it is being built on industrial land that has been the site, or near to a number, of factories etc.
.
Unbelievable! I totally agree with you but read the article this council might as well admit they want it but want the votes more?
You didn't reply to the pool never being under the remit/ownership of Oasis though ;-)
As far as I knew it was part of Oaklands school.
I did say it was asked of Oasis if they would take over stewardship but refused & this is the reason it was not contracted out with the rest more's the pity
It was never offered in the negotiations with Oasis Learning and it was never a part of Clive Websters Learning Futures review.
.
'twas always a part of the Leisure portfolio, not education and was offered up in the same tendering process that saw DC Leisure take over the majority of the City's leisure facilities.
.
DC Leisure, and others, simply rejected the Oaklands pool as the numbers did not add up.
.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Watcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Watcher[/bold] wrote: Poor decision from the Council on this one and although I can understand and sympathise with local Councillors representing their constituents, I do think that sometimes some has to take a broader view on these issues. . I'm afraid the NIMBY lobby need to be overruled. Biomass will be an integral part of a balanced energy portfolio formtis country. . The only objection is on aesthetic reasons as the arguments citing pollution, unsustainabke biomass fuel requirements, its lack of "green" green credentials have been comprehensively debunked. . And as for aesthetic objections it is being built on industrial land that has been the site, or near to a number, of factories etc. .[/p][/quote]Unbelievable! I totally agree with you but read the article this council might as well admit they want it but want the votes more?[/p][/quote]You didn't reply to the pool never being under the remit/ownership of Oasis though ;-)[/p][/quote]As far as I knew it was part of Oaklands school. I did say it was asked of Oasis if they would take over stewardship but refused & this is the reason it was not contracted out with the rest more's the pity[/p][/quote]It was never offered in the negotiations with Oasis Learning and it was never a part of Clive Websters Learning Futures review. . 'twas always a part of the Leisure portfolio, not education and was offered up in the same tendering process that saw DC Leisure take over the majority of the City's leisure facilities. . DC Leisure, and others, simply rejected the Oaklands pool as the numbers did not add up. . The Watcher
  • Score: 0

4:09pm Tue 24 Jul 12

freefinker says...

Georgem wrote:
Shoong wrote:
southy wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
Citing of the internet is not a credible source it will change and with out reason, books are a credidle source they are wrinten in black and white and can not change apart from amement editions ay a later date.
Now if you want to find out what is going on get some one who works there and belongs to the Unions that are in that place.
the lease runs out this year, there is a years grace on the lease after the years grace you have a settling period. that will bring you to December 31st 2012.
Unions are in Talks now and have been for the last 2 mths of my knowledge, all that is needed to be sorted out is the redundancys payoff.
Citing the Internet gives everyone the latest information because it can be kept up to date so easily whereas your local library won't buy reference books every time there is an update. In a nutshell, you are the one most in danger of quoting the wrong facts like for example there being a 'Residerfinder' plant on the refinery at Fawley. For the latest information on the refinery you can call 02380-892511 but I don't suppose you'll believe anything that the owners of the refinery tell you.
I was on the contract that built the Residfinder plant, how about that for first hand information, The 3 largest plant vessals came in though Marchwood Military Quay and was taken to Fawley by road, the road carriers was built by Citreon, each wheel had a man steering it, each vessal also had an escort of not just the Police and Fire Service, it had the water board there and gas board also 12 riggers walking along side.
The Smaller plant vessels came in though Fawley power station it was a plant carrier ship that bought them in and moored up on Southern Road/ Quay Road inside the power station.
the residfinder was started in 1989 with the ground works that was Mowlems who had that contract, Davy had the bulk of the contract who subcontract the built of the plant to Costains. this is not lastest information on what is going on there today, this is first hand imformation that went on when the place was first built.
Allowing you some leeway for the fact you can't read and write very well I'll accept that you read 'Residerfinder' for a plant that is called a 'Residfiner'. Like most of your 'first hand information' this account is also full of holes.
Its not full of holes at all, spelling do not make it full of holes.
In the 80's I work on in the Refinery 2 Esso's turnarounds on the 5 year turnaround plants maintenance programs, the building of the Deleading Plant and the start for Costains Residfinder plant that ran onto 1991 was made redundant just before the hand over to another contractor for start up.
This might have some interest to some of you, like your self Loose.

PUBLIC MEETING
Save Oakland's Swimming Pool
Lordshill Church
Lordshill District Centre
Lordshill
Friday 10th August at 7pm

Please come and show your support for the stand taken by local councillors, Keith Morrell and Don Thomas to stop the closure of the pool.
Will this meeting actually be about saving the swimming pool or will it be hijacked by a representative of the TUSC as a political platform?
It will be hijacked by Rahid Maryada, who will speak in Sikh.
.. I think his mates Rehat Maryada and Reht Maryada may also be attending.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Citing of the internet is not a credible source it will change and with out reason, books are a credidle source they are wrinten in black and white and can not change apart from amement editions ay a later date. Now if you want to find out what is going on get some one who works there and belongs to the Unions that are in that place. the lease runs out this year, there is a years grace on the lease after the years grace you have a settling period. that will bring you to December 31st 2012. Unions are in Talks now and have been for the last 2 mths of my knowledge, all that is needed to be sorted out is the redundancys payoff.[/p][/quote]Citing the Internet gives everyone the latest information because it can be kept up to date so easily whereas your local library won't buy reference books every time there is an update. In a nutshell, you are the one most in danger of quoting the wrong facts like for example there being a 'Residerfinder' plant on the refinery at Fawley. For the latest information on the refinery you can call 02380-892511 but I don't suppose you'll believe anything that the owners of the refinery tell you.[/p][/quote]I was on the contract that built the Residfinder plant, how about that for first hand information, The 3 largest plant vessals came in though Marchwood Military Quay and was taken to Fawley by road, the road carriers was built by Citreon, each wheel had a man steering it, each vessal also had an escort of not just the Police and Fire Service, it had the water board there and gas board also 12 riggers walking along side. The Smaller plant vessels came in though Fawley power station it was a plant carrier ship that bought them in and moored up on Southern Road/ Quay Road inside the power station. the residfinder was started in 1989 with the ground works that was Mowlems who had that contract, Davy had the bulk of the contract who subcontract the built of the plant to Costains. this is not lastest information on what is going on there today, this is first hand imformation that went on when the place was first built.[/p][/quote]Allowing you some leeway for the fact you can't read and write very well I'll accept that you read 'Residerfinder' for a plant that is called a 'Residfiner'. Like most of your 'first hand information' this account is also full of holes.[/p][/quote]Its not full of holes at all, spelling do not make it full of holes. In the 80's I work on in the Refinery 2 Esso's turnarounds on the 5 year turnaround plants maintenance programs, the building of the Deleading Plant and the start for Costains Residfinder plant that ran onto 1991 was made redundant just before the hand over to another contractor for start up.[/p][/quote]This might have some interest to some of you, like your self Loose. PUBLIC MEETING Save Oakland's Swimming Pool Lordshill Church Lordshill District Centre Lordshill Friday 10th August at 7pm Please come and show your support for the stand taken by local councillors, Keith Morrell and Don Thomas to stop the closure of the pool.[/p][/quote]Will this meeting actually be about saving the swimming pool or will it be hijacked by a representative of the TUSC as a political platform?[/p][/quote]It will be hijacked by Rahid Maryada, who will speak in Sikh.[/p][/quote].. I think his mates Rehat Maryada and Reht Maryada may also be attending. freefinker
  • Score: 0

4:44pm Tue 24 Jul 12

loosehead says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Could I please warn you all! on my other computer I received a warning from Microsoft saying it had detected spam & Trojan horses so I said fix it.
but then I got another one saying it had put it into a temporary file & it might be harmful.
I never opened the file but done a system restore back to another date & did a virus scan.
I hope I've done the right thing but I thought I'd better warn you all & ask you if I've done right?
It pays to have good Virus detection, but even the good ones miss dangerous infections. I only wish there was a cyber Police Force to weed out the maggots that infest the Internet and give them plenty of time to twiddle their useless thumbs behind bars.
Osprey by doing a system recovery & checking with Norton have I got rid of it?
Have I done the right thing? It looked exactly like Microsoft so I thought it was genuine.
I've turned off the wireless connection what else can I do?
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Could I please warn you all! on my other computer I received a warning from Microsoft saying it had detected spam & Trojan horses so I said fix it. but then I got another one saying it had put it into a temporary file & it might be harmful. I never opened the file but done a system restore back to another date & did a virus scan. I hope I've done the right thing but I thought I'd better warn you all & ask you if I've done right?[/p][/quote]It pays to have good Virus detection, but even the good ones miss dangerous infections. I only wish there was a cyber Police Force to weed out the maggots that infest the Internet and give them plenty of time to twiddle their useless thumbs behind bars.[/p][/quote]Osprey by doing a system recovery & checking with Norton have I got rid of it? Have I done the right thing? It looked exactly like Microsoft so I thought it was genuine. I've turned off the wireless connection what else can I do? loosehead
  • Score: 0

4:48pm Tue 24 Jul 12

loosehead says...

The Watcher wrote:
loosehead wrote:
The Watcher wrote:
loosehead wrote:
The Watcher wrote:
Poor decision from the Council on this one and although I can understand and sympathise with local Councillors representing their constituents, I do think that sometimes some has to take a broader view on these issues.
.
I'm afraid the NIMBY lobby need to be overruled. Biomass will be an integral part of a balanced energy portfolio formtis country.
.
The only objection is on aesthetic reasons as the arguments citing pollution, unsustainabke biomass fuel requirements, its lack of "green" green credentials have been comprehensively debunked.
.
And as for aesthetic objections it is being built on industrial land that has been the site, or near to a number, of factories etc.
.
Unbelievable! I totally agree with you but read the article this council might as well admit they want it but want the votes more?
You didn't reply to the pool never being under the remit/ownership of Oasis though ;-)
As far as I knew it was part of Oaklands school.
I did say it was asked of Oasis if they would take over stewardship but refused & this is the reason it was not contracted out with the rest more's the pity
It was never offered in the negotiations with Oasis Learning and it was never a part of Clive Websters Learning Futures review.
.
'twas always a part of the Leisure portfolio, not education and was offered up in the same tendering process that saw DC Leisure take over the majority of the City's leisure facilities.
.
DC Leisure, and others, simply rejected the Oaklands pool as the numbers did not add up.
.
I knew the council of the time were in talks with two parties 1/to keep the pool open 2/ to see if the locals could get low prices to just use David Lloyds pool & only their pool.
But the then council decided to do the repairs & keep it open they were also closing the local housing office & Lordshill Library & moving them into the main Oaklands building
[quote][p][bold]The Watcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Watcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Watcher[/bold] wrote: Poor decision from the Council on this one and although I can understand and sympathise with local Councillors representing their constituents, I do think that sometimes some has to take a broader view on these issues. . I'm afraid the NIMBY lobby need to be overruled. Biomass will be an integral part of a balanced energy portfolio formtis country. . The only objection is on aesthetic reasons as the arguments citing pollution, unsustainabke biomass fuel requirements, its lack of "green" green credentials have been comprehensively debunked. . And as for aesthetic objections it is being built on industrial land that has been the site, or near to a number, of factories etc. .[/p][/quote]Unbelievable! I totally agree with you but read the article this council might as well admit they want it but want the votes more?[/p][/quote]You didn't reply to the pool never being under the remit/ownership of Oasis though ;-)[/p][/quote]As far as I knew it was part of Oaklands school. I did say it was asked of Oasis if they would take over stewardship but refused & this is the reason it was not contracted out with the rest more's the pity[/p][/quote]It was never offered in the negotiations with Oasis Learning and it was never a part of Clive Websters Learning Futures review. . 'twas always a part of the Leisure portfolio, not education and was offered up in the same tendering process that saw DC Leisure take over the majority of the City's leisure facilities. . DC Leisure, and others, simply rejected the Oaklands pool as the numbers did not add up. .[/p][/quote]I knew the council of the time were in talks with two parties 1/to keep the pool open 2/ to see if the locals could get low prices to just use David Lloyds pool & only their pool. But the then council decided to do the repairs & keep it open they were also closing the local housing office & Lordshill Library & moving them into the main Oaklands building loosehead
  • Score: 0

4:55pm Tue 24 Jul 12

Georgem says...

loosehead wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Could I please warn you all! on my other computer I received a warning from Microsoft saying it had detected spam & Trojan horses so I said fix it.
but then I got another one saying it had put it into a temporary file & it might be harmful.
I never opened the file but done a system restore back to another date & did a virus scan.
I hope I've done the right thing but I thought I'd better warn you all & ask you if I've done right?
It pays to have good Virus detection, but even the good ones miss dangerous infections. I only wish there was a cyber Police Force to weed out the maggots that infest the Internet and give them plenty of time to twiddle their useless thumbs behind bars.
Osprey by doing a system recovery & checking with Norton have I got rid of it?
Have I done the right thing? It looked exactly like Microsoft so I thought it was genuine.
I've turned off the wireless connection what else can I do?
Buy a Mac.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Could I please warn you all! on my other computer I received a warning from Microsoft saying it had detected spam & Trojan horses so I said fix it. but then I got another one saying it had put it into a temporary file & it might be harmful. I never opened the file but done a system restore back to another date & did a virus scan. I hope I've done the right thing but I thought I'd better warn you all & ask you if I've done right?[/p][/quote]It pays to have good Virus detection, but even the good ones miss dangerous infections. I only wish there was a cyber Police Force to weed out the maggots that infest the Internet and give them plenty of time to twiddle their useless thumbs behind bars.[/p][/quote]Osprey by doing a system recovery & checking with Norton have I got rid of it? Have I done the right thing? It looked exactly like Microsoft so I thought it was genuine. I've turned off the wireless connection what else can I do?[/p][/quote]Buy a Mac. Georgem
  • Score: 0

6:18pm Tue 24 Jul 12

good-gosh says...

Georgem wrote:
loosehead wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Could I please warn you all! on my other computer I received a warning from Microsoft saying it had detected spam & Trojan horses so I said fix it.
but then I got another one saying it had put it into a temporary file & it might be harmful.
I never opened the file but done a system restore back to another date & did a virus scan.
I hope I've done the right thing but I thought I'd better warn you all & ask you if I've done right?
It pays to have good Virus detection, but even the good ones miss dangerous infections. I only wish there was a cyber Police Force to weed out the maggots that infest the Internet and give them plenty of time to twiddle their useless thumbs behind bars.
Osprey by doing a system recovery & checking with Norton have I got rid of it?
Have I done the right thing? It looked exactly like Microsoft so I thought it was genuine.
I've turned off the wireless connection what else can I do?
Buy a Mac.
I would check for strange programs added today. L.click Start, click "All Programs", Look for any programs that you do not recognise and R.click on one of them. Lclick "Properties" and click on "General". The date and time created will be shown. If it was today and you didn’t request it, then delete it.Then go to the next unrecognized program and repeat. Good luck.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Could I please warn you all! on my other computer I received a warning from Microsoft saying it had detected spam & Trojan horses so I said fix it. but then I got another one saying it had put it into a temporary file & it might be harmful. I never opened the file but done a system restore back to another date & did a virus scan. I hope I've done the right thing but I thought I'd better warn you all & ask you if I've done right?[/p][/quote]It pays to have good Virus detection, but even the good ones miss dangerous infections. I only wish there was a cyber Police Force to weed out the maggots that infest the Internet and give them plenty of time to twiddle their useless thumbs behind bars.[/p][/quote]Osprey by doing a system recovery & checking with Norton have I got rid of it? Have I done the right thing? It looked exactly like Microsoft so I thought it was genuine. I've turned off the wireless connection what else can I do?[/p][/quote]Buy a Mac.[/p][/quote]I would check for strange programs added today. L.click Start, click "All Programs", Look for any programs that you do not recognise and R.click on one of them. Lclick "Properties" and click on "General". The date and time created will be shown. If it was today and you didn’t request it, then delete it.Then go to the next unrecognized program and repeat. Good luck. good-gosh
  • Score: 0

6:34pm Tue 24 Jul 12

good-gosh says...

Don’t worry about a power plant Southampton, we will continue to sell you some of the electricity we make across the water, next to the incinerator where we burn some of your rubbish.
Don’t worry about a power plant Southampton, we will continue to sell you some of the electricity we make across the water, next to the incinerator where we burn some of your rubbish. good-gosh
  • Score: 0

9:01pm Tue 24 Jul 12

loosehead says...

Georgem wrote:
loosehead wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Could I please warn you all! on my other computer I received a warning from Microsoft saying it had detected spam & Trojan horses so I said fix it.
but then I got another one saying it had put it into a temporary file & it might be harmful.
I never opened the file but done a system restore back to another date & did a virus scan.
I hope I've done the right thing but I thought I'd better warn you all & ask you if I've done right?
It pays to have good Virus detection, but even the good ones miss dangerous infections. I only wish there was a cyber Police Force to weed out the maggots that infest the Internet and give them plenty of time to twiddle their useless thumbs behind bars.
Osprey by doing a system recovery & checking with Norton have I got rid of it?
Have I done the right thing? It looked exactly like Microsoft so I thought it was genuine.
I've turned off the wireless connection what else can I do?
Buy a Mac.
Got one
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Could I please warn you all! on my other computer I received a warning from Microsoft saying it had detected spam & Trojan horses so I said fix it. but then I got another one saying it had put it into a temporary file & it might be harmful. I never opened the file but done a system restore back to another date & did a virus scan. I hope I've done the right thing but I thought I'd better warn you all & ask you if I've done right?[/p][/quote]It pays to have good Virus detection, but even the good ones miss dangerous infections. I only wish there was a cyber Police Force to weed out the maggots that infest the Internet and give them plenty of time to twiddle their useless thumbs behind bars.[/p][/quote]Osprey by doing a system recovery & checking with Norton have I got rid of it? Have I done the right thing? It looked exactly like Microsoft so I thought it was genuine. I've turned off the wireless connection what else can I do?[/p][/quote]Buy a Mac.[/p][/quote]Got one loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:37pm Tue 24 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

loosehead wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Could I please warn you all! on my other computer I received a warning from Microsoft saying it had detected spam & Trojan horses so I said fix it.
but then I got another one saying it had put it into a temporary file & it might be harmful.
I never opened the file but done a system restore back to another date & did a virus scan.
I hope I've done the right thing but I thought I'd better warn you all & ask you if I've done right?
It pays to have good Virus detection, but even the good ones miss dangerous infections. I only wish there was a cyber Police Force to weed out the maggots that infest the Internet and give them plenty of time to twiddle their useless thumbs behind bars.
Osprey by doing a system recovery & checking with Norton have I got rid of it?
Have I done the right thing? It looked exactly like Microsoft so I thought it was genuine.
I've turned off the wireless connection what else can I do?
I am not a Computer Nerd, there are plenty of Programmes out there to help but some of them are as bad as a virus!
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Could I please warn you all! on my other computer I received a warning from Microsoft saying it had detected spam & Trojan horses so I said fix it. but then I got another one saying it had put it into a temporary file & it might be harmful. I never opened the file but done a system restore back to another date & did a virus scan. I hope I've done the right thing but I thought I'd better warn you all & ask you if I've done right?[/p][/quote]It pays to have good Virus detection, but even the good ones miss dangerous infections. I only wish there was a cyber Police Force to weed out the maggots that infest the Internet and give them plenty of time to twiddle their useless thumbs behind bars.[/p][/quote]Osprey by doing a system recovery & checking with Norton have I got rid of it? Have I done the right thing? It looked exactly like Microsoft so I thought it was genuine. I've turned off the wireless connection what else can I do?[/p][/quote]I am not a Computer Nerd, there are plenty of Programmes out there to help but some of them are as bad as a virus! OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

9:38pm Tue 24 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

Dibden Bay would be the ideal location.
Dibden Bay would be the ideal location. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

10:43pm Tue 24 Jul 12

Jamez3000 says...

Getting back on the subject of the council's official opposition to Helius' plans, you can view the summary of recommendations on the following link: http://www.southampt
on.gov.uk/modernGov/
documents/s12678/App
endix%203.pdf
Getting back on the subject of the council's official opposition to Helius' plans, you can view the summary of recommendations on the following link: http://www.southampt on.gov.uk/modernGov/ documents/s12678/App endix%203.pdf Jamez3000
  • Score: 0

10:44pm Tue 24 Jul 12

Georgem says...

loosehead wrote:
Georgem wrote:
loosehead wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Could I please warn you all! on my other computer I received a warning from Microsoft saying it had detected spam & Trojan horses so I said fix it.
but then I got another one saying it had put it into a temporary file & it might be harmful.
I never opened the file but done a system restore back to another date & did a virus scan.
I hope I've done the right thing but I thought I'd better warn you all & ask you if I've done right?
It pays to have good Virus detection, but even the good ones miss dangerous infections. I only wish there was a cyber Police Force to weed out the maggots that infest the Internet and give them plenty of time to twiddle their useless thumbs behind bars.
Osprey by doing a system recovery & checking with Norton have I got rid of it?
Have I done the right thing? It looked exactly like Microsoft so I thought it was genuine.
I've turned off the wireless connection what else can I do?
Buy a Mac.
Got one
Where does Microsoft come into it?
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Could I please warn you all! on my other computer I received a warning from Microsoft saying it had detected spam & Trojan horses so I said fix it. but then I got another one saying it had put it into a temporary file & it might be harmful. I never opened the file but done a system restore back to another date & did a virus scan. I hope I've done the right thing but I thought I'd better warn you all & ask you if I've done right?[/p][/quote]It pays to have good Virus detection, but even the good ones miss dangerous infections. I only wish there was a cyber Police Force to weed out the maggots that infest the Internet and give them plenty of time to twiddle their useless thumbs behind bars.[/p][/quote]Osprey by doing a system recovery & checking with Norton have I got rid of it? Have I done the right thing? It looked exactly like Microsoft so I thought it was genuine. I've turned off the wireless connection what else can I do?[/p][/quote]Buy a Mac.[/p][/quote]Got one[/p][/quote]Where does Microsoft come into it? Georgem
  • Score: 0

10:46pm Tue 24 Jul 12

Max Freemantle says...

I thought that Fawley Power Station was replaced in 2010 as the main Power Station for Hampshire by Marchwood Power Station an 842MW Natural Gas Power Station, details of this power station can be found at marchwoodpower dot com
I would consider another 100 MW about 1km away would be superfluous
I thought that Fawley Power Station was replaced in 2010 as the main Power Station for Hampshire by Marchwood Power Station an 842MW Natural Gas Power Station, details of this power station can be found at marchwoodpower dot com I would consider another 100 MW about 1km away would be superfluous Max Freemantle
  • Score: 0

10:56pm Tue 24 Jul 12

Jamez3000 says...

Max Freemantle wrote:
I thought that Fawley Power Station was replaced in 2010 as the main Power Station for Hampshire by Marchwood Power Station an 842MW Natural Gas Power Station, details of this power station can be found at marchwoodpower dot com
I would consider another 100 MW about 1km away would be superfluous
Yes definitely Marchwood Power Stations generates enough electricity for Southampton, plus the Southern Hampshire area including Winchester, Eastleigh and the New Forest so yes a 100MW Biomass power station is totally superfluous and unecessary. The only reason Helius even want to build this power station is because of the handouts given at present by the Government, these (ROC's) are currently under review by the Department for Energy and Climate change...
[quote][p][bold]Max Freemantle[/bold] wrote: I thought that Fawley Power Station was replaced in 2010 as the main Power Station for Hampshire by Marchwood Power Station an 842MW Natural Gas Power Station, details of this power station can be found at marchwoodpower dot com I would consider another 100 MW about 1km away would be superfluous[/p][/quote]Yes definitely Marchwood Power Stations generates enough electricity for Southampton, plus the Southern Hampshire area including Winchester, Eastleigh and the New Forest so yes a 100MW Biomass power station is totally superfluous and unecessary. The only reason Helius even want to build this power station is because of the handouts given at present by the Government, these (ROC's) are currently under review by the Department for Energy and Climate change... Jamez3000
  • Score: 0

11:45pm Tue 24 Jul 12

Condor Man says...

Well done, now if I can't use electricity in the future I'll know who to blame.
Well done, now if I can't use electricity in the future I'll know who to blame. Condor Man
  • Score: 0

6:32am Wed 25 Jul 12

loosehead says...

Georgem wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Georgem wrote:
loosehead wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Could I please warn you all! on my other computer I received a warning from Microsoft saying it had detected spam & Trojan horses so I said fix it.
but then I got another one saying it had put it into a temporary file & it might be harmful.
I never opened the file but done a system restore back to another date & did a virus scan.
I hope I've done the right thing but I thought I'd better warn you all & ask you if I've done right?
It pays to have good Virus detection, but even the good ones miss dangerous infections. I only wish there was a cyber Police Force to weed out the maggots that infest the Internet and give them plenty of time to twiddle their useless thumbs behind bars.
Osprey by doing a system recovery & checking with Norton have I got rid of it?
Have I done the right thing? It looked exactly like Microsoft so I thought it was genuine.
I've turned off the wireless connection what else can I do?
Buy a Mac.
Got one
Where does Microsoft come into it?
Got a laptop & a Mac
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Could I please warn you all! on my other computer I received a warning from Microsoft saying it had detected spam & Trojan horses so I said fix it. but then I got another one saying it had put it into a temporary file & it might be harmful. I never opened the file but done a system restore back to another date & did a virus scan. I hope I've done the right thing but I thought I'd better warn you all & ask you if I've done right?[/p][/quote]It pays to have good Virus detection, but even the good ones miss dangerous infections. I only wish there was a cyber Police Force to weed out the maggots that infest the Internet and give them plenty of time to twiddle their useless thumbs behind bars.[/p][/quote]Osprey by doing a system recovery & checking with Norton have I got rid of it? Have I done the right thing? It looked exactly like Microsoft so I thought it was genuine. I've turned off the wireless connection what else can I do?[/p][/quote]Buy a Mac.[/p][/quote]Got one[/p][/quote]Where does Microsoft come into it?[/p][/quote]Got a laptop & a Mac loosehead
  • Score: 0

6:36am Wed 25 Jul 12

loosehead says...

If I was in the NO campaign I'd be very worried by this article!
If Helius show they're setting up air quality monitors sufficient enough to satisfy the council ?
While the council has no objection to the principle of biomass as a renewable energy source, councillors also wanted specific details about how steam and hot water from the plant could be reused in a district heating scheme.
then the above phrase should worry the NO campaign very much
If I was in the NO campaign I'd be very worried by this article! If Helius show they're setting up air quality monitors sufficient enough to satisfy the council ? While the council has no objection to the principle of biomass as a renewable energy source, councillors also wanted specific details about how steam and hot water from the plant could be reused in a district heating scheme. then the above phrase should worry the NO campaign very much loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:10am Wed 25 Jul 12

Dan Soton says...

UKIPsouthampton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
The council should have objections to Helius plans on the principle Helius is competing with agricultural land. - Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means Helius could be incinerating 120,000 acres of Canadan Miscanthus grass per year.. if as below 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass pellets - Biomass pellets becoming a hot commodity in Europe. By Diana Martin, QMI Agency. Posted 12 days ago. “Last year, Europe consumed 13 million tonnes of biomass pellets,” said Ian Moncrieff, president and CEO of Canadian Biofuel. “By 2015, they will be using 20 million; by 2020, it will be 30 million-plus.” European countries don’t have the landmass to produce enough biomass pellets to meet the demand, which is why they are looking at Canada to fill the void, he said. Moncrieff added Canadian Biofuels would need 12,000 to 15,000 acres of miscanthus to produces 100,000 tonnes to support a new plant. - http://tinyurl.com/c srdlee
Yes but we also dont have enough land to grow food and crops to support the amount of numbers in this country.
.
We fill the void by purchasing land around the world including Africa!
.
The UK must be self sustaining, and if this is a good enough reason not to have the biomass plant then I agree.
€130m solar pannals power 15,000 homes Vs £300m Helius biomass incinerator power 20,000 homes.


-

UKIPsouthampton, on the subject of wasting valuable agricultural land.



Helius should be laughed out of Southampton, in reality Helius is beyond a joke if you see Robert Llewellyn' s video, a former German military airfield is turned into a huge solar power plant powering 15,000 homes.

The New Forest isn't short of abandond military airfields, Beaulieu Airfield was a standard 'A' shape covering 570 acres and Stoney Cross airfield at one time was roughly 898 acres, now the main runway is Forest road.. just my opinion, all the airfields put to use could easily power 40,000 + homes, at a cost ( going by Germany's) of £ 269.67m / € 346.66m .

-

youtube video: Robert Llewellyn @ 4:42..


http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=p2hU17p2x
jU
[quote][p][bold]UKIPsouthampton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: The council should have objections to Helius plans on the principle Helius is competing with agricultural land. - Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means Helius could be incinerating 120,000 acres of Canadan Miscanthus grass per year.. if as below 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass pellets - Biomass pellets becoming a hot commodity in Europe. By Diana Martin, QMI Agency. Posted 12 days ago. “Last year, Europe consumed 13 million tonnes of biomass pellets,” said Ian Moncrieff, president and CEO of Canadian Biofuel. “By 2015, they will be using 20 million; by 2020, it will be 30 million-plus.” European countries don’t have the landmass to produce enough biomass pellets to meet the demand, which is why they are looking at Canada to fill the void, he said. Moncrieff added Canadian Biofuels would need 12,000 to 15,000 acres of miscanthus to produces 100,000 tonnes to support a new plant. - http://tinyurl.com/c srdlee[/p][/quote]Yes but we also dont have enough land to grow food and crops to support the amount of numbers in this country. . We fill the void by purchasing land around the world including Africa! . The UK must be self sustaining, and if this is a good enough reason not to have the biomass plant then I agree.[/p][/quote]€130m solar pannals power 15,000 homes Vs £300m Helius biomass incinerator power 20,000 homes. - UKIPsouthampton, on the subject of wasting valuable agricultural land. Helius should be laughed out of Southampton, in reality Helius is beyond a joke if you see Robert Llewellyn' s video, a former German military airfield is turned into a huge solar power plant powering 15,000 homes. The New Forest isn't short of abandond military airfields, Beaulieu Airfield was a standard 'A' shape covering 570 acres and Stoney Cross airfield at one time was roughly 898 acres, now the main runway is Forest road.. just my opinion, all the airfields put to use could easily power 40,000 + homes, at a cost ( going by Germany's) of £ 269.67m / € 346.66m . - youtube video: Robert Llewellyn @ 4:42.. http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=p2hU17p2x jU Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

9:29am Wed 25 Jul 12

Georgem says...

loosehead wrote:
Georgem wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Georgem wrote:
loosehead wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Could I please warn you all! on my other computer I received a warning from Microsoft saying it had detected spam & Trojan horses so I said fix it.
but then I got another one saying it had put it into a temporary file & it might be harmful.
I never opened the file but done a system restore back to another date & did a virus scan.
I hope I've done the right thing but I thought I'd better warn you all & ask you if I've done right?
It pays to have good Virus detection, but even the good ones miss dangerous infections. I only wish there was a cyber Police Force to weed out the maggots that infest the Internet and give them plenty of time to twiddle their useless thumbs behind bars.
Osprey by doing a system recovery & checking with Norton have I got rid of it?
Have I done the right thing? It looked exactly like Microsoft so I thought it was genuine.
I've turned off the wireless connection what else can I do?
Buy a Mac.
Got one
Where does Microsoft come into it?
Got a laptop & a Mac
Aha. They mystery is solved.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Could I please warn you all! on my other computer I received a warning from Microsoft saying it had detected spam & Trojan horses so I said fix it. but then I got another one saying it had put it into a temporary file & it might be harmful. I never opened the file but done a system restore back to another date & did a virus scan. I hope I've done the right thing but I thought I'd better warn you all & ask you if I've done right?[/p][/quote]It pays to have good Virus detection, but even the good ones miss dangerous infections. I only wish there was a cyber Police Force to weed out the maggots that infest the Internet and give them plenty of time to twiddle their useless thumbs behind bars.[/p][/quote]Osprey by doing a system recovery & checking with Norton have I got rid of it? Have I done the right thing? It looked exactly like Microsoft so I thought it was genuine. I've turned off the wireless connection what else can I do?[/p][/quote]Buy a Mac.[/p][/quote]Got one[/p][/quote]Where does Microsoft come into it?[/p][/quote]Got a laptop & a Mac[/p][/quote]Aha. They mystery is solved. Georgem
  • Score: 0

12:17pm Wed 25 Jul 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

Dan Soton wrote:
UKIPsouthampton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
The council should have objections to Helius plans on the principle Helius is competing with agricultural land. - Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means Helius could be incinerating 120,000 acres of Canadan Miscanthus grass per year.. if as below 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass pellets - Biomass pellets becoming a hot commodity in Europe. By Diana Martin, QMI Agency. Posted 12 days ago. “Last year, Europe consumed 13 million tonnes of biomass pellets,” said Ian Moncrieff, president and CEO of Canadian Biofuel. “By 2015, they will be using 20 million; by 2020, it will be 30 million-plus.” European countries don’t have the landmass to produce enough biomass pellets to meet the demand, which is why they are looking at Canada to fill the void, he said. Moncrieff added Canadian Biofuels would need 12,000 to 15,000 acres of miscanthus to produces 100,000 tonnes to support a new plant. - http://tinyurl.com/c srdlee
Yes but we also dont have enough land to grow food and crops to support the amount of numbers in this country.
.
We fill the void by purchasing land around the world including Africa!
.
The UK must be self sustaining, and if this is a good enough reason not to have the biomass plant then I agree.
€130m solar pannals power 15,000 homes Vs £300m Helius biomass incinerator power 20,000 homes.


-

UKIPsouthampton, on the subject of wasting valuable agricultural land.



Helius should be laughed out of Southampton, in reality Helius is beyond a joke if you see Robert Llewellyn' s video, a former German military airfield is turned into a huge solar power plant powering 15,000 homes.

The New Forest isn't short of abandond military airfields, Beaulieu Airfield was a standard 'A' shape covering 570 acres and Stoney Cross airfield at one time was roughly 898 acres, now the main runway is Forest road.. just my opinion, all the airfields put to use could easily power 40,000 + homes, at a cost ( going by Germany's) of £ 269.67m / € 346.66m .

-

youtube video: Robert Llewellyn @ 4:42..


http://www.youtube.c

om/watch?v=p2hU17p2x

jU
Cloud Cuckoo land, if you expect the New Forest land to be used for anything useful. Partially controlled weed growing and totally uncontrolled road kill are as good as it will get.
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]UKIPsouthampton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: The council should have objections to Helius plans on the principle Helius is competing with agricultural land. - Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means Helius could be incinerating 120,000 acres of Canadan Miscanthus grass per year.. if as below 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass pellets - Biomass pellets becoming a hot commodity in Europe. By Diana Martin, QMI Agency. Posted 12 days ago. “Last year, Europe consumed 13 million tonnes of biomass pellets,” said Ian Moncrieff, president and CEO of Canadian Biofuel. “By 2015, they will be using 20 million; by 2020, it will be 30 million-plus.” European countries don’t have the landmass to produce enough biomass pellets to meet the demand, which is why they are looking at Canada to fill the void, he said. Moncrieff added Canadian Biofuels would need 12,000 to 15,000 acres of miscanthus to produces 100,000 tonnes to support a new plant. - http://tinyurl.com/c srdlee[/p][/quote]Yes but we also dont have enough land to grow food and crops to support the amount of numbers in this country. . We fill the void by purchasing land around the world including Africa! . The UK must be self sustaining, and if this is a good enough reason not to have the biomass plant then I agree.[/p][/quote]€130m solar pannals power 15,000 homes Vs £300m Helius biomass incinerator power 20,000 homes. - UKIPsouthampton, on the subject of wasting valuable agricultural land. Helius should be laughed out of Southampton, in reality Helius is beyond a joke if you see Robert Llewellyn' s video, a former German military airfield is turned into a huge solar power plant powering 15,000 homes. The New Forest isn't short of abandond military airfields, Beaulieu Airfield was a standard 'A' shape covering 570 acres and Stoney Cross airfield at one time was roughly 898 acres, now the main runway is Forest road.. just my opinion, all the airfields put to use could easily power 40,000 + homes, at a cost ( going by Germany's) of £ 269.67m / € 346.66m . - youtube video: Robert Llewellyn @ 4:42.. http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=p2hU17p2x jU[/p][/quote]Cloud Cuckoo land, if you expect the New Forest land to be used for anything useful. Partially controlled weed growing and totally uncontrolled road kill are as good as it will get. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

12:23pm Wed 25 Jul 12

loosehead says...

Dan Soton wrote:
UKIPsouthampton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
The council should have objections to Helius plans on the principle Helius is competing with agricultural land. - Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means Helius could be incinerating 120,000 acres of Canadan Miscanthus grass per year.. if as below 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass pellets - Biomass pellets becoming a hot commodity in Europe. By Diana Martin, QMI Agency. Posted 12 days ago. “Last year, Europe consumed 13 million tonnes of biomass pellets,” said Ian Moncrieff, president and CEO of Canadian Biofuel. “By 2015, they will be using 20 million; by 2020, it will be 30 million-plus.” European countries don’t have the landmass to produce enough biomass pellets to meet the demand, which is why they are looking at Canada to fill the void, he said. Moncrieff added Canadian Biofuels would need 12,000 to 15,000 acres of miscanthus to produces 100,000 tonnes to support a new plant. - http://tinyurl.com/c srdlee
Yes but we also dont have enough land to grow food and crops to support the amount of numbers in this country.
.
We fill the void by purchasing land around the world including Africa!
.
The UK must be self sustaining, and if this is a good enough reason not to have the biomass plant then I agree.
€130m solar pannals power 15,000 homes Vs £300m Helius biomass incinerator power 20,000 homes.


-

UKIPsouthampton, on the subject of wasting valuable agricultural land.



Helius should be laughed out of Southampton, in reality Helius is beyond a joke if you see Robert Llewellyn' s video, a former German military airfield is turned into a huge solar power plant powering 15,000 homes.

The New Forest isn't short of abandond military airfields, Beaulieu Airfield was a standard 'A' shape covering 570 acres and Stoney Cross airfield at one time was roughly 898 acres, now the main runway is Forest road.. just my opinion, all the airfields put to use could easily power 40,000 + homes, at a cost ( going by Germany's) of £ 269.67m / € 346.66m .

-

youtube video: Robert Llewellyn @ 4:42..


http://www.youtube.c

om/watch?v=p2hU17p2x

jU
Dan look at every council house.look at the scheme where a company will lease you're roof space for twenty five years & put up & maintain the panels.
they get the tariff on any unused electricity.
they're happy the tenant doesn't pay for a chunk of the electricity they use yet Labour city council won't allow council tenants to have them yet are installing them on the roofs of Rozell & Sarnia courts plus numerous other OAP blocks under the tariff agreement?
as i've said to you before I believe we could drastically cut our power station production if we rolled out Solar Panels across the country to every household.
A Southampton Uni/college? did a window version of solar panels which could be used in every flat with a window but the problem is it would have to be funded by government
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]UKIPsouthampton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: The council should have objections to Helius plans on the principle Helius is competing with agricultural land. - Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means Helius could be incinerating 120,000 acres of Canadan Miscanthus grass per year.. if as below 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass pellets - Biomass pellets becoming a hot commodity in Europe. By Diana Martin, QMI Agency. Posted 12 days ago. “Last year, Europe consumed 13 million tonnes of biomass pellets,” said Ian Moncrieff, president and CEO of Canadian Biofuel. “By 2015, they will be using 20 million; by 2020, it will be 30 million-plus.” European countries don’t have the landmass to produce enough biomass pellets to meet the demand, which is why they are looking at Canada to fill the void, he said. Moncrieff added Canadian Biofuels would need 12,000 to 15,000 acres of miscanthus to produces 100,000 tonnes to support a new plant. - http://tinyurl.com/c srdlee[/p][/quote]Yes but we also dont have enough land to grow food and crops to support the amount of numbers in this country. . We fill the void by purchasing land around the world including Africa! . The UK must be self sustaining, and if this is a good enough reason not to have the biomass plant then I agree.[/p][/quote]€130m solar pannals power 15,000 homes Vs £300m Helius biomass incinerator power 20,000 homes. - UKIPsouthampton, on the subject of wasting valuable agricultural land. Helius should be laughed out of Southampton, in reality Helius is beyond a joke if you see Robert Llewellyn' s video, a former German military airfield is turned into a huge solar power plant powering 15,000 homes. The New Forest isn't short of abandond military airfields, Beaulieu Airfield was a standard 'A' shape covering 570 acres and Stoney Cross airfield at one time was roughly 898 acres, now the main runway is Forest road.. just my opinion, all the airfields put to use could easily power 40,000 + homes, at a cost ( going by Germany's) of £ 269.67m / € 346.66m . - youtube video: Robert Llewellyn @ 4:42.. http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=p2hU17p2x jU[/p][/quote]Dan look at every council house.look at the scheme where a company will lease you're roof space for twenty five years & put up & maintain the panels. they get the tariff on any unused electricity. they're happy the tenant doesn't pay for a chunk of the electricity they use yet Labour city council won't allow council tenants to have them yet are installing them on the roofs of Rozell & Sarnia courts plus numerous other OAP blocks under the tariff agreement? as i've said to you before I believe we could drastically cut our power station production if we rolled out Solar Panels across the country to every household. A Southampton Uni/college? did a window version of solar panels which could be used in every flat with a window but the problem is it would have to be funded by government loosehead
  • Score: 0

12:42pm Wed 25 Jul 12

phil maccavity says...

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.
I mentioned several times why it is not ideal Southy - There is no deepwater channel as charts prove, and the existing plant is unsuitable or unusable, it has no rail link and inferior road links. I sailed to Ashlett Creek last week and everyone who knows Ashlett knows there is no deepwater channel to the power station - the cooling water inlet is far too small. You keep referring to those moored bulk carriers as being off Fawley but as every sailor knows they were moored off Netley on the ship moorings! You cite environmental reasons for preferring Fawley but simple eyesight and common sense should tell you and any other local resident that that the place of least envionmental impact of any chimney is right next to it - yet you have this strange belief that 10 miles upwind is somehow going to be cleaner or better when it is actually worse. What is your reasoning for this?
Andy read your charts, one is the intake is not located at Ashlett creek, what is located at Ashlett Creek is the old Tidal Mill which is now a Pub, the power station is located down river from Ashlett its closer to Calshot village than Ashlett village.
The channel leading into the intake where they was going to have the dock before change of plans,is 4m deep at at 0-0 spring low water, add on to that high water springs of 4-9 and you have a channal that is more than deep enough to take bulk carriers, it is as deep as the spot they call the natural deep in Southampton Waters,
Those bulk carriers was not just moored on netley moorings, there was also one in Southampton western docks the biggest one of them all, there was another over in machwood, and the one I told you about that was moored in Fawley intake channal,
Esso Refinery some times use the quay wall inside Fawley power station to off load vessels that are built in Italy, most of the vessels tanks came in though Fawley apart from the 3 biggest ones they came in from the Marchwood Military camp that was for the Residerfinder plant when it was being built.
For Gods sake Southy that is just mixture of irrelevance, random fact and innacuracy. Do you think I don;t know which channel I'm sailing up? Where you seem to think there is a deepwater channel there is nothing but a small tidal creek - and you are suggesting bulk carriers are just going to sail up it and then moor next to the nonexistent quay and be unloaded by nonexistent cranes onto nonexistent hardstanding? Of course Esso do not use a facility that does not exist and don't take my word for it either - just go onto Multimap or Google Earth and select the aerial view - you and everyone else can see that you are talking rubbish. Don't bother to reply until you've signed on and checked this for yourself.
Andy
Southy once said it was possible to walk across the mourth of Southampton Water at Lowest low tide
Do the charts confirm this at all?
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.[/p][/quote]I mentioned several times why it is not ideal Southy - There is no deepwater channel as charts prove, and the existing plant is unsuitable or unusable, it has no rail link and inferior road links. I sailed to Ashlett Creek last week and everyone who knows Ashlett knows there is no deepwater channel to the power station - the cooling water inlet is far too small. You keep referring to those moored bulk carriers as being off Fawley but as every sailor knows they were moored off Netley on the ship moorings! You cite environmental reasons for preferring Fawley but simple eyesight and common sense should tell you and any other local resident that that the place of least envionmental impact of any chimney is right next to it - yet you have this strange belief that 10 miles upwind is somehow going to be cleaner or better when it is actually worse. What is your reasoning for this?[/p][/quote]Andy read your charts, one is the intake is not located at Ashlett creek, what is located at Ashlett Creek is the old Tidal Mill which is now a Pub, the power station is located down river from Ashlett its closer to Calshot village than Ashlett village. The channel leading into the intake where they was going to have the dock before change of plans,is 4m deep at at 0-0 spring low water, add on to that high water springs of 4-9 and you have a channal that is more than deep enough to take bulk carriers, it is as deep as the spot they call the natural deep in Southampton Waters, Those bulk carriers was not just moored on netley moorings, there was also one in Southampton western docks the biggest one of them all, there was another over in machwood, and the one I told you about that was moored in Fawley intake channal, Esso Refinery some times use the quay wall inside Fawley power station to off load vessels that are built in Italy, most of the vessels tanks came in though Fawley apart from the 3 biggest ones they came in from the Marchwood Military camp that was for the Residerfinder plant when it was being built.[/p][/quote]For Gods sake Southy that is just mixture of irrelevance, random fact and innacuracy. Do you think I don;t know which channel I'm sailing up? Where you seem to think there is a deepwater channel there is nothing but a small tidal creek - and you are suggesting bulk carriers are just going to sail up it and then moor next to the nonexistent quay and be unloaded by nonexistent cranes onto nonexistent hardstanding? Of course Esso do not use a facility that does not exist and don't take my word for it either - just go onto Multimap or Google Earth and select the aerial view - you and everyone else can see that you are talking rubbish. Don't bother to reply until you've signed on and checked this for yourself.[/p][/quote]Andy Southy once said it was possible to walk across the mourth of Southampton Water at Lowest low tide Do the charts confirm this at all? phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

12:46pm Wed 25 Jul 12

loosehead says...

phil maccavity wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.
I mentioned several times why it is not ideal Southy - There is no deepwater channel as charts prove, and the existing plant is unsuitable or unusable, it has no rail link and inferior road links. I sailed to Ashlett Creek last week and everyone who knows Ashlett knows there is no deepwater channel to the power station - the cooling water inlet is far too small. You keep referring to those moored bulk carriers as being off Fawley but as every sailor knows they were moored off Netley on the ship moorings! You cite environmental reasons for preferring Fawley but simple eyesight and common sense should tell you and any other local resident that that the place of least envionmental impact of any chimney is right next to it - yet you have this strange belief that 10 miles upwind is somehow going to be cleaner or better when it is actually worse. What is your reasoning for this?
Andy read your charts, one is the intake is not located at Ashlett creek, what is located at Ashlett Creek is the old Tidal Mill which is now a Pub, the power station is located down river from Ashlett its closer to Calshot village than Ashlett village.
The channel leading into the intake where they was going to have the dock before change of plans,is 4m deep at at 0-0 spring low water, add on to that high water springs of 4-9 and you have a channal that is more than deep enough to take bulk carriers, it is as deep as the spot they call the natural deep in Southampton Waters,
Those bulk carriers was not just moored on netley moorings, there was also one in Southampton western docks the biggest one of them all, there was another over in machwood, and the one I told you about that was moored in Fawley intake channal,
Esso Refinery some times use the quay wall inside Fawley power station to off load vessels that are built in Italy, most of the vessels tanks came in though Fawley apart from the 3 biggest ones they came in from the Marchwood Military camp that was for the Residerfinder plant when it was being built.
For Gods sake Southy that is just mixture of irrelevance, random fact and innacuracy. Do you think I don;t know which channel I'm sailing up? Where you seem to think there is a deepwater channel there is nothing but a small tidal creek - and you are suggesting bulk carriers are just going to sail up it and then moor next to the nonexistent quay and be unloaded by nonexistent cranes onto nonexistent hardstanding? Of course Esso do not use a facility that does not exist and don't take my word for it either - just go onto Multimap or Google Earth and select the aerial view - you and everyone else can see that you are talking rubbish. Don't bother to reply until you've signed on and checked this for yourself.
Andy
Southy once said it was possible to walk across the mourth of Southampton Water at Lowest low tide
Do the charts confirm this at all?
Maybe that might have been true before the docks were built or the rivers dredged
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.[/p][/quote]I mentioned several times why it is not ideal Southy - There is no deepwater channel as charts prove, and the existing plant is unsuitable or unusable, it has no rail link and inferior road links. I sailed to Ashlett Creek last week and everyone who knows Ashlett knows there is no deepwater channel to the power station - the cooling water inlet is far too small. You keep referring to those moored bulk carriers as being off Fawley but as every sailor knows they were moored off Netley on the ship moorings! You cite environmental reasons for preferring Fawley but simple eyesight and common sense should tell you and any other local resident that that the place of least envionmental impact of any chimney is right next to it - yet you have this strange belief that 10 miles upwind is somehow going to be cleaner or better when it is actually worse. What is your reasoning for this?[/p][/quote]Andy read your charts, one is the intake is not located at Ashlett creek, what is located at Ashlett Creek is the old Tidal Mill which is now a Pub, the power station is located down river from Ashlett its closer to Calshot village than Ashlett village. The channel leading into the intake where they was going to have the dock before change of plans,is 4m deep at at 0-0 spring low water, add on to that high water springs of 4-9 and you have a channal that is more than deep enough to take bulk carriers, it is as deep as the spot they call the natural deep in Southampton Waters, Those bulk carriers was not just moored on netley moorings, there was also one in Southampton western docks the biggest one of them all, there was another over in machwood, and the one I told you about that was moored in Fawley intake channal, Esso Refinery some times use the quay wall inside Fawley power station to off load vessels that are built in Italy, most of the vessels tanks came in though Fawley apart from the 3 biggest ones they came in from the Marchwood Military camp that was for the Residerfinder plant when it was being built.[/p][/quote]For Gods sake Southy that is just mixture of irrelevance, random fact and innacuracy. Do you think I don;t know which channel I'm sailing up? Where you seem to think there is a deepwater channel there is nothing but a small tidal creek - and you are suggesting bulk carriers are just going to sail up it and then moor next to the nonexistent quay and be unloaded by nonexistent cranes onto nonexistent hardstanding? Of course Esso do not use a facility that does not exist and don't take my word for it either - just go onto Multimap or Google Earth and select the aerial view - you and everyone else can see that you are talking rubbish. Don't bother to reply until you've signed on and checked this for yourself.[/p][/quote]Andy Southy once said it was possible to walk across the mourth of Southampton Water at Lowest low tide Do the charts confirm this at all?[/p][/quote]Maybe that might have been true before the docks were built or the rivers dredged loosehead
  • Score: 0

12:58pm Wed 25 Jul 12

phil maccavity says...

Dan Soton wrote:
UKIPsouthampton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
The council should have objections to Helius plans on the principle Helius is competing with agricultural land. - Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means Helius could be incinerating 120,000 acres of Canadan Miscanthus grass per year.. if as below 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass pellets - Biomass pellets becoming a hot commodity in Europe. By Diana Martin, QMI Agency. Posted 12 days ago. “Last year, Europe consumed 13 million tonnes of biomass pellets,” said Ian Moncrieff, president and CEO of Canadian Biofuel. “By 2015, they will be using 20 million; by 2020, it will be 30 million-plus.” European countries don’t have the landmass to produce enough biomass pellets to meet the demand, which is why they are looking at Canada to fill the void, he said. Moncrieff added Canadian Biofuels would need 12,000 to 15,000 acres of miscanthus to produces 100,000 tonnes to support a new plant. - http://tinyurl.com/c srdlee
Yes but we also dont have enough land to grow food and crops to support the amount of numbers in this country.
.
We fill the void by purchasing land around the world including Africa!
.
The UK must be self sustaining, and if this is a good enough reason not to have the biomass plant then I agree.
€130m solar pannals power 15,000 homes Vs £300m Helius biomass incinerator power 20,000 homes.


-

UKIPsouthampton, on the subject of wasting valuable agricultural land.



Helius should be laughed out of Southampton, in reality Helius is beyond a joke if you see Robert Llewellyn' s video, a former German military airfield is turned into a huge solar power plant powering 15,000 homes.

The New Forest isn't short of abandond military airfields, Beaulieu Airfield was a standard 'A' shape covering 570 acres and Stoney Cross airfield at one time was roughly 898 acres, now the main runway is Forest road.. just my opinion, all the airfields put to use could easily power 40,000 + homes, at a cost ( going by Germany's) of £ 269.67m / € 346.66m .

-

youtube video: Robert Llewellyn @ 4:42..


http://www.youtube.c

om/watch?v=p2hU17p2x

jU
Dan
I think solar energy is a good option.
However some questions:
1. Peak demand for energy is in the winter. How can solar power cope with this?
2. Doesn't the Govt provide a subsidy for solar power installation and purchase of electricty through solar systems? What happens if the subsidy is withdrawn?
3.What are the environmental consequences of the manufacture of solar powered systems compared to the growing of biomass.
4. What are the consequences/penalti
es of the UK not meeting its 15% renewable energy target by 2020?
5. What other options are available?
6. Finally i watched a programme recently about Canadian Loggers complaining about the loss of their lumber market (for newsprint, bukiding materials etc) to Malaysia & Indonesia.
They seemed quite happy to send their lumber to Europe for power generation
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]UKIPsouthampton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: The council should have objections to Helius plans on the principle Helius is competing with agricultural land. - Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means Helius could be incinerating 120,000 acres of Canadan Miscanthus grass per year.. if as below 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass pellets - Biomass pellets becoming a hot commodity in Europe. By Diana Martin, QMI Agency. Posted 12 days ago. “Last year, Europe consumed 13 million tonnes of biomass pellets,” said Ian Moncrieff, president and CEO of Canadian Biofuel. “By 2015, they will be using 20 million; by 2020, it will be 30 million-plus.” European countries don’t have the landmass to produce enough biomass pellets to meet the demand, which is why they are looking at Canada to fill the void, he said. Moncrieff added Canadian Biofuels would need 12,000 to 15,000 acres of miscanthus to produces 100,000 tonnes to support a new plant. - http://tinyurl.com/c srdlee[/p][/quote]Yes but we also dont have enough land to grow food and crops to support the amount of numbers in this country. . We fill the void by purchasing land around the world including Africa! . The UK must be self sustaining, and if this is a good enough reason not to have the biomass plant then I agree.[/p][/quote]€130m solar pannals power 15,000 homes Vs £300m Helius biomass incinerator power 20,000 homes. - UKIPsouthampton, on the subject of wasting valuable agricultural land. Helius should be laughed out of Southampton, in reality Helius is beyond a joke if you see Robert Llewellyn' s video, a former German military airfield is turned into a huge solar power plant powering 15,000 homes. The New Forest isn't short of abandond military airfields, Beaulieu Airfield was a standard 'A' shape covering 570 acres and Stoney Cross airfield at one time was roughly 898 acres, now the main runway is Forest road.. just my opinion, all the airfields put to use could easily power 40,000 + homes, at a cost ( going by Germany's) of £ 269.67m / € 346.66m . - youtube video: Robert Llewellyn @ 4:42.. http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=p2hU17p2x jU[/p][/quote]Dan I think solar energy is a good option. However some questions: 1. Peak demand for energy is in the winter. How can solar power cope with this? 2. Doesn't the Govt provide a subsidy for solar power installation and purchase of electricty through solar systems? What happens if the subsidy is withdrawn? 3.What are the environmental consequences of the manufacture of solar powered systems compared to the growing of biomass. 4. What are the consequences/penalti es of the UK not meeting its 15% renewable energy target by 2020? 5. What other options are available? 6. Finally i watched a programme recently about Canadian Loggers complaining about the loss of their lumber market (for newsprint, bukiding materials etc) to Malaysia & Indonesia. They seemed quite happy to send their lumber to Europe for power generation phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

3:07pm Wed 25 Jul 12

Georgem says...

phil maccavity wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.
I mentioned several times why it is not ideal Southy - There is no deepwater channel as charts prove, and the existing plant is unsuitable or unusable, it has no rail link and inferior road links. I sailed to Ashlett Creek last week and everyone who knows Ashlett knows there is no deepwater channel to the power station - the cooling water inlet is far too small. You keep referring to those moored bulk carriers as being off Fawley but as every sailor knows they were moored off Netley on the ship moorings! You cite environmental reasons for preferring Fawley but simple eyesight and common sense should tell you and any other local resident that that the place of least envionmental impact of any chimney is right next to it - yet you have this strange belief that 10 miles upwind is somehow going to be cleaner or better when it is actually worse. What is your reasoning for this?
Andy read your charts, one is the intake is not located at Ashlett creek, what is located at Ashlett Creek is the old Tidal Mill which is now a Pub, the power station is located down river from Ashlett its closer to Calshot village than Ashlett village.
The channel leading into the intake where they was going to have the dock before change of plans,is 4m deep at at 0-0 spring low water, add on to that high water springs of 4-9 and you have a channal that is more than deep enough to take bulk carriers, it is as deep as the spot they call the natural deep in Southampton Waters,
Those bulk carriers was not just moored on netley moorings, there was also one in Southampton western docks the biggest one of them all, there was another over in machwood, and the one I told you about that was moored in Fawley intake channal,
Esso Refinery some times use the quay wall inside Fawley power station to off load vessels that are built in Italy, most of the vessels tanks came in though Fawley apart from the 3 biggest ones they came in from the Marchwood Military camp that was for the Residerfinder plant when it was being built.
For Gods sake Southy that is just mixture of irrelevance, random fact and innacuracy. Do you think I don;t know which channel I'm sailing up? Where you seem to think there is a deepwater channel there is nothing but a small tidal creek - and you are suggesting bulk carriers are just going to sail up it and then moor next to the nonexistent quay and be unloaded by nonexistent cranes onto nonexistent hardstanding? Of course Esso do not use a facility that does not exist and don't take my word for it either - just go onto Multimap or Google Earth and select the aerial view - you and everyone else can see that you are talking rubbish. Don't bother to reply until you've signed on and checked this for yourself.
Andy
Southy once said it was possible to walk across the mourth of Southampton Water at Lowest low tide
Do the charts confirm this at all?
You misunderstood. It is possible FOR SOUTHY to walk across the mouth of the Water. Mere mortals can't do it, obviously.
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.[/p][/quote]I mentioned several times why it is not ideal Southy - There is no deepwater channel as charts prove, and the existing plant is unsuitable or unusable, it has no rail link and inferior road links. I sailed to Ashlett Creek last week and everyone who knows Ashlett knows there is no deepwater channel to the power station - the cooling water inlet is far too small. You keep referring to those moored bulk carriers as being off Fawley but as every sailor knows they were moored off Netley on the ship moorings! You cite environmental reasons for preferring Fawley but simple eyesight and common sense should tell you and any other local resident that that the place of least envionmental impact of any chimney is right next to it - yet you have this strange belief that 10 miles upwind is somehow going to be cleaner or better when it is actually worse. What is your reasoning for this?[/p][/quote]Andy read your charts, one is the intake is not located at Ashlett creek, what is located at Ashlett Creek is the old Tidal Mill which is now a Pub, the power station is located down river from Ashlett its closer to Calshot village than Ashlett village. The channel leading into the intake where they was going to have the dock before change of plans,is 4m deep at at 0-0 spring low water, add on to that high water springs of 4-9 and you have a channal that is more than deep enough to take bulk carriers, it is as deep as the spot they call the natural deep in Southampton Waters, Those bulk carriers was not just moored on netley moorings, there was also one in Southampton western docks the biggest one of them all, there was another over in machwood, and the one I told you about that was moored in Fawley intake channal, Esso Refinery some times use the quay wall inside Fawley power station to off load vessels that are built in Italy, most of the vessels tanks came in though Fawley apart from the 3 biggest ones they came in from the Marchwood Military camp that was for the Residerfinder plant when it was being built.[/p][/quote]For Gods sake Southy that is just mixture of irrelevance, random fact and innacuracy. Do you think I don;t know which channel I'm sailing up? Where you seem to think there is a deepwater channel there is nothing but a small tidal creek - and you are suggesting bulk carriers are just going to sail up it and then moor next to the nonexistent quay and be unloaded by nonexistent cranes onto nonexistent hardstanding? Of course Esso do not use a facility that does not exist and don't take my word for it either - just go onto Multimap or Google Earth and select the aerial view - you and everyone else can see that you are talking rubbish. Don't bother to reply until you've signed on and checked this for yourself.[/p][/quote]Andy Southy once said it was possible to walk across the mourth of Southampton Water at Lowest low tide Do the charts confirm this at all?[/p][/quote]You misunderstood. It is possible FOR SOUTHY to walk across the mouth of the Water. Mere mortals can't do it, obviously. Georgem
  • Score: 0

3:25pm Wed 25 Jul 12

freefinker says...

Georgem wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.
I mentioned several times why it is not ideal Southy - There is no deepwater channel as charts prove, and the existing plant is unsuitable or unusable, it has no rail link and inferior road links. I sailed to Ashlett Creek last week and everyone who knows Ashlett knows there is no deepwater channel to the power station - the cooling water inlet is far too small. You keep referring to those moored bulk carriers as being off Fawley but as every sailor knows they were moored off Netley on the ship moorings! You cite environmental reasons for preferring Fawley but simple eyesight and common sense should tell you and any other local resident that that the place of least envionmental impact of any chimney is right next to it - yet you have this strange belief that 10 miles upwind is somehow going to be cleaner or better when it is actually worse. What is your reasoning for this?
Andy read your charts, one is the intake is not located at Ashlett creek, what is located at Ashlett Creek is the old Tidal Mill which is now a Pub, the power station is located down river from Ashlett its closer to Calshot village than Ashlett village.
The channel leading into the intake where they was going to have the dock before change of plans,is 4m deep at at 0-0 spring low water, add on to that high water springs of 4-9 and you have a channal that is more than deep enough to take bulk carriers, it is as deep as the spot they call the natural deep in Southampton Waters,
Those bulk carriers was not just moored on netley moorings, there was also one in Southampton western docks the biggest one of them all, there was another over in machwood, and the one I told you about that was moored in Fawley intake channal,
Esso Refinery some times use the quay wall inside Fawley power station to off load vessels that are built in Italy, most of the vessels tanks came in though Fawley apart from the 3 biggest ones they came in from the Marchwood Military camp that was for the Residerfinder plant when it was being built.
For Gods sake Southy that is just mixture of irrelevance, random fact and innacuracy. Do you think I don;t know which channel I'm sailing up? Where you seem to think there is a deepwater channel there is nothing but a small tidal creek - and you are suggesting bulk carriers are just going to sail up it and then moor next to the nonexistent quay and be unloaded by nonexistent cranes onto nonexistent hardstanding? Of course Esso do not use a facility that does not exist and don't take my word for it either - just go onto Multimap or Google Earth and select the aerial view - you and everyone else can see that you are talking rubbish. Don't bother to reply until you've signed on and checked this for yourself.
Andy
Southy once said it was possible to walk across the mourth of Southampton Water at Lowest low tide
Do the charts confirm this at all?
You misunderstood. It is possible FOR SOUTHY to walk across the mouth of the Water. Mere mortals can't do it, obviously.
.. to be followed by turning water into wine, then codes of practice into Homo sapiens.

He truly is amazing.

Mind you, while performing the miraculous crossing of Southampton Water, I do so hope this will not cause further landslides in Weston.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.[/p][/quote]I mentioned several times why it is not ideal Southy - There is no deepwater channel as charts prove, and the existing plant is unsuitable or unusable, it has no rail link and inferior road links. I sailed to Ashlett Creek last week and everyone who knows Ashlett knows there is no deepwater channel to the power station - the cooling water inlet is far too small. You keep referring to those moored bulk carriers as being off Fawley but as every sailor knows they were moored off Netley on the ship moorings! You cite environmental reasons for preferring Fawley but simple eyesight and common sense should tell you and any other local resident that that the place of least envionmental impact of any chimney is right next to it - yet you have this strange belief that 10 miles upwind is somehow going to be cleaner or better when it is actually worse. What is your reasoning for this?[/p][/quote]Andy read your charts, one is the intake is not located at Ashlett creek, what is located at Ashlett Creek is the old Tidal Mill which is now a Pub, the power station is located down river from Ashlett its closer to Calshot village than Ashlett village. The channel leading into the intake where they was going to have the dock before change of plans,is 4m deep at at 0-0 spring low water, add on to that high water springs of 4-9 and you have a channal that is more than deep enough to take bulk carriers, it is as deep as the spot they call the natural deep in Southampton Waters, Those bulk carriers was not just moored on netley moorings, there was also one in Southampton western docks the biggest one of them all, there was another over in machwood, and the one I told you about that was moored in Fawley intake channal, Esso Refinery some times use the quay wall inside Fawley power station to off load vessels that are built in Italy, most of the vessels tanks came in though Fawley apart from the 3 biggest ones they came in from the Marchwood Military camp that was for the Residerfinder plant when it was being built.[/p][/quote]For Gods sake Southy that is just mixture of irrelevance, random fact and innacuracy. Do you think I don;t know which channel I'm sailing up? Where you seem to think there is a deepwater channel there is nothing but a small tidal creek - and you are suggesting bulk carriers are just going to sail up it and then moor next to the nonexistent quay and be unloaded by nonexistent cranes onto nonexistent hardstanding? Of course Esso do not use a facility that does not exist and don't take my word for it either - just go onto Multimap or Google Earth and select the aerial view - you and everyone else can see that you are talking rubbish. Don't bother to reply until you've signed on and checked this for yourself.[/p][/quote]Andy Southy once said it was possible to walk across the mourth of Southampton Water at Lowest low tide Do the charts confirm this at all?[/p][/quote]You misunderstood. It is possible FOR SOUTHY to walk across the mouth of the Water. Mere mortals can't do it, obviously.[/p][/quote].. to be followed by turning water into wine, then codes of practice into Homo sapiens. He truly is amazing. Mind you, while performing the miraculous crossing of Southampton Water, I do so hope this will not cause further landslides in Weston. freefinker
  • Score: 0

3:46pm Wed 25 Jul 12

Georgem says...

freefinker wrote:
Georgem wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
southy wrote:
Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.
I mentioned several times why it is not ideal Southy - There is no deepwater channel as charts prove, and the existing plant is unsuitable or unusable, it has no rail link and inferior road links. I sailed to Ashlett Creek last week and everyone who knows Ashlett knows there is no deepwater channel to the power station - the cooling water inlet is far too small. You keep referring to those moored bulk carriers as being off Fawley but as every sailor knows they were moored off Netley on the ship moorings! You cite environmental reasons for preferring Fawley but simple eyesight and common sense should tell you and any other local resident that that the place of least envionmental impact of any chimney is right next to it - yet you have this strange belief that 10 miles upwind is somehow going to be cleaner or better when it is actually worse. What is your reasoning for this?
Andy read your charts, one is the intake is not located at Ashlett creek, what is located at Ashlett Creek is the old Tidal Mill which is now a Pub, the power station is located down river from Ashlett its closer to Calshot village than Ashlett village.
The channel leading into the intake where they was going to have the dock before change of plans,is 4m deep at at 0-0 spring low water, add on to that high water springs of 4-9 and you have a channal that is more than deep enough to take bulk carriers, it is as deep as the spot they call the natural deep in Southampton Waters,
Those bulk carriers was not just moored on netley moorings, there was also one in Southampton western docks the biggest one of them all, there was another over in machwood, and the one I told you about that was moored in Fawley intake channal,
Esso Refinery some times use the quay wall inside Fawley power station to off load vessels that are built in Italy, most of the vessels tanks came in though Fawley apart from the 3 biggest ones they came in from the Marchwood Military camp that was for the Residerfinder plant when it was being built.
For Gods sake Southy that is just mixture of irrelevance, random fact and innacuracy. Do you think I don;t know which channel I'm sailing up? Where you seem to think there is a deepwater channel there is nothing but a small tidal creek - and you are suggesting bulk carriers are just going to sail up it and then moor next to the nonexistent quay and be unloaded by nonexistent cranes onto nonexistent hardstanding? Of course Esso do not use a facility that does not exist and don't take my word for it either - just go onto Multimap or Google Earth and select the aerial view - you and everyone else can see that you are talking rubbish. Don't bother to reply until you've signed on and checked this for yourself.
Andy
Southy once said it was possible to walk across the mourth of Southampton Water at Lowest low tide
Do the charts confirm this at all?
You misunderstood. It is possible FOR SOUTHY to walk across the mouth of the Water. Mere mortals can't do it, obviously.
.. to be followed by turning water into wine, then codes of practice into Homo sapiens.

He truly is amazing.

Mind you, while performing the miraculous crossing of Southampton Water, I do so hope this will not cause further landslides in Weston.
And religions into languages.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Still saying its in the wrong place, with Fawley power station due to close for good, here be an ideal site to build it on.[/p][/quote]I mentioned several times why it is not ideal Southy - There is no deepwater channel as charts prove, and the existing plant is unsuitable or unusable, it has no rail link and inferior road links. I sailed to Ashlett Creek last week and everyone who knows Ashlett knows there is no deepwater channel to the power station - the cooling water inlet is far too small. You keep referring to those moored bulk carriers as being off Fawley but as every sailor knows they were moored off Netley on the ship moorings! You cite environmental reasons for preferring Fawley but simple eyesight and common sense should tell you and any other local resident that that the place of least envionmental impact of any chimney is right next to it - yet you have this strange belief that 10 miles upwind is somehow going to be cleaner or better when it is actually worse. What is your reasoning for this?[/p][/quote]Andy read your charts, one is the intake is not located at Ashlett creek, what is located at Ashlett Creek is the old Tidal Mill which is now a Pub, the power station is located down river from Ashlett its closer to Calshot village than Ashlett village. The channel leading into the intake where they was going to have the dock before change of plans,is 4m deep at at 0-0 spring low water, add on to that high water springs of 4-9 and you have a channal that is more than deep enough to take bulk carriers, it is as deep as the spot they call the natural deep in Southampton Waters, Those bulk carriers was not just moored on netley moorings, there was also one in Southampton western docks the biggest one of them all, there was another over in machwood, and the one I told you about that was moored in Fawley intake channal, Esso Refinery some times use the quay wall inside Fawley power station to off load vessels that are built in Italy, most of the vessels tanks came in though Fawley apart from the 3 biggest ones they came in from the Marchwood Military camp that was for the Residerfinder plant when it was being built.[/p][/quote]For Gods sake Southy that is just mixture of irrelevance, random fact and innacuracy. Do you think I don;t know which channel I'm sailing up? Where you seem to think there is a deepwater channel there is nothing but a small tidal creek - and you are suggesting bulk carriers are just going to sail up it and then moor next to the nonexistent quay and be unloaded by nonexistent cranes onto nonexistent hardstanding? Of course Esso do not use a facility that does not exist and don't take my word for it either - just go onto Multimap or Google Earth and select the aerial view - you and everyone else can see that you are talking rubbish. Don't bother to reply until you've signed on and checked this for yourself.[/p][/quote]Andy Southy once said it was possible to walk across the mourth of Southampton Water at Lowest low tide Do the charts confirm this at all?[/p][/quote]You misunderstood. It is possible FOR SOUTHY to walk across the mouth of the Water. Mere mortals can't do it, obviously.[/p][/quote].. to be followed by turning water into wine, then codes of practice into Homo sapiens. He truly is amazing. Mind you, while performing the miraculous crossing of Southampton Water, I do so hope this will not cause further landslides in Weston.[/p][/quote]And religions into languages. Georgem
  • Score: 0

3:58pm Wed 25 Jul 12

loosehead says...

phil maccavity wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
UKIPsouthampton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
The council should have objections to Helius plans on the principle Helius is competing with agricultural land. - Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means Helius could be incinerating 120,000 acres of Canadan Miscanthus grass per year.. if as below 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass pellets - Biomass pellets becoming a hot commodity in Europe. By Diana Martin, QMI Agency. Posted 12 days ago. “Last year, Europe consumed 13 million tonnes of biomass pellets,” said Ian Moncrieff, president and CEO of Canadian Biofuel. “By 2015, they will be using 20 million; by 2020, it will be 30 million-plus.” European countries don’t have the landmass to produce enough biomass pellets to meet the demand, which is why they are looking at Canada to fill the void, he said. Moncrieff added Canadian Biofuels would need 12,000 to 15,000 acres of miscanthus to produces 100,000 tonnes to support a new plant. - http://tinyurl.com/c srdlee
Yes but we also dont have enough land to grow food and crops to support the amount of numbers in this country.
.
We fill the void by purchasing land around the world including Africa!
.
The UK must be self sustaining, and if this is a good enough reason not to have the biomass plant then I agree.
€130m solar pannals power 15,000 homes Vs £300m Helius biomass incinerator power 20,000 homes.


-

UKIPsouthampton, on the subject of wasting valuable agricultural land.



Helius should be laughed out of Southampton, in reality Helius is beyond a joke if you see Robert Llewellyn' s video, a former German military airfield is turned into a huge solar power plant powering 15,000 homes.

The New Forest isn't short of abandond military airfields, Beaulieu Airfield was a standard 'A' shape covering 570 acres and Stoney Cross airfield at one time was roughly 898 acres, now the main runway is Forest road.. just my opinion, all the airfields put to use could easily power 40,000 + homes, at a cost ( going by Germany's) of £ 269.67m / € 346.66m .

-

youtube video: Robert Llewellyn @ 4:42..


http://www.youtube.c


om/watch?v=p2hU17p2x


jU
Dan
I think solar energy is a good option.
However some questions:
1. Peak demand for energy is in the winter. How can solar power cope with this?
2. Doesn't the Govt provide a subsidy for solar power installation and purchase of electricty through solar systems? What happens if the subsidy is withdrawn?
3.What are the environmental consequences of the manufacture of solar powered systems compared to the growing of biomass.
4. What are the consequences/penalti

es of the UK not meeting its 15% renewable energy target by 2020?
5. What other options are available?
6. Finally i watched a programme recently about Canadian Loggers complaining about the loss of their lumber market (for newsprint, bukiding materials etc) to Malaysia & Indonesia.
They seemed quite happy to send their lumber to Europe for power generation
Phil I have Solar panels.In all the rain we've had recently I've still used less electricity from the mains than I would do normally.
Solar panels don't need direct sunlight they just need daylight.
I hope that makes sense?
In the winter months as long as it's not as dark as night I will be producing power.
I can run a 1volt ( maybe more?) electric heater in the daytime & at night use my gas central heating thus saving on my gas usage as well.
if as has been said the more people have solar panels the cheaper they will become .
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]UKIPsouthampton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: The council should have objections to Helius plans on the principle Helius is competing with agricultural land. - Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means Helius could be incinerating 120,000 acres of Canadan Miscanthus grass per year.. if as below 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass pellets - Biomass pellets becoming a hot commodity in Europe. By Diana Martin, QMI Agency. Posted 12 days ago. “Last year, Europe consumed 13 million tonnes of biomass pellets,” said Ian Moncrieff, president and CEO of Canadian Biofuel. “By 2015, they will be using 20 million; by 2020, it will be 30 million-plus.” European countries don’t have the landmass to produce enough biomass pellets to meet the demand, which is why they are looking at Canada to fill the void, he said. Moncrieff added Canadian Biofuels would need 12,000 to 15,000 acres of miscanthus to produces 100,000 tonnes to support a new plant. - http://tinyurl.com/c srdlee[/p][/quote]Yes but we also dont have enough land to grow food and crops to support the amount of numbers in this country. . We fill the void by purchasing land around the world including Africa! . The UK must be self sustaining, and if this is a good enough reason not to have the biomass plant then I agree.[/p][/quote]€130m solar pannals power 15,000 homes Vs £300m Helius biomass incinerator power 20,000 homes. - UKIPsouthampton, on the subject of wasting valuable agricultural land. Helius should be laughed out of Southampton, in reality Helius is beyond a joke if you see Robert Llewellyn' s video, a former German military airfield is turned into a huge solar power plant powering 15,000 homes. The New Forest isn't short of abandond military airfields, Beaulieu Airfield was a standard 'A' shape covering 570 acres and Stoney Cross airfield at one time was roughly 898 acres, now the main runway is Forest road.. just my opinion, all the airfields put to use could easily power 40,000 + homes, at a cost ( going by Germany's) of £ 269.67m / € 346.66m . - youtube video: Robert Llewellyn @ 4:42.. http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=p2hU17p2x jU[/p][/quote]Dan I think solar energy is a good option. However some questions: 1. Peak demand for energy is in the winter. How can solar power cope with this? 2. Doesn't the Govt provide a subsidy for solar power installation and purchase of electricty through solar systems? What happens if the subsidy is withdrawn? 3.What are the environmental consequences of the manufacture of solar powered systems compared to the growing of biomass. 4. What are the consequences/penalti es of the UK not meeting its 15% renewable energy target by 2020? 5. What other options are available? 6. Finally i watched a programme recently about Canadian Loggers complaining about the loss of their lumber market (for newsprint, bukiding materials etc) to Malaysia & Indonesia. They seemed quite happy to send their lumber to Europe for power generation[/p][/quote]Phil I have Solar panels.In all the rain we've had recently I've still used less electricity from the mains than I would do normally. Solar panels don't need direct sunlight they just need daylight. I hope that makes sense? In the winter months as long as it's not as dark as night I will be producing power. I can run a 1volt ( maybe more?) electric heater in the daytime & at night use my gas central heating thus saving on my gas usage as well. if as has been said the more people have solar panels the cheaper they will become . loosehead
  • Score: 0

10:04pm Wed 25 Jul 12

phil maccavity says...

Loosehead
Interesting
Thanks
Do you think you could have justified buying the solar panels without the Govt subsidy which I believe is being reduced?
How long will solar panels last before needing replacement?
Loosehead Interesting Thanks Do you think you could have justified buying the solar panels without the Govt subsidy which I believe is being reduced? How long will solar panels last before needing replacement? phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

10:05am Thu 26 Jul 12

Dan Soton says...

loosehead wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
UKIPsouthampton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
The council should have objections to Helius plans on the principle Helius is competing with agricultural land. - Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means Helius could be incinerating 120,000 acres of Canadan Miscanthus grass per year.. if as below 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass pellets - Biomass pellets becoming a hot commodity in Europe. By Diana Martin, QMI Agency. Posted 12 days ago. “Last year, Europe consumed 13 million tonnes of biomass pellets,” said Ian Moncrieff, president and CEO of Canadian Biofuel. “By 2015, they will be using 20 million; by 2020, it will be 30 million-plus.” European countries don’t have the landmass to produce enough biomass pellets to meet the demand, which is why they are looking at Canada to fill the void, he said. Moncrieff added Canadian Biofuels would need 12,000 to 15,000 acres of miscanthus to produces 100,000 tonnes to support a new plant. - http://tinyurl.com/c srdlee
Yes but we also dont have enough land to grow food and crops to support the amount of numbers in this country.
.
We fill the void by purchasing land around the world including Africa!
.
The UK must be self sustaining, and if this is a good enough reason not to have the biomass plant then I agree.
€130m solar pannals power 15,000 homes Vs £300m Helius biomass incinerator power 20,000 homes.


-

UKIPsouthampton, on the subject of wasting valuable agricultural land.



Helius should be laughed out of Southampton, in reality Helius is beyond a joke if you see Robert Llewellyn' s video, a former German military airfield is turned into a huge solar power plant powering 15,000 homes.

The New Forest isn't short of abandond military airfields, Beaulieu Airfield was a standard 'A' shape covering 570 acres and Stoney Cross airfield at one time was roughly 898 acres, now the main runway is Forest road.. just my opinion, all the airfields put to use could easily power 40,000 + homes, at a cost ( going by Germany's) of £ 269.67m / € 346.66m .

-

youtube video: Robert Llewellyn @ 4:42..


http://www.youtube.c



om/watch?v=p2hU17p2x



jU
Dan
I think solar energy is a good option.
However some questions:
1. Peak demand for energy is in the winter. How can solar power cope with this?
2. Doesn't the Govt provide a subsidy for solar power installation and purchase of electricty through solar systems? What happens if the subsidy is withdrawn?
3.What are the environmental consequences of the manufacture of solar powered systems compared to the growing of biomass.
4. What are the consequences/penalti


es of the UK not meeting its 15% renewable energy target by 2020?
5. What other options are available?
6. Finally i watched a programme recently about Canadian Loggers complaining about the loss of their lumber market (for newsprint, bukiding materials etc) to Malaysia & Indonesia.
They seemed quite happy to send their lumber to Europe for power generation
Phil I have Solar panels.In all the rain we've had recently I've still used less electricity from the mains than I would do normally.
Solar panels don't need direct sunlight they just need daylight.
I hope that makes sense?
In the winter months as long as it's not as dark as night I will be producing power.
I can run a 1volt ( maybe more?) electric heater in the daytime & at night use my gas central heating thus saving on my gas usage as well.
if as has been said the more people have solar panels the cheaper they will become .
Untaped infra-red.. 40% of the solar energy that reaches Earth lies in the infra-red end of the spectrum.

-

Loosehead to right.. unlike biomass the more money you throw at Solar R&D the more eco efficient and cheaper it gets, by 2020 I'll have all my homes roof and south facing walls clad by Solar Panels and hopefully the best part of my garden.


-

All-carbon solar cell harnesses infrared light.

New type of photovoltaic device harnesses heat radiation that most solar cells ignore.

July 25, 2012.

About 40 percent of the solar energy reaching Earth’s surface lies in the near-infrared region of the spectrum — energy that conventional silicon-based solar cells are unable to harness. But a new kind of all-carbon solar cell developed by MIT researchers could tap into that unused energy, opening up the possibility of combination solar cells — incorporating both traditional silicon-based cells and the new all-carbon cells — that could make use of almost the entire range of sunlight’s energy..

-

http://tinyurl.com/b
uktz8d
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]UKIPsouthampton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: The council should have objections to Helius plans on the principle Helius is competing with agricultural land. - Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means Helius could be incinerating 120,000 acres of Canadan Miscanthus grass per year.. if as below 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass pellets - Biomass pellets becoming a hot commodity in Europe. By Diana Martin, QMI Agency. Posted 12 days ago. “Last year, Europe consumed 13 million tonnes of biomass pellets,” said Ian Moncrieff, president and CEO of Canadian Biofuel. “By 2015, they will be using 20 million; by 2020, it will be 30 million-plus.” European countries don’t have the landmass to produce enough biomass pellets to meet the demand, which is why they are looking at Canada to fill the void, he said. Moncrieff added Canadian Biofuels would need 12,000 to 15,000 acres of miscanthus to produces 100,000 tonnes to support a new plant. - http://tinyurl.com/c srdlee[/p][/quote]Yes but we also dont have enough land to grow food and crops to support the amount of numbers in this country. . We fill the void by purchasing land around the world including Africa! . The UK must be self sustaining, and if this is a good enough reason not to have the biomass plant then I agree.[/p][/quote]€130m solar pannals power 15,000 homes Vs £300m Helius biomass incinerator power 20,000 homes. - UKIPsouthampton, on the subject of wasting valuable agricultural land. Helius should be laughed out of Southampton, in reality Helius is beyond a joke if you see Robert Llewellyn' s video, a former German military airfield is turned into a huge solar power plant powering 15,000 homes. The New Forest isn't short of abandond military airfields, Beaulieu Airfield was a standard 'A' shape covering 570 acres and Stoney Cross airfield at one time was roughly 898 acres, now the main runway is Forest road.. just my opinion, all the airfields put to use could easily power 40,000 + homes, at a cost ( going by Germany's) of £ 269.67m / € 346.66m . - youtube video: Robert Llewellyn @ 4:42.. http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=p2hU17p2x jU[/p][/quote]Dan I think solar energy is a good option. However some questions: 1. Peak demand for energy is in the winter. How can solar power cope with this? 2. Doesn't the Govt provide a subsidy for solar power installation and purchase of electricty through solar systems? What happens if the subsidy is withdrawn? 3.What are the environmental consequences of the manufacture of solar powered systems compared to the growing of biomass. 4. What are the consequences/penalti es of the UK not meeting its 15% renewable energy target by 2020? 5. What other options are available? 6. Finally i watched a programme recently about Canadian Loggers complaining about the loss of their lumber market (for newsprint, bukiding materials etc) to Malaysia & Indonesia. They seemed quite happy to send their lumber to Europe for power generation[/p][/quote]Phil I have Solar panels.In all the rain we've had recently I've still used less electricity from the mains than I would do normally. Solar panels don't need direct sunlight they just need daylight. I hope that makes sense? In the winter months as long as it's not as dark as night I will be producing power. I can run a 1volt ( maybe more?) electric heater in the daytime & at night use my gas central heating thus saving on my gas usage as well. if as has been said the more people have solar panels the cheaper they will become .[/p][/quote]Untaped infra-red.. 40% of the solar energy that reaches Earth lies in the infra-red end of the spectrum. - Loosehead to right.. unlike biomass the more money you throw at Solar R&D the more eco efficient and cheaper it gets, by 2020 I'll have all my homes roof and south facing walls clad by Solar Panels and hopefully the best part of my garden. - All-carbon solar cell harnesses infrared light. New type of photovoltaic device harnesses heat radiation that most solar cells ignore. July 25, 2012. About 40 percent of the solar energy reaching Earth’s surface lies in the near-infrared region of the spectrum — energy that conventional silicon-based solar cells are unable to harness. But a new kind of all-carbon solar cell developed by MIT researchers could tap into that unused energy, opening up the possibility of combination solar cells — incorporating both traditional silicon-based cells and the new all-carbon cells — that could make use of almost the entire range of sunlight’s energy.. - http://tinyurl.com/b uktz8d Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

6:06pm 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
  • Score: 0

2:21pm 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
  • Score: 0

5:52pm Sun 29 Jul 12

Dan Soton says...

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

-
 

Algae Biofuel is getting to the point where it will be commercially viable and not to soon after Taxable.
 
If the below news can be trusted, a £300m, 119 acre Algae Plant can produce over 15m gallons of biofuel per year.. 20,000 homes x 750 gallons.

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

-


Austrian algae biofuel-production technology to debut in Brazil.

By Antonio Pasolini.

10:53 July 20, 2012.

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

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

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

-

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

-


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

I'm still waiting on an honest believable replay and what are you going to do when all the subsidies dry up?
Governments Will Tax Algae Biofuel.. why subsidise Helius's Wood/Grass incinerator ? -   Algae Biofuel is getting to the point where it will be commercially viable and not to soon after Taxable.   If the below news can be trusted, a £300m, 119 acre Algae Plant can produce over 15m gallons of biofuel per year.. 20,000 homes x 750 gallons. If scaled up to Fawley Refinery's 3,250 acre site an Algae Plant can produce over 400m gallons of biofuel per year.. 20,000 homes x 20,000 gallons. - Austrian algae biofuel-production technology to debut in Brazil. By Antonio Pasolini. 10:53 July 20, 2012. The new plant will make the most of algae's potential. One of the products to come out of it will be feedstock for animals, providing an alternative to soybeans. The process also yields algal lipids that can be used to make biodiesel and biochemicals. Algae are also a source of omega-3. As overfishing has become a serious environmental concern, algae are a more environmentally friendly source of this nutrient, which is commonly sold as a supplement. "We believe that this marks a significant step forward in the evolution of our company and validates both our exclusive technology and the commercial viability of algae, especially for use in feed and biofuels,” said Dr. Joachim Grill, SAT’s CEO. The plant will occupy one hectare (2.5 acres) and the total investment is €8 million (US$9.81 million). SAT expects the unit to be producing 1.2 million liters (317,000 gallons) of biodiesel per year when it starts operating in late 2013. - http://www.gizmag.co m/algae-biomass-plan t-brazil/23378/ - As I said to one ( Millbrook Church Hall ) of Helius's management team, environmentally Helius is 20 years behind the times.. Southampton has a choice of Algae Biofuel, Fuel Cell, Wind, Tidal, Geothermal and Solar why should we incinerate Wood/Grass ? I'm still waiting on an honest believable replay and what are you going to do when all the subsidies dry up? Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

1:45am 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
  • Score: 0

7:33am Wed 1 Aug 12

loosehead says...

Dan Soton wrote:
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.
After this I think you're a waste of space!
I don't do this on every article that I'm writing about. I don't go out to stifle debate. Are you scared of open debate?
Though I agree with you on many points on green energies on the way you swamp all posts connected with Bio Mass with the same article is as far as I'm concerned out of order
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: 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.[/p][/quote]After this I think you're a waste of space! I don't do this on every article that I'm writing about. I don't go out to stifle debate. Are you scared of open debate? Though I agree with you on many points on green energies on the way you swamp all posts connected with Bio Mass with the same article is as far as I'm concerned out of order loosehead
  • Score: 0

1:25am Thu 2 Aug 12

Dan Soton says...

loosehead wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
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.
After this I think you're a waste of space!
I don't do this on every article that I'm writing about. I don't go out to stifle debate. Are you scared of open debate?
Though I agree with you on many points on green energies on the way you swamp all posts connected with Bio Mass with the same article is as far as I'm concerned out of order
loosehead says I think you're a waste of space!.. using valuable agricultural land for Biofuels/Biomass pellets isn't?

-

loosehead, as far as I'm concerned you're supporting the indefensible.

-


Quote Sir David Attenborough.



Nick Harding Saturday 14 July 2012.

People talk about doom-laden scenarios happening in the future: they are happening in Africa now. You can see it perfectly clearly. Periodic famines are due to too many people living on land that can't sustain them."

For this reason, he explains, growing crops to create green biofuels is a waste of valuable resources. "Biofuels may be palliative in the short term in terms of greener energy. But in the long term we are going to run out of space to grow food, which is more important than finding alternative ways to power Rolls-Royces and superjets."

-

http://tinyurl.com/6
rw64ac
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: 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.[/p][/quote]After this I think you're a waste of space! I don't do this on every article that I'm writing about. I don't go out to stifle debate. Are you scared of open debate? Though I agree with you on many points on green energies on the way you swamp all posts connected with Bio Mass with the same article is as far as I'm concerned out of order[/p][/quote]loosehead says I think you're a waste of space!.. using valuable agricultural land for Biofuels/Biomass pellets isn't? - loosehead, as far as I'm concerned you're supporting the indefensible. - Quote Sir David Attenborough. Nick Harding Saturday 14 July 2012. People talk about doom-laden scenarios happening in the future: they are happening in Africa now. You can see it perfectly clearly. Periodic famines are due to too many people living on land that can't sustain them." For this reason, he explains, growing crops to create green biofuels is a waste of valuable resources. "Biofuels may be palliative in the short term in terms of greener energy. But in the long term we are going to run out of space to grow food, which is more important than finding alternative ways to power Rolls-Royces and superjets." - http://tinyurl.com/6 rw64ac Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

7:28am Thu 2 Aug 12

loosehead says...

Dan Soton wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
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.
After this I think you're a waste of space!
I don't do this on every article that I'm writing about. I don't go out to stifle debate. Are you scared of open debate?
Though I agree with you on many points on green energies on the way you swamp all posts connected with Bio Mass with the same article is as far as I'm concerned out of order
loosehead says I think you're a waste of space!.. using valuable agricultural land for Biofuels/Biomass pellets isn't?

-

loosehead, as far as I'm concerned you're supporting the indefensible.

-


Quote Sir David Attenborough.



Nick Harding Saturday 14 July 2012.

People talk about doom-laden scenarios happening in the future: they are happening in Africa now. You can see it perfectly clearly. Periodic famines are due to too many people living on land that can't sustain them."

For this reason, he explains, growing crops to create green biofuels is a waste of valuable resources. "Biofuels may be palliative in the short term in terms of greener energy. But in the long term we are going to run out of space to grow food, which is more important than finding alternative ways to power Rolls-Royces and superjets."

-

http://tinyurl.com/6

rw64ac
look at the options we have to secure our electricity out put.
1/ We've debated Solar,Wind,Wave & turbine. unless the Government pays for & makes it a legal requirement for Solar Panels to be in/on every property it won't happen, Wind to many NIMBY's oppose it,Wave & Tidal need some one to grasp it & it could be great.
2/ we could go Nuclear but I personally don't like that option.
3/ we could go back to coal but this is far greater a pollutant than wood chip from a sustainable source.
4/ we could continue with building Methane extraction plants ( Like the one up North) & burn the waste Gas from Sewage to produce our electricity it's a totally sustainable source but I can't understand why no one has built more than the one Nothern Plant is is the smell?
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: 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.[/p][/quote]After this I think you're a waste of space! I don't do this on every article that I'm writing about. I don't go out to stifle debate. Are you scared of open debate? Though I agree with you on many points on green energies on the way you swamp all posts connected with Bio Mass with the same article is as far as I'm concerned out of order[/p][/quote]loosehead says I think you're a waste of space!.. using valuable agricultural land for Biofuels/Biomass pellets isn't? - loosehead, as far as I'm concerned you're supporting the indefensible. - Quote Sir David Attenborough. Nick Harding Saturday 14 July 2012. People talk about doom-laden scenarios happening in the future: they are happening in Africa now. You can see it perfectly clearly. Periodic famines are due to too many people living on land that can't sustain them." For this reason, he explains, growing crops to create green biofuels is a waste of valuable resources. "Biofuels may be palliative in the short term in terms of greener energy. But in the long term we are going to run out of space to grow food, which is more important than finding alternative ways to power Rolls-Royces and superjets." - http://tinyurl.com/6 rw64ac[/p][/quote]look at the options we have to secure our electricity out put. 1/ We've debated Solar,Wind,Wave & turbine. unless the Government pays for & makes it a legal requirement for Solar Panels to be in/on every property it won't happen, Wind to many NIMBY's oppose it,Wave & Tidal need some one to grasp it & it could be great. 2/ we could go Nuclear but I personally don't like that option. 3/ we could go back to coal but this is far greater a pollutant than wood chip from a sustainable source. 4/ we could continue with building Methane extraction plants ( Like the one up North) & burn the waste Gas from Sewage to produce our electricity it's a totally sustainable source but I can't understand why no one has built more than the one Nothern Plant is is the smell? loosehead
  • Score: 0

12:29pm Thu 2 Aug 12

Dan Soton says...

loosehead wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
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.
After this I think you're a waste of space!
I don't do this on every article that I'm writing about. I don't go out to stifle debate. Are you scared of open debate?
Though I agree with you on many points on green energies on the way you swamp all posts connected with Bio Mass with the same article is as far as I'm concerned out of order
loosehead says I think you're a waste of space!.. using valuable agricultural land for Biofuels/Biomass pellets isn't?

-

loosehead, as far as I'm concerned you're supporting the indefensible.

-


Quote Sir David Attenborough.



Nick Harding Saturday 14 July 2012.

People talk about doom-laden scenarios happening in the future: they are happening in Africa now. You can see it perfectly clearly. Periodic famines are due to too many people living on land that can't sustain them."

For this reason, he explains, growing crops to create green biofuels is a waste of valuable resources. "Biofuels may be palliative in the short term in terms of greener energy. But in the long term we are going to run out of space to grow food, which is more important than finding alternative ways to power Rolls-Royces and superjets."

-

http://tinyurl.com/6


rw64ac
look at the options we have to secure our electricity out put.
1/ We've debated Solar,Wind,Wave & turbine. unless the Government pays for & makes it a legal requirement for Solar Panels to be in/on every property it won't happen, Wind to many NIMBY's oppose it,Wave & Tidal need some one to grasp it & it could be great.
2/ we could go Nuclear but I personally don't like that option.
3/ we could go back to coal but this is far greater a pollutant than wood chip from a sustainable source.
4/ we could continue with building Methane extraction plants ( Like the one up North) & burn the waste Gas from Sewage to produce our electricity it's a totally sustainable source but I can't understand why no one has built more than the one Nothern Plant is is the smell?
loosehead says opposers are NIMBY's.. An inquiry headed by Sir 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
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: 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.[/p][/quote]After this I think you're a waste of space! I don't do this on every article that I'm writing about. I don't go out to stifle debate. Are you scared of open debate? Though I agree with you on many points on green energies on the way you swamp all posts connected with Bio Mass with the same article is as far as I'm concerned out of order[/p][/quote]loosehead says I think you're a waste of space!.. using valuable agricultural land for Biofuels/Biomass pellets isn't? - loosehead, as far as I'm concerned you're supporting the indefensible. - Quote Sir David Attenborough. Nick Harding Saturday 14 July 2012. People talk about doom-laden scenarios happening in the future: they are happening in Africa now. You can see it perfectly clearly. Periodic famines are due to too many people living on land that can't sustain them." For this reason, he explains, growing crops to create green biofuels is a waste of valuable resources. "Biofuels may be palliative in the short term in terms of greener energy. But in the long term we are going to run out of space to grow food, which is more important than finding alternative ways to power Rolls-Royces and superjets." - http://tinyurl.com/6 rw64ac[/p][/quote]look at the options we have to secure our electricity out put. 1/ We've debated Solar,Wind,Wave & turbine. unless the Government pays for & makes it a legal requirement for Solar Panels to be in/on every property it won't happen, Wind to many NIMBY's oppose it,Wave & Tidal need some one to grasp it & it could be great. 2/ we could go Nuclear but I personally don't like that option. 3/ we could go back to coal but this is far greater a pollutant than wood chip from a sustainable source. 4/ we could continue with building Methane extraction plants ( Like the one up North) & burn the waste Gas from Sewage to produce our electricity it's a totally sustainable source but I can't understand why no one has built more than the one Nothern Plant is is the smell?[/p][/quote]loosehead says opposers are NIMBY's.. An inquiry headed by Sir 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
  • Score: 0

12:32pm Thu 2 Aug 12

loosehead says...

So the noise upsets my horse when riding through the lane near the farm & it looks ugly isn't being NIMBY's?
So the noise upsets my horse when riding through the lane near the farm & it looks ugly isn't being NIMBY's? loosehead
  • Score: 0

12:28pm Tue 7 Aug 12

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
The council should have objections to Helius plans on the principle Helius is competing with agricultural land.


-


Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means Helius could be incinerating 120,000 acres of Canadan Miscanthus grass per year.. if as below 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass pellets

-


Biomass pellets becoming a hot commodity in Europe.

By Diana Martin, QMI Agency.
Posted 12 days ago.

“Last year, Europe consumed 13 million tonnes of biomass pellets,” said Ian Moncrieff, president and CEO of Canadian Biofuel. “By 2015, they will be using 20 million; by 2020, it will be 30 million-plus.”

European countries don’t have the landmass to produce enough biomass pellets to meet the demand, which is why they are looking at Canada to fill the void, he said.

Moncrieff added Canadian Biofuels would need 12,000 to 15,000 acres of miscanthus to produces 100,000 tonnes to support a new plant.

-

http://tinyurl.com/c


srdlee
Helius competing with agricultural land.. 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass Pellets.


-

In this youtube video @ 03:40 mins.. a Canadian farmer says he grows Tobacco, Soya, and Wheat but Miscanthus grass for biofuel pellets is his future.

-

www.youtube.com/watc

h?v=-ix1n2RfMpA

-

Given Helius/European countries are looking to Canada for Biomass pellets, I say this video goes some way to prove Helius will be competing with agricultural land.

-

Thats 120,000 acres of Canadian agricultural land incinerated every year to keep 20,000 homes supplied with power/lights and some (GAS) heat = Six Acres of agricultural land per home per year.
Helius is competing with agricultural land. - Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means 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: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: The council should have objections to Helius plans on the principle Helius is competing with agricultural land. - Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means Helius could be incinerating 120,000 acres of Canadan Miscanthus grass per year.. if as below 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass pellets - Biomass pellets becoming a hot commodity in Europe. By Diana Martin, QMI Agency. Posted 12 days ago. “Last year, Europe consumed 13 million tonnes of biomass pellets,” said Ian Moncrieff, president and CEO of Canadian Biofuel. “By 2015, they will be using 20 million; by 2020, it will be 30 million-plus.” European countries don’t have the landmass to produce enough biomass pellets to meet the demand, which is why they are looking at Canada to fill the void, he said. Moncrieff added Canadian Biofuels would need 12,000 to 15,000 acres of miscanthus to produces 100,000 tonnes to support a new plant. - http://tinyurl.com/c srdlee[/p][/quote]Helius competing with agricultural land.. 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass Pellets. - In this youtube video @ 03:40 mins.. a Canadian farmer says he grows Tobacco, Soya, and Wheat but Miscanthus grass for biofuel pellets is his future. - www.youtube.com/watc h?v=-ix1n2RfMpA - Given Helius/European countries are looking to Canada for Biomass pellets, I say this video goes some way to prove Helius will be competing with agricultural land. - Thats 120,000 acres of Canadian agricultural land incinerated every year to keep 20,000 homes supplied with power/lights and some (GAS) heat = Six Acres of agricultural land per home per year.[/p][/quote]Helius is competing with agricultural land. - Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means 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
  • Score: 0

12:31pm Tue 7 Aug 12

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
The council should have objections to Helius plans on the principle Helius is competing with agricultural land.


-


Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means Helius could be incinerating 120,000 acres of Canadan Miscanthus grass per year.. if as below 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass pellets

-


Biomass pellets becoming a hot commodity in Europe.

By Diana Martin, QMI Agency.
Posted 12 days ago.

“Last year, Europe consumed 13 million tonnes of biomass pellets,” said Ian Moncrieff, president and CEO of Canadian Biofuel. “By 2015, they will be using 20 million; by 2020, it will be 30 million-plus.”

European countries don’t have the landmass to produce enough biomass pellets to meet the demand, which is why they are looking at Canada to fill the void, he said.

Moncrieff added Canadian Biofuels would need 12,000 to 15,000 acres of miscanthus to produces 100,000 tonnes to support a new plant.

-

http://tinyurl.com/c


srdlee
Helius competing with agricultural land.. 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass Pellets.


-

In this youtube video @ 03:40 mins.. a Canadian farmer says he grows Tobacco, Soya, and Wheat but Miscanthus grass for biofuel pellets is his future.

-

www.youtube.com/watc

h?v=-ix1n2RfMpA

-

Given Helius/European countries are looking to Canada for Biomass pellets, I say this video goes some way to prove Helius will be competing with agricultural land.

-

Thats 120,000 acres of Canadian agricultural land incinerated every year to keep 20,000 homes supplied with power/lights and some (GAS) heat = Six Acres of agricultural land per home per year.
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: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: The council should have objections to Helius plans on the principle Helius is competing with agricultural land. - Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means Helius could be incinerating 120,000 acres of Canadan Miscanthus grass per year.. if as below 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass pellets - Biomass pellets becoming a hot commodity in Europe. By Diana Martin, QMI Agency. Posted 12 days ago. “Last year, Europe consumed 13 million tonnes of biomass pellets,” said Ian Moncrieff, president and CEO of Canadian Biofuel. “By 2015, they will be using 20 million; by 2020, it will be 30 million-plus.” European countries don’t have the landmass to produce enough biomass pellets to meet the demand, which is why they are looking at Canada to fill the void, he said. Moncrieff added Canadian Biofuels would need 12,000 to 15,000 acres of miscanthus to produces 100,000 tonnes to support a new plant. - http://tinyurl.com/c srdlee[/p][/quote]Helius competing with agricultural land.. 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass Pellets. - In this youtube video @ 03:40 mins.. a Canadian farmer says he grows Tobacco, Soya, and Wheat but Miscanthus grass for biofuel pellets is his future. - www.youtube.com/watc h?v=-ix1n2RfMpA - Given Helius/European countries are looking to Canada for Biomass pellets, I say this video goes some way to prove Helius will be competing with agricultural land. - Thats 120,000 acres of Canadian agricultural land incinerated every year to keep 20,000 homes supplied with power/lights and some (GAS) heat = Six Acres of agricultural land per home per year.[/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
  • Score: 0

3:14pm Tue 7 Aug 12

loosehead says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
The council should have objections to Helius plans on the principle Helius is competing with agricultural land.


-


Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means Helius could be incinerating 120,000 acres of Canadan Miscanthus grass per year.. if as below 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass pellets

-


Biomass pellets becoming a hot commodity in Europe.

By Diana Martin, QMI Agency.
Posted 12 days ago.

“Last year, Europe consumed 13 million tonnes of biomass pellets,” said Ian Moncrieff, president and CEO of Canadian Biofuel. “By 2015, they will be using 20 million; by 2020, it will be 30 million-plus.”

European countries don’t have the landmass to produce enough biomass pellets to meet the demand, which is why they are looking at Canada to fill the void, he said.

Moncrieff added Canadian Biofuels would need 12,000 to 15,000 acres of miscanthus to produces 100,000 tonnes to support a new plant.

-

http://tinyurl.com/c



srdlee
Helius competing with agricultural land.. 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass Pellets.


-

In this youtube video @ 03:40 mins.. a Canadian farmer says he grows Tobacco, Soya, and Wheat but Miscanthus grass for biofuel pellets is his future.

-

www.youtube.com/watc


h?v=-ix1n2RfMpA

-

Given Helius/European countries are looking to Canada for Biomass pellets, I say this video goes some way to prove Helius will be competing with agricultural land.

-

Thats 120,000 acres of Canadian agricultural land incinerated every year to keep 20,000 homes supplied with power/lights and some (GAS) heat = Six Acres of agricultural land per home per year.
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?
why not talk from the heart instead of all this anti Bio mass literature?
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: The council should have objections to Helius plans on the principle Helius is competing with agricultural land. - Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means Helius could be incinerating 120,000 acres of Canadan Miscanthus grass per year.. if as below 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass pellets - Biomass pellets becoming a hot commodity in Europe. By Diana Martin, QMI Agency. Posted 12 days ago. “Last year, Europe consumed 13 million tonnes of biomass pellets,” said Ian Moncrieff, president and CEO of Canadian Biofuel. “By 2015, they will be using 20 million; by 2020, it will be 30 million-plus.” European countries don’t have the landmass to produce enough biomass pellets to meet the demand, which is why they are looking at Canada to fill the void, he said. Moncrieff added Canadian Biofuels would need 12,000 to 15,000 acres of miscanthus to produces 100,000 tonnes to support a new plant. - http://tinyurl.com/c srdlee[/p][/quote]Helius competing with agricultural land.. 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass Pellets. - In this youtube video @ 03:40 mins.. a Canadian farmer says he grows Tobacco, Soya, and Wheat but Miscanthus grass for biofuel pellets is his future. - www.youtube.com/watc h?v=-ix1n2RfMpA - Given Helius/European countries are looking to Canada for Biomass pellets, I say this video goes some way to prove Helius will be competing with agricultural land. - Thats 120,000 acres of Canadian agricultural land incinerated every year to keep 20,000 homes supplied with power/lights and some (GAS) heat = Six Acres of agricultural land per home per year.[/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]why not talk from the heart instead of all this anti Bio mass literature? loosehead
  • Score: 0

5:35pm Tue 7 Aug 12

Dan Soton says...

loosehead wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
The council should have objections to Helius plans on the principle Helius is competing with agricultural land.


-


Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means Helius could be incinerating 120,000 acres of Canadan Miscanthus grass per year.. if as below 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass pellets

-


Biomass pellets becoming a hot commodity in Europe.

By Diana Martin, QMI Agency.
Posted 12 days ago.

“Last year, Europe consumed 13 million tonnes of biomass pellets,” said Ian Moncrieff, president and CEO of Canadian Biofuel. “By 2015, they will be using 20 million; by 2020, it will be 30 million-plus.”

European countries don’t have the landmass to produce enough biomass pellets to meet the demand, which is why they are looking at Canada to fill the void, he said.

Moncrieff added Canadian Biofuels would need 12,000 to 15,000 acres of miscanthus to produces 100,000 tonnes to support a new plant.

-

http://tinyurl.com/c




srdlee
Helius competing with agricultural land.. 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass Pellets.


-

In this youtube video @ 03:40 mins.. a Canadian farmer says he grows Tobacco, Soya, and Wheat but Miscanthus grass for biofuel pellets is his future.

-

www.youtube.com/watc



h?v=-ix1n2RfMpA

-

Given Helius/European countries are looking to Canada for Biomass pellets, I say this video goes some way to prove Helius will be competing with agricultural land.

-

Thats 120,000 acres of Canadian agricultural land incinerated every year to keep 20,000 homes supplied with power/lights and some (GAS) heat = Six Acres of agricultural land per home per year.
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?
why not talk from the heart instead of all this anti Bio mass literature?
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
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: The council should have objections to Helius plans on the principle Helius is competing with agricultural land. - Shortages of EU/World Biomass wood means Helius could be incinerating 120,000 acres of Canadan Miscanthus grass per year.. if as below 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass pellets - Biomass pellets becoming a hot commodity in Europe. By Diana Martin, QMI Agency. Posted 12 days ago. “Last year, Europe consumed 13 million tonnes of biomass pellets,” said Ian Moncrieff, president and CEO of Canadian Biofuel. “By 2015, they will be using 20 million; by 2020, it will be 30 million-plus.” European countries don’t have the landmass to produce enough biomass pellets to meet the demand, which is why they are looking at Canada to fill the void, he said. Moncrieff added Canadian Biofuels would need 12,000 to 15,000 acres of miscanthus to produces 100,000 tonnes to support a new plant. - http://tinyurl.com/c srdlee[/p][/quote]Helius competing with agricultural land.. 120,000 acres produce 800,000 tonnes of Biomass Pellets. - In this youtube video @ 03:40 mins.. a Canadian farmer says he grows Tobacco, Soya, and Wheat but Miscanthus grass for biofuel pellets is his future. - www.youtube.com/watc h?v=-ix1n2RfMpA - Given Helius/European countries are looking to Canada for Biomass pellets, I say this video goes some way to prove Helius will be competing with agricultural land. - Thats 120,000 acres of Canadian agricultural land incinerated every year to keep 20,000 homes supplied with power/lights and some (GAS) heat = Six Acres of agricultural land per home per year.[/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]why not talk from the heart instead of all this anti Bio mass literature?[/p][/quote]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
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

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

I agree