MEP questions biomass plant's green credentials

MEP questions biomass plant's green credential

MEP questions biomass plant's green credential

First published in Environment

A HAMPSHIRE Euro MP has questioned the environmental credentials of proposed biomass power plant in Southampton and called for the developer to ditch the plans.

Green MEP Keith Taylor called the proposed energy station at the Western Docks, 250m from the nearest homes in Millbrook, “totally inappropriate” for the area.

Mr Taylor said Greens had “deep concerns” about Helius and other energy companies portraying biomass as a “green” alternative to fossil fuels.

He accused the developer Helius Energy of seeking to mislead people into thinking there is no alternative to a power station.

Local residents are campaigning against the power plant while the councillors from all parties have voted to oppose it.

Mr Taylor has rejected all three of the revised designs Helius has put forward in its latest consultation which ends on Friday.

He said: “In my book this is nothing like a proper consultation. A proper consultation would ask for people’s genuine views about whether a power station is needed in this location in the first place”.

The MEP added: “Helius must take into account community concerns before it imposes a mega power station just 250 metres from people’s front doors.

“It must consider the important environmental and social impacts of the station. I believe this proposal is a totally inappropriate development for this area. If there is an energy shortfall in Southampton we would be much better to create renewable energy from wind, solar and tidal power.

“That way we create jobs, save on energy bills and reduce carbon emissions – what’s not to like?”

Helius planning director Paul Brighton insists the proposed 100-megawatt power plant, which could generate enough electricity to power 200,000 homes, is needed to help cut the country’s carbon emissions.

It will burn up to 800,000 tonnes of wood fuel each year, mostly shipped in through the docks from abroad.

Mr Taylor said growing, transporting and burning biomass was having a “devastating effect” on many people and the environment, both in the UK and around the world.

He said latest evidence showed demand was set to quickly outstrip worldwide supply and the Greens in the European Parliament have been working to try to change the law.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) last week maintained its current support for biomass as it unveiled a new range of subsidies for renewable energy. There was a ten per cent cut in support for onshore wind farms.

Helius said it intends to submit a planning application by the end of the year.

Comments (46)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:34am Wed 1 Aug 12

Condor Man says...

Welcome to the Green Party, where the privileged like Porritt and Lucas pontificate whilst the cost of energy for ordinary people soars.
Welcome to the Green Party, where the privileged like Porritt and Lucas pontificate whilst the cost of energy for ordinary people soars. Condor Man
  • Score: 0

7:37am Wed 1 Aug 12

hulla baloo says...

A 'green' biomass generator that will ship its fuel source in from abroad. The generator may claim to be green but wonder what the carbon footprint is to bring the fuel here.
A 'green' biomass generator that will ship its fuel source in from abroad. The generator may claim to be green but wonder what the carbon footprint is to bring the fuel here. hulla baloo
  • Score: 0

7:38am Wed 1 Aug 12

loosehead says...

Don't you people get it?
ABP's owners want to make money from this chunk of land,
if Bio Mass doesn't go there & you're all cheering ask yourself's "what next" because it's being used by who ever pays the most.
So is it a case of better the devil you know?
Don't you people get it? ABP's owners want to make money from this chunk of land, if Bio Mass doesn't go there & you're all cheering ask yourself's "what next" because it's being used by who ever pays the most. So is it a case of better the devil you know? loosehead
  • Score: 0

7:51am Wed 1 Aug 12

Danae says...

Health damage from Helius’ wood burning Power Station

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On health grounds there is very good reason for South Hampshire communities to object to Helius’ idea, now, before the current 3rd August consultation deadline.

Send your views to Helius’ inbox now via enquiries@southampto
nbiomasspower.co.uk.

Copy your rviews to Southampton City Council via planning@southampton
.gov.uk
Health damage from Helius’ wood burning Power Station The reality of poor health related to air pollution in Southampton and adjoining areas, as in many UK towns and cities, is disturbing. The city has eight Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs), introduced by Act of Parliament to monitor air quality, as in these locations it falls below even the UK’s rather low statutory standards. One AQMA stretches along Millbrook Road next to the 20 acre site where Helius aims to apply for development consent for a physically huge Power Station (though with low electrical output) mainly burning imported wood pellet. Our city also has a number of Neighbourhood Priority Areas. 110,000 people, almost half Southampton’s population, live in a Priority Area. A small part of Freemantle is in one of these Priority Areas. Southampton’s June 2012 Health Overview and Scrutiny Panel report states: “Dramatic health inequalities are still a dominant feature of health in Southampton” when comparing Priority and non-priority areas. For example: • Lung and respiratory disease, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), is high for all age groups. Deaths from COPD are 120.7% higher in Priority Areas than in non-priority areas. • Premature deaths, under 75, are 58.7% higher in the Priority Areas • Heart and cardiovascular disease are higher, for Southampton, than the average for England. While mortality rates from cardiovascular disease, for those aged under 75, are 69% higher than the national rate. • Southampton early deaths, for under 75s, from cancer are 42.9% higher than the national rate. • For men, life expectancy is 7.7 years shorter in the Priority Areas than in other parts of the city. COPD is especially associated with breathing in the small particulates, PM10, and PM2.5 nonoparticles that are emitted by diesel driven vehicles, plant and ships and by wood burning power stations. It is our children and elders that are particularly exposed to these health hazards, the tiny invisible particles being readily absorbed across the lung tissue. With our prevailing south west wind the whole of Southampton, Chandler’s Ford, West End and other parts of Eastleigh District are especially exposed to this invisible health hazard which would arise from Helius’ chosen wood pellet burning power station site. The Western Docks Estate is not a good place to build a thermal power station. On health grounds there is very good reason for South Hampshire communities to object to Helius’ idea, now, before the current 3rd August consultation deadline. Send your views to Helius’ inbox now via enquiries@southampto nbiomasspower.co.uk. Copy your rviews to Southampton City Council via planning@southampton .gov.uk Danae
  • Score: 0

8:49am Wed 1 Aug 12

Beer Monster says...

Thank you Danae - a sensible post, mirroring my argument against the proposals. The simple fact of the matter is that it is the wrong type of biomass station, in the wrong location.

One of our partners, http://loucetios.com
/, uses a dedicated crop of Jatropha oil from within the UK - clean burning and has a low carbon footprint. If Helius had thought through their plans more carefully, they may have won over some of the more thoughtful residents and representatives of Southampton.

Hopefully the work being carried out at our first marine energy parks (http://www.bbc.co.u
k/news/uk-scotland-s
cotland-business-190
28073) will assist in driving forward a solution that Southampton and the surrounding areas can actively participate in, using the reliable natural resource that we have in abundance.

BTW ABP can do one. I have one bicycle less thanks to those money grabbing barstewards.
Thank you Danae - a sensible post, mirroring my argument against the proposals. The simple fact of the matter is that it is the wrong type of biomass station, in the wrong location. One of our partners, http://loucetios.com /, uses a dedicated crop of Jatropha oil from within the UK - clean burning and has a low carbon footprint. If Helius had thought through their plans more carefully, they may have won over some of the more thoughtful residents and representatives of Southampton. Hopefully the work being carried out at our first marine energy parks (http://www.bbc.co.u k/news/uk-scotland-s cotland-business-190 28073) will assist in driving forward a solution that Southampton and the surrounding areas can actively participate in, using the reliable natural resource that we have in abundance. BTW ABP can do one. I have one bicycle less thanks to those money grabbing barstewards. Beer Monster
  • Score: 0

9:49am Wed 1 Aug 12

Lone Ranger. says...

loosehead wrote:
Don't you people get it?
ABP's owners want to make money from this chunk of land,
if Bio Mass doesn't go there & you're all cheering ask yourself's "what next" because it's being used by who ever pays the most.
So is it a case of better the devil you know?
I think its you that dont get it !!.
.
ABP can find lots of other ways to produce money from this plot of land .... ... but they havent for 15 years, so perhaps they wont.
.
How can you say "better the devil you know. .............. No one really knows "this devil" .... but what they know about it is ..... they dont like its presence or its product
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Don't you people get it? ABP's owners want to make money from this chunk of land, if Bio Mass doesn't go there & you're all cheering ask yourself's "what next" because it's being used by who ever pays the most. So is it a case of better the devil you know?[/p][/quote]I think its you that dont get it !!. . ABP can find lots of other ways to produce money from this plot of land .... ... but they havent for 15 years, so perhaps they wont. . How can you say "better the devil you know. .............. No one really knows "this devil" .... but what they know about it is ..... they dont like its presence or its product Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

10:36am Wed 1 Aug 12

loosehead says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Don't you people get it?
ABP's owners want to make money from this chunk of land,
if Bio Mass doesn't go there & you're all cheering ask yourself's "what next" because it's being used by who ever pays the most.
So is it a case of better the devil you know?
I think its you that dont get it !!.
.
ABP can find lots of other ways to produce money from this plot of land .... ... but they havent for 15 years, so perhaps they wont.
.
How can you say "better the devil you know. .............. No one really knows "this devil" .... but what they know about it is ..... they dont like its presence or its product
So Lone Ranger they haven't used it for 15years?
I wonder who sold the land to build the new road?
You who know's it all must know of the American dump? Western Shore?
they soon did away with that didn't they?
But I guess if you use the new Millbrook road you don't mind them tearing down all those trees or widening the road & the knocking down of the pub & Lawton Wilson plus all those houses that went?
I would love to see any government to invest in a country wide Green energy project.
put Solar panels on every building & in tower blocks put it into t5he windows. put water turbines ( wave & Tidal) into our rivers & shorelines.
Use our waste excrement to produce Methane gas & either burn it to produce electricity or use it for A source of Natural gas.
If any party would do this I would seriously consider voting for them but I can't ever see that happening & Bio Mass is less of a pollutant than say coal
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Don't you people get it? ABP's owners want to make money from this chunk of land, if Bio Mass doesn't go there & you're all cheering ask yourself's "what next" because it's being used by who ever pays the most. So is it a case of better the devil you know?[/p][/quote]I think its you that dont get it !!. . ABP can find lots of other ways to produce money from this plot of land .... ... but they havent for 15 years, so perhaps they wont. . How can you say "better the devil you know. .............. No one really knows "this devil" .... but what they know about it is ..... they dont like its presence or its product[/p][/quote]So Lone Ranger they haven't used it for 15years? I wonder who sold the land to build the new road? You who know's it all must know of the American dump? Western Shore? they soon did away with that didn't they? But I guess if you use the new Millbrook road you don't mind them tearing down all those trees or widening the road & the knocking down of the pub & Lawton Wilson plus all those houses that went? I would love to see any government to invest in a country wide Green energy project. put Solar panels on every building & in tower blocks put it into t5he windows. put water turbines ( wave & Tidal) into our rivers & shorelines. Use our waste excrement to produce Methane gas & either burn it to produce electricity or use it for A source of Natural gas. If any party would do this I would seriously consider voting for them but I can't ever see that happening & Bio Mass is less of a pollutant than say coal loosehead
  • Score: 0

10:50am Wed 1 Aug 12

The Watcher says...

Danae wrote:
Health damage from Helius’ wood burning Power Station

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On health grounds there is very good reason for South Hampshire communities to object to Helius’ idea, now, before the current 3rd August consultation deadline.

Send your views to Helius’ inbox now via enquiries@southampto

nbiomasspower.co.uk.

Copy your rviews to Southampton City Council via planning@southampton

.gov.uk
What a load of hocus
Ocus. You have seriously confused causation with effect.
.
Your attempt to use the prescribing of a priority area to somehow justify that that this power station is in the wrong location is misguided, disingenuous and spurious.
.
One only has to look at other priority areas to get a clear picture that industrial environmental impact is not the cause, but instead other more engrained social & economic issues (Lordshill v Basset).
.
Additionally, given the clear standards relating to emissions from Bio-Mass plants, one can only assume that you are looking to whip up a factually incorrect frenzy.
.
If you are going to object to the power station then a least object on rational grounds.
.
#veryweakargument
[quote][p][bold]Danae[/bold] wrote: Health damage from Helius’ wood burning Power Station The reality of poor health related to air pollution in Southampton and adjoining areas, as in many UK towns and cities, is disturbing. The city has eight Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs), introduced by Act of Parliament to monitor air quality, as in these locations it falls below even the UK’s rather low statutory standards. One AQMA stretches along Millbrook Road next to the 20 acre site where Helius aims to apply for development consent for a physically huge Power Station (though with low electrical output) mainly burning imported wood pellet. Our city also has a number of Neighbourhood Priority Areas. 110,000 people, almost half Southampton’s population, live in a Priority Area. A small part of Freemantle is in one of these Priority Areas. Southampton’s June 2012 Health Overview and Scrutiny Panel report states: “Dramatic health inequalities are still a dominant feature of health in Southampton” when comparing Priority and non-priority areas. For example: • Lung and respiratory disease, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), is high for all age groups. Deaths from COPD are 120.7% higher in Priority Areas than in non-priority areas. • Premature deaths, under 75, are 58.7% higher in the Priority Areas • Heart and cardiovascular disease are higher, for Southampton, than the average for England. While mortality rates from cardiovascular disease, for those aged under 75, are 69% higher than the national rate. • Southampton early deaths, for under 75s, from cancer are 42.9% higher than the national rate. • For men, life expectancy is 7.7 years shorter in the Priority Areas than in other parts of the city. COPD is especially associated with breathing in the small particulates, PM10, and PM2.5 nonoparticles that are emitted by diesel driven vehicles, plant and ships and by wood burning power stations. It is our children and elders that are particularly exposed to these health hazards, the tiny invisible particles being readily absorbed across the lung tissue. With our prevailing south west wind the whole of Southampton, Chandler’s Ford, West End and other parts of Eastleigh District are especially exposed to this invisible health hazard which would arise from Helius’ chosen wood pellet burning power station site. The Western Docks Estate is not a good place to build a thermal power station. On health grounds there is very good reason for South Hampshire communities to object to Helius’ idea, now, before the current 3rd August consultation deadline. Send your views to Helius’ inbox now via enquiries@southampto nbiomasspower.co.uk. Copy your rviews to Southampton City Council via planning@southampton .gov.uk[/p][/quote]What a load of hocus Ocus. You have seriously confused causation with effect. . Your attempt to use the prescribing of a priority area to somehow justify that that this power station is in the wrong location is misguided, disingenuous and spurious. . One only has to look at other priority areas to get a clear picture that industrial environmental impact is not the cause, but instead other more engrained social & economic issues (Lordshill v Basset). . Additionally, given the clear standards relating to emissions from Bio-Mass plants, one can only assume that you are looking to whip up a factually incorrect frenzy. . If you are going to object to the power station then a least object on rational grounds. . #veryweakargument The Watcher
  • Score: 0

10:55am Wed 1 Aug 12

Linesman says...

I consider that the contribution to pollution posed by burning wood to be considerably less than the pollution produced from the refinery at Fawley and the associated factories.

I wonder how many of those who are against this project, using the 'Green' argument, are car owners and use them on a regular basis.

Of Course. Others should not use cars, but their use is essential.
I consider that the contribution to pollution posed by burning wood to be considerably less than the pollution produced from the refinery at Fawley and the associated factories. I wonder how many of those who are against this project, using the 'Green' argument, are car owners and use them on a regular basis. Of Course. Others should not use cars, but their use is essential. Linesman
  • Score: 0

11:07am Wed 1 Aug 12

The Watcher says...

Linesman wrote:
I consider that the contribution to pollution posed by burning wood to be considerably less than the pollution produced from the refinery at Fawley and the associated factories.

I wonder how many of those who are against this project, using the 'Green' argument, are car owners and use them on a regular basis.

Of Course. Others should not use cars, but their use is essential.
Indeed, and when you consider that the hocus pocus post I was so critical of above mentions the Millbrook Road AQMA, it is worth pointing out that this area is almost exclusively the road itself with the major contributing factor being vehicle emissions.
.
If people are going to object to this proposal, then they should at least be consistent in their approach.
.
Misquoting research etc shows a clear weakness in their argument.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: I consider that the contribution to pollution posed by burning wood to be considerably less than the pollution produced from the refinery at Fawley and the associated factories. I wonder how many of those who are against this project, using the 'Green' argument, are car owners and use them on a regular basis. Of Course. Others should not use cars, but their use is essential.[/p][/quote]Indeed, and when you consider that the hocus pocus post I was so critical of above mentions the Millbrook Road AQMA, it is worth pointing out that this area is almost exclusively the road itself with the major contributing factor being vehicle emissions. . If people are going to object to this proposal, then they should at least be consistent in their approach. . Misquoting research etc shows a clear weakness in their argument. The Watcher
  • Score: 0

11:19am Wed 1 Aug 12

hulla baloo says...

Linesman wrote:
I consider that the contribution to pollution posed by burning wood to be considerably less than the pollution produced from the refinery at Fawley and the associated factories.

I wonder how many of those who are against this project, using the 'Green' argument, are car owners and use them on a regular basis.

Of Course. Others should not use cars, but their use is essential.
And how much pollution will be added in bringing/shipping all the wood to this 'green' plant?
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: I consider that the contribution to pollution posed by burning wood to be considerably less than the pollution produced from the refinery at Fawley and the associated factories. I wonder how many of those who are against this project, using the 'Green' argument, are car owners and use them on a regular basis. Of Course. Others should not use cars, but their use is essential.[/p][/quote]And how much pollution will be added in bringing/shipping all the wood to this 'green' plant? hulla baloo
  • Score: 0

11:31am Wed 1 Aug 12

Paramjit Bahia says...

Very first comment on this item is cheap shot by Condor Man.

How can he blame Greens for expensive energy when the real reasons are wicked most policies of the self confessed nasty party, which he supports?

Tories privatised gas and electrc industries and lied to the nation that competition will reduce prices. But did not tell the truth that government won't be able to stop greed ridden privateers from ripping people off.

Sadly during their 13 years of misrule while keep on sacrificing Old Labour values at the alter of Thatcherism, the NuLabourites refused to take control of electric gas and water along with railways.

Although I fully support views expressed by MEP from Green Party and welcome opposition to this proposed lunacy, why have local Greens been more or less remained quite on this serious issue, over which not only most of the NuLabour and Tories but even lousy Lib-Dem have been expressing opposition for long time?

I won't be surprised if Soton Green and somebody from Socialist Party will now post some kind of plausible comment and claim full credit for opposing this badly thought out idea.

Yes I have lot of respect for both these small groups, but am mostly disappointed because they often only wake up about real issues that matters to most people has already been taken up by others, and then try to claim all the credits.

They must learn how to beat established main parties in this game.
Very first comment on this item is cheap shot by Condor Man. How can he blame Greens for expensive energy when the real reasons are wicked most policies of the self confessed nasty party, which he supports? Tories privatised gas and electrc industries and lied to the nation that competition will reduce prices. But did not tell the truth that government won't be able to stop greed ridden privateers from ripping people off. Sadly during their 13 years of misrule while keep on sacrificing Old Labour values at the alter of Thatcherism, the NuLabourites refused to take control of electric gas and water along with railways. Although I fully support views expressed by MEP from Green Party and welcome opposition to this proposed lunacy, why have local Greens been more or less remained quite on this serious issue, over which not only most of the NuLabour and Tories but even lousy Lib-Dem have been expressing opposition for long time? I won't be surprised if Soton Green and somebody from Socialist Party will now post some kind of plausible comment and claim full credit for opposing this badly thought out idea. Yes I have lot of respect for both these small groups, but am mostly disappointed because they often only wake up about real issues that matters to most people has already been taken up by others, and then try to claim all the credits. They must learn how to beat established main parties in this game. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

11:34am Wed 1 Aug 12

Shoong says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Very first comment on this item is cheap shot by Condor Man.

How can he blame Greens for expensive energy when the real reasons are wicked most policies of the self confessed nasty party, which he supports?

Tories privatised gas and electrc industries and lied to the nation that competition will reduce prices. But did not tell the truth that government won't be able to stop greed ridden privateers from ripping people off.

Sadly during their 13 years of misrule while keep on sacrificing Old Labour values at the alter of Thatcherism, the NuLabourites refused to take control of electric gas and water along with railways.

Although I fully support views expressed by MEP from Green Party and welcome opposition to this proposed lunacy, why have local Greens been more or less remained quite on this serious issue, over which not only most of the NuLabour and Tories but even lousy Lib-Dem have been expressing opposition for long time?

I won't be surprised if Soton Green and somebody from Socialist Party will now post some kind of plausible comment and claim full credit for opposing this badly thought out idea.

Yes I have lot of respect for both these small groups, but am mostly disappointed because they often only wake up about real issues that matters to most people has already been taken up by others, and then try to claim all the credits.

They must learn how to beat established main parties in this game.
Dear Daily Echo webmaster,

Any chance of an 'Ignore' button?

regards,
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: Very first comment on this item is cheap shot by Condor Man. How can he blame Greens for expensive energy when the real reasons are wicked most policies of the self confessed nasty party, which he supports? Tories privatised gas and electrc industries and lied to the nation that competition will reduce prices. But did not tell the truth that government won't be able to stop greed ridden privateers from ripping people off. Sadly during their 13 years of misrule while keep on sacrificing Old Labour values at the alter of Thatcherism, the NuLabourites refused to take control of electric gas and water along with railways. Although I fully support views expressed by MEP from Green Party and welcome opposition to this proposed lunacy, why have local Greens been more or less remained quite on this serious issue, over which not only most of the NuLabour and Tories but even lousy Lib-Dem have been expressing opposition for long time? I won't be surprised if Soton Green and somebody from Socialist Party will now post some kind of plausible comment and claim full credit for opposing this badly thought out idea. Yes I have lot of respect for both these small groups, but am mostly disappointed because they often only wake up about real issues that matters to most people has already been taken up by others, and then try to claim all the credits. They must learn how to beat established main parties in this game.[/p][/quote]Dear Daily Echo webmaster, Any chance of an 'Ignore' button? regards, Shoong
  • Score: 0

11:55am Wed 1 Aug 12

Lone Ranger. says...

loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Don't you people get it?
ABP's owners want to make money from this chunk of land,
if Bio Mass doesn't go there & you're all cheering ask yourself's "what next" because it's being used by who ever pays the most.
So is it a case of better the devil you know?
I think its you that dont get it !!.
.
ABP can find lots of other ways to produce money from this plot of land .... ... but they havent for 15 years, so perhaps they wont.
.
How can you say "better the devil you know. .............. No one really knows "this devil" .... but what they know about it is ..... they dont like its presence or its product
So Lone Ranger they haven't used it for 15years?
I wonder who sold the land to build the new road?
You who know's it all must know of the American dump? Western Shore?
they soon did away with that didn't they?
But I guess if you use the new Millbrook road you don't mind them tearing down all those trees or widening the road & the knocking down of the pub & Lawton Wilson plus all those houses that went?
I would love to see any government to invest in a country wide Green energy project.
put Solar panels on every building & in tower blocks put it into t5he windows. put water turbines ( wave & Tidal) into our rivers & shorelines.
Use our waste excrement to produce Methane gas & either burn it to produce electricity or use it for A source of Natural gas.
If any party would do this I would seriously consider voting for them but I can't ever see that happening & Bio Mass is less of a pollutant than say coal
What the hell are you on about.
.
Once again a totally incoherent post.
.
Go away ... think about what point you are trying to make and the come back and post it
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Don't you people get it? ABP's owners want to make money from this chunk of land, if Bio Mass doesn't go there & you're all cheering ask yourself's "what next" because it's being used by who ever pays the most. So is it a case of better the devil you know?[/p][/quote]I think its you that dont get it !!. . ABP can find lots of other ways to produce money from this plot of land .... ... but they havent for 15 years, so perhaps they wont. . How can you say "better the devil you know. .............. No one really knows "this devil" .... but what they know about it is ..... they dont like its presence or its product[/p][/quote]So Lone Ranger they haven't used it for 15years? I wonder who sold the land to build the new road? You who know's it all must know of the American dump? Western Shore? they soon did away with that didn't they? But I guess if you use the new Millbrook road you don't mind them tearing down all those trees or widening the road & the knocking down of the pub & Lawton Wilson plus all those houses that went? I would love to see any government to invest in a country wide Green energy project. put Solar panels on every building & in tower blocks put it into t5he windows. put water turbines ( wave & Tidal) into our rivers & shorelines. Use our waste excrement to produce Methane gas & either burn it to produce electricity or use it for A source of Natural gas. If any party would do this I would seriously consider voting for them but I can't ever see that happening & Bio Mass is less of a pollutant than say coal[/p][/quote]What the hell are you on about. . Once again a totally incoherent post. . Go away ... think about what point you are trying to make and the come back and post it Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

12:39pm Wed 1 Aug 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

Danae wrote:
Health damage from Helius’ wood burning Power Station The reality of poor health related to air pollution in Southampton and adjoining areas, as in many UK towns and cities, is disturbing. The city has eight Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs), introduced by Act of Parliament to monitor air quality, as in these locations it falls below even the UK’s rather low statutory standards. One AQMA stretches along Millbrook Road next to the 20 acre site where Helius aims to apply for development consent for a physically huge Power Station (though with low electrical output) mainly burning imported wood pellet. Our city also has a number of Neighbourhood Priority Areas. 110,000 people, almost half Southampton’s population, live in a Priority Area. A small part of Freemantle is in one of these Priority Areas. Southampton’s June 2012 Health Overview and Scrutiny Panel report states: “Dramatic health inequalities are still a dominant feature of health in Southampton” when comparing Priority and non-priority areas. For example: • Lung and respiratory disease, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), is high for all age groups. Deaths from COPD are 120.7% higher in Priority Areas than in non-priority areas. • Premature deaths, under 75, are 58.7% higher in the Priority Areas • Heart and cardiovascular disease are higher, for Southampton, than the average for England. While mortality rates from cardiovascular disease, for those aged under 75, are 69% higher than the national rate. • Southampton early deaths, for under 75s, from cancer are 42.9% higher than the national rate. • For men, life expectancy is 7.7 years shorter in the Priority Areas than in other parts of the city. COPD is especially associated with breathing in the small particulates, PM10, and PM2.5 nonoparticles that are emitted by diesel driven vehicles, plant and ships and by wood burning power stations. It is our children and elders that are particularly exposed to these health hazards, the tiny invisible particles being readily absorbed across the lung tissue. With our prevailing south west wind the whole of Southampton, Chandler’s Ford, West End and other parts of Eastleigh District are especially exposed to this invisible health hazard which would arise from Helius’ chosen wood pellet burning power station site. The Western Docks Estate is not a good place to build a thermal power station. On health grounds there is very good reason for South Hampshire communities to object to Helius’ idea, now, before the current 3rd August consultation deadline. Send your views to Helius’ inbox now via enquiries@southampto nbiomasspower.co.uk. Copy your rviews to Southampton City Council via planning@southampton .gov.uk
You'ev lost all credibility Danae. I challenged you to show the direct causal link between this random unrelated data and the presence of this station in this location. You can't and instead you have just posted the same irrelevant spurious data all over again. You prefer disinformation and obfuscation over your own integrity which says quite a lot about the general quality and integrity of your entire campaign. Care to respond on the actual "threat" this station poses to air quality in the local environment bearing in mind that none of the combusted gases will be breathed by anyone below the height of the chimney?
[quote][p][bold]Danae[/bold] wrote: Health damage from Helius’ wood burning Power Station The reality of poor health related to air pollution in Southampton and adjoining areas, as in many UK towns and cities, is disturbing. The city has eight Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs), introduced by Act of Parliament to monitor air quality, as in these locations it falls below even the UK’s rather low statutory standards. One AQMA stretches along Millbrook Road next to the 20 acre site where Helius aims to apply for development consent for a physically huge Power Station (though with low electrical output) mainly burning imported wood pellet. Our city also has a number of Neighbourhood Priority Areas. 110,000 people, almost half Southampton’s population, live in a Priority Area. A small part of Freemantle is in one of these Priority Areas. Southampton’s June 2012 Health Overview and Scrutiny Panel report states: “Dramatic health inequalities are still a dominant feature of health in Southampton” when comparing Priority and non-priority areas. For example: • Lung and respiratory disease, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), is high for all age groups. Deaths from COPD are 120.7% higher in Priority Areas than in non-priority areas. • Premature deaths, under 75, are 58.7% higher in the Priority Areas • Heart and cardiovascular disease are higher, for Southampton, than the average for England. While mortality rates from cardiovascular disease, for those aged under 75, are 69% higher than the national rate. • Southampton early deaths, for under 75s, from cancer are 42.9% higher than the national rate. • For men, life expectancy is 7.7 years shorter in the Priority Areas than in other parts of the city. COPD is especially associated with breathing in the small particulates, PM10, and PM2.5 nonoparticles that are emitted by diesel driven vehicles, plant and ships and by wood burning power stations. It is our children and elders that are particularly exposed to these health hazards, the tiny invisible particles being readily absorbed across the lung tissue. With our prevailing south west wind the whole of Southampton, Chandler’s Ford, West End and other parts of Eastleigh District are especially exposed to this invisible health hazard which would arise from Helius’ chosen wood pellet burning power station site. The Western Docks Estate is not a good place to build a thermal power station. On health grounds there is very good reason for South Hampshire communities to object to Helius’ idea, now, before the current 3rd August consultation deadline. Send your views to Helius’ inbox now via enquiries@southampto nbiomasspower.co.uk. Copy your rviews to Southampton City Council via planning@southampton .gov.uk[/p][/quote]You'ev lost all credibility Danae. I challenged you to show the direct causal link between this random unrelated data and the presence of this station in this location. You can't and instead you have just posted the same irrelevant spurious data all over again. You prefer disinformation and obfuscation over your own integrity which says quite a lot about the general quality and integrity of your entire campaign. Care to respond on the actual "threat" this station poses to air quality in the local environment bearing in mind that none of the combusted gases will be breathed by anyone below the height of the chimney? Andy Locks Heath
  • Score: 0

12:43pm Wed 1 Aug 12

hulla baloo says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Don't you people get it?
ABP's owners want to make money from this chunk of land,
if Bio Mass doesn't go there & you're all cheering ask yourself's "what next" because it's being used by who ever pays the most.
So is it a case of better the devil you know?
I think its you that dont get it !!.
.
ABP can find lots of other ways to produce money from this plot of land .... ... but they havent for 15 years, so perhaps they wont.
.
How can you say "better the devil you know. .............. No one really knows "this devil" .... but what they know about it is ..... they dont like its presence or its product
So Lone Ranger they haven't used it for 15years?
I wonder who sold the land to build the new road?
You who know's it all must know of the American dump? Western Shore?
they soon did away with that didn't they?
But I guess if you use the new Millbrook road you don't mind them tearing down all those trees or widening the road & the knocking down of the pub & Lawton Wilson plus all those houses that went?
I would love to see any government to invest in a country wide Green energy project.
put Solar panels on every building & in tower blocks put it into t5he windows. put water turbines ( wave & Tidal) into our rivers & shorelines.
Use our waste excrement to produce Methane gas & either burn it to produce electricity or use it for A source of Natural gas.
If any party would do this I would seriously consider voting for them but I can't ever see that happening & Bio Mass is less of a pollutant than say coal
What the hell are you on about.
.
Once again a totally incoherent post.
.
Go away ... think about what point you are trying to make and the come back and post it
Possibly related to Southy?
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Don't you people get it? ABP's owners want to make money from this chunk of land, if Bio Mass doesn't go there & you're all cheering ask yourself's "what next" because it's being used by who ever pays the most. So is it a case of better the devil you know?[/p][/quote]I think its you that dont get it !!. . ABP can find lots of other ways to produce money from this plot of land .... ... but they havent for 15 years, so perhaps they wont. . How can you say "better the devil you know. .............. No one really knows "this devil" .... but what they know about it is ..... they dont like its presence or its product[/p][/quote]So Lone Ranger they haven't used it for 15years? I wonder who sold the land to build the new road? You who know's it all must know of the American dump? Western Shore? they soon did away with that didn't they? But I guess if you use the new Millbrook road you don't mind them tearing down all those trees or widening the road & the knocking down of the pub & Lawton Wilson plus all those houses that went? I would love to see any government to invest in a country wide Green energy project. put Solar panels on every building & in tower blocks put it into t5he windows. put water turbines ( wave & Tidal) into our rivers & shorelines. Use our waste excrement to produce Methane gas & either burn it to produce electricity or use it for A source of Natural gas. If any party would do this I would seriously consider voting for them but I can't ever see that happening & Bio Mass is less of a pollutant than say coal[/p][/quote]What the hell are you on about. . Once again a totally incoherent post. . Go away ... think about what point you are trying to make and the come back and post it[/p][/quote]Possibly related to Southy? hulla baloo
  • Score: 0

12:52pm Wed 1 Aug 12

The Wickham Man says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Very first comment on this item is cheap shot by Condor Man. How can he blame Greens for expensive energy when the real reasons are wicked most policies of the self confessed nasty party, which he supports? Tories privatised gas and electrc industries and lied to the nation that competition will reduce prices. But did not tell the truth that government won't be able to stop greed ridden privateers from ripping people off. Sadly during their 13 years of misrule while keep on sacrificing Old Labour values at the alter of Thatcherism, the NuLabourites refused to take control of electric gas and water along with railways. Although I fully support views expressed by MEP from Green Party and welcome opposition to this proposed lunacy, why have local Greens been more or less remained quite on this serious issue, over which not only most of the NuLabour and Tories but even lousy Lib-Dem have been expressing opposition for long time? I won't be surprised if Soton Green and somebody from Socialist Party will now post some kind of plausible comment and claim full credit for opposing this badly thought out idea. Yes I have lot of respect for both these small groups, but am mostly disappointed because they often only wake up about real issues that matters to most people has already been taken up by others, and then try to claim all the credits. They must learn how to beat established main parties in this game.
You show as much intelligence about power generation as about everything else, ie virtually none . You don't even realise that power stations are not demolished and rebuilt at every election but what we have has been built over the last 50 years and it takes someone far smarter than you to work out what was planned authorised and constructed under what administration let alone what we have now and what we need to replace. I don't think you'd know a relevant issue if it fell on you - no matter what the issue is you just squawk out the same tired old phrase. "Evil tories did it!. Evil tories did it!. Greedy tories! Squawk! Paramjit wants a biscuit!"
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: Very first comment on this item is cheap shot by Condor Man. How can he blame Greens for expensive energy when the real reasons are wicked most policies of the self confessed nasty party, which he supports? Tories privatised gas and electrc industries and lied to the nation that competition will reduce prices. But did not tell the truth that government won't be able to stop greed ridden privateers from ripping people off. Sadly during their 13 years of misrule while keep on sacrificing Old Labour values at the alter of Thatcherism, the NuLabourites refused to take control of electric gas and water along with railways. Although I fully support views expressed by MEP from Green Party and welcome opposition to this proposed lunacy, why have local Greens been more or less remained quite on this serious issue, over which not only most of the NuLabour and Tories but even lousy Lib-Dem have been expressing opposition for long time? I won't be surprised if Soton Green and somebody from Socialist Party will now post some kind of plausible comment and claim full credit for opposing this badly thought out idea. Yes I have lot of respect for both these small groups, but am mostly disappointed because they often only wake up about real issues that matters to most people has already been taken up by others, and then try to claim all the credits. They must learn how to beat established main parties in this game.[/p][/quote]You show as much intelligence about power generation as about everything else, ie virtually none . You don't even realise that power stations are not demolished and rebuilt at every election but what we have has been built over the last 50 years and it takes someone far smarter than you to work out what was planned authorised and constructed under what administration let alone what we have now and what we need to replace. I don't think you'd know a relevant issue if it fell on you - no matter what the issue is you just squawk out the same tired old phrase. "Evil tories did it!. Evil tories did it!. Greedy tories! Squawk! Paramjit wants a biscuit!" The Wickham Man
  • Score: 0

1:11pm Wed 1 Aug 12

skin2000 says...

hulla baloo wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Don't you people get it?
ABP's owners want to make money from this chunk of land,
if Bio Mass doesn't go there & you're all cheering ask yourself's "what next" because it's being used by who ever pays the most.
So is it a case of better the devil you know?
I think its you that dont get it !!.
.
ABP can find lots of other ways to produce money from this plot of land .... ... but they havent for 15 years, so perhaps they wont.
.
How can you say "better the devil you know. .............. No one really knows "this devil" .... but what they know about it is ..... they dont like its presence or its product
So Lone Ranger they haven't used it for 15years?
I wonder who sold the land to build the new road?
You who know's it all must know of the American dump? Western Shore?
they soon did away with that didn't they?
But I guess if you use the new Millbrook road you don't mind them tearing down all those trees or widening the road & the knocking down of the pub & Lawton Wilson plus all those houses that went?
I would love to see any government to invest in a country wide Green energy project.
put Solar panels on every building & in tower blocks put it into t5he windows. put water turbines ( wave & Tidal) into our rivers & shorelines.
Use our waste excrement to produce Methane gas & either burn it to produce electricity or use it for A source of Natural gas.
If any party would do this I would seriously consider voting for them but I can't ever see that happening & Bio Mass is less of a pollutant than say coal
What the hell are you on about.
.
Once again a totally incoherent post.
.
Go away ... think about what point you are trying to make and the come back and post it
Possibly related to Southy?
Probably that's why he calls himself Loosehead.
[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Don't you people get it? ABP's owners want to make money from this chunk of land, if Bio Mass doesn't go there & you're all cheering ask yourself's "what next" because it's being used by who ever pays the most. So is it a case of better the devil you know?[/p][/quote]I think its you that dont get it !!. . ABP can find lots of other ways to produce money from this plot of land .... ... but they havent for 15 years, so perhaps they wont. . How can you say "better the devil you know. .............. No one really knows "this devil" .... but what they know about it is ..... they dont like its presence or its product[/p][/quote]So Lone Ranger they haven't used it for 15years? I wonder who sold the land to build the new road? You who know's it all must know of the American dump? Western Shore? they soon did away with that didn't they? But I guess if you use the new Millbrook road you don't mind them tearing down all those trees or widening the road & the knocking down of the pub & Lawton Wilson plus all those houses that went? I would love to see any government to invest in a country wide Green energy project. put Solar panels on every building & in tower blocks put it into t5he windows. put water turbines ( wave & Tidal) into our rivers & shorelines. Use our waste excrement to produce Methane gas & either burn it to produce electricity or use it for A source of Natural gas. If any party would do this I would seriously consider voting for them but I can't ever see that happening & Bio Mass is less of a pollutant than say coal[/p][/quote]What the hell are you on about. . Once again a totally incoherent post. . Go away ... think about what point you are trying to make and the come back and post it[/p][/quote]Possibly related to Southy?[/p][/quote]Probably that's why he calls himself Loosehead. skin2000
  • Score: 0

1:40pm Wed 1 Aug 12

freefinker says...

skin2000 wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Don't you people get it?
ABP's owners want to make money from this chunk of land,
if Bio Mass doesn't go there & you're all cheering ask yourself's "what next" because it's being used by who ever pays the most.
So is it a case of better the devil you know?
I think its you that dont get it !!.
.
ABP can find lots of other ways to produce money from this plot of land .... ... but they havent for 15 years, so perhaps they wont.
.
How can you say "better the devil you know. .............. No one really knows "this devil" .... but what they know about it is ..... they dont like its presence or its product
So Lone Ranger they haven't used it for 15years?
I wonder who sold the land to build the new road?
You who know's it all must know of the American dump? Western Shore?
they soon did away with that didn't they?
But I guess if you use the new Millbrook road you don't mind them tearing down all those trees or widening the road & the knocking down of the pub & Lawton Wilson plus all those houses that went?
I would love to see any government to invest in a country wide Green energy project.
put Solar panels on every building & in tower blocks put it into t5he windows. put water turbines ( wave & Tidal) into our rivers & shorelines.
Use our waste excrement to produce Methane gas & either burn it to produce electricity or use it for A source of Natural gas.
If any party would do this I would seriously consider voting for them but I can't ever see that happening & Bio Mass is less of a pollutant than say coal
What the hell are you on about.
.
Once again a totally incoherent post.
.
Go away ... think about what point you are trying to make and the come back and post it
Possibly related to Southy?
Probably that's why he calls himself Loosehead.
.. possibly both related to Rahit Maryada.
[quote][p][bold]skin2000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Don't you people get it? ABP's owners want to make money from this chunk of land, if Bio Mass doesn't go there & you're all cheering ask yourself's "what next" because it's being used by who ever pays the most. So is it a case of better the devil you know?[/p][/quote]I think its you that dont get it !!. . ABP can find lots of other ways to produce money from this plot of land .... ... but they havent for 15 years, so perhaps they wont. . How can you say "better the devil you know. .............. No one really knows "this devil" .... but what they know about it is ..... they dont like its presence or its product[/p][/quote]So Lone Ranger they haven't used it for 15years? I wonder who sold the land to build the new road? You who know's it all must know of the American dump? Western Shore? they soon did away with that didn't they? But I guess if you use the new Millbrook road you don't mind them tearing down all those trees or widening the road & the knocking down of the pub & Lawton Wilson plus all those houses that went? I would love to see any government to invest in a country wide Green energy project. put Solar panels on every building & in tower blocks put it into t5he windows. put water turbines ( wave & Tidal) into our rivers & shorelines. Use our waste excrement to produce Methane gas & either burn it to produce electricity or use it for A source of Natural gas. If any party would do this I would seriously consider voting for them but I can't ever see that happening & Bio Mass is less of a pollutant than say coal[/p][/quote]What the hell are you on about. . Once again a totally incoherent post. . Go away ... think about what point you are trying to make and the come back and post it[/p][/quote]Possibly related to Southy?[/p][/quote]Probably that's why he calls himself Loosehead.[/p][/quote].. possibly both related to Rahit Maryada. freefinker
  • Score: 0

1:42pm Wed 1 Aug 12

good-gosh says...

Who woke the MEP up? Or was it just another EU nightmare?
Who woke the MEP up? Or was it just another EU nightmare? good-gosh
  • Score: 0

2:37pm Wed 1 Aug 12

southy says...

loosehead wrote:
Don't you people get it?
ABP's owners want to make money from this chunk of land,
if Bio Mass doesn't go there & you're all cheering ask yourself's "what next" because it's being used by who ever pays the most.
So is it a case of better the devil you know?
ABPj makes money out the land any way, they get at lest 10p per car a day, that is for export or import, they also get money for full or Empty Containers that is left to store on there land, what the docks is short of is storeage space, thats why those multi story car parks was built so they could get more cars to be stored there, while waiting to be moved on to the next location.
Royston Smith Idea to bring in this Boi-mass Plant, the plant it self can be built any where on the cost in the uk, Smith sits on the Dock board quango.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Don't you people get it? ABP's owners want to make money from this chunk of land, if Bio Mass doesn't go there & you're all cheering ask yourself's "what next" because it's being used by who ever pays the most. So is it a case of better the devil you know?[/p][/quote]ABPj makes money out the land any way, they get at lest 10p per car a day, that is for export or import, they also get money for full or Empty Containers that is left to store on there land, what the docks is short of is storeage space, thats why those multi story car parks was built so they could get more cars to be stored there, while waiting to be moved on to the next location. Royston Smith Idea to bring in this Boi-mass Plant, the plant it self can be built any where on the cost in the uk, Smith sits on the Dock board quango. southy
  • Score: 0

2:45pm Wed 1 Aug 12

southy says...

The Watcher wrote:
Linesman wrote:
I consider that the contribution to pollution posed by burning wood to be considerably less than the pollution produced from the refinery at Fawley and the associated factories.

I wonder how many of those who are against this project, using the 'Green' argument, are car owners and use them on a regular basis.

Of Course. Others should not use cars, but their use is essential.
Indeed, and when you consider that the hocus pocus post I was so critical of above mentions the Millbrook Road AQMA, it is worth pointing out that this area is almost exclusively the road itself with the major contributing factor being vehicle emissions.
.
If people are going to object to this proposal, then they should at least be consistent in their approach.
.
Misquoting research etc shows a clear weakness in their argument.
Its not just along millbrook road, there low level flats in and around the Milbrook area that has air polution monitoring equippment on top of them, theres one ontop a flat that is just about 100 yards north east of me.
[quote][p][bold]The Watcher[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: I consider that the contribution to pollution posed by burning wood to be considerably less than the pollution produced from the refinery at Fawley and the associated factories. I wonder how many of those who are against this project, using the 'Green' argument, are car owners and use them on a regular basis. Of Course. Others should not use cars, but their use is essential.[/p][/quote]Indeed, and when you consider that the hocus pocus post I was so critical of above mentions the Millbrook Road AQMA, it is worth pointing out that this area is almost exclusively the road itself with the major contributing factor being vehicle emissions. . If people are going to object to this proposal, then they should at least be consistent in their approach. . Misquoting research etc shows a clear weakness in their argument.[/p][/quote]Its not just along millbrook road, there low level flats in and around the Milbrook area that has air polution monitoring equippment on top of them, theres one ontop a flat that is just about 100 yards north east of me. southy
  • Score: 0

2:52pm Wed 1 Aug 12

Linesman says...

hulla baloo wrote:
Linesman wrote:
I consider that the contribution to pollution posed by burning wood to be considerably less than the pollution produced from the refinery at Fawley and the associated factories.

I wonder how many of those who are against this project, using the 'Green' argument, are car owners and use them on a regular basis.

Of Course. Others should not use cars, but their use is essential.
And how much pollution will be added in bringing/shipping all the wood to this 'green' plant?
No more than the pollution caused by the Cruise ships that people flock to see, or the container ships, and less than if an oil-fired power station was planned instead.

I assume that you use electricity.

It has to be produced somewhere, but presumably, not in your back yard.
[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: I consider that the contribution to pollution posed by burning wood to be considerably less than the pollution produced from the refinery at Fawley and the associated factories. I wonder how many of those who are against this project, using the 'Green' argument, are car owners and use them on a regular basis. Of Course. Others should not use cars, but their use is essential.[/p][/quote]And how much pollution will be added in bringing/shipping all the wood to this 'green' plant?[/p][/quote]No more than the pollution caused by the Cruise ships that people flock to see, or the container ships, and less than if an oil-fired power station was planned instead. I assume that you use electricity. It has to be produced somewhere, but presumably, not in your back yard. Linesman
  • Score: 0

2:55pm Wed 1 Aug 12

The Watcher says...

http://www.southampt
on.gov.uk/Images/AQM
A7MillbrookRoad2009_
tcm46-258015.pdf

As I said the Millbrook Road AQMA is "almost" exclusively the road itself with very few houses/flats designated.
.
And as the Council's " Breath of Fresh Air" report clearly states, the cause is not industrial or commercial, but instead primarily vehicle emissions
.
Trying to use AQMA or Priority Areas in this debate is nonsensical in the extreme and seriously undermines the opposition to this initiative.
http://www.southampt on.gov.uk/Images/AQM A7MillbrookRoad2009_ tcm46-258015.pdf As I said the Millbrook Road AQMA is "almost" exclusively the road itself with very few houses/flats designated. . And as the Council's " Breath of Fresh Air" report clearly states, the cause is not industrial or commercial, but instead primarily vehicle emissions . Trying to use AQMA or Priority Areas in this debate is nonsensical in the extreme and seriously undermines the opposition to this initiative. The Watcher
  • Score: 0

3:00pm Wed 1 Aug 12

southy says...

The Watcher wrote:
http://www.southampt

on.gov.uk/Images/AQM

A7MillbrookRoad2009_

tcm46-258015.pdf

As I said the Millbrook Road AQMA is "almost" exclusively the road itself with very few houses/flats designated.
.
And as the Council's " Breath of Fresh Air" report clearly states, the cause is not industrial or commercial, but instead primarily vehicle emissions
.
Trying to use AQMA or Priority Areas in this debate is nonsensical in the extreme and seriously undermines the opposition to this initiative.
It is cross refence with other locations around the city, many you can not see because they on streel level where you can see them.
[quote][p][bold]The Watcher[/bold] wrote: http://www.southampt on.gov.uk/Images/AQM A7MillbrookRoad2009_ tcm46-258015.pdf As I said the Millbrook Road AQMA is "almost" exclusively the road itself with very few houses/flats designated. . And as the Council's " Breath of Fresh Air" report clearly states, the cause is not industrial or commercial, but instead primarily vehicle emissions . Trying to use AQMA or Priority Areas in this debate is nonsensical in the extreme and seriously undermines the opposition to this initiative.[/p][/quote]It is cross refence with other locations around the city, many you can not see because they on streel level where you can see them. southy
  • Score: 0

3:01pm Wed 1 Aug 12

southy says...

southy wrote:
The Watcher wrote:
http://www.southampt


on.gov.uk/Images/AQM


A7MillbrookRoad2009_


tcm46-258015.pdf

As I said the Millbrook Road AQMA is "almost" exclusively the road itself with very few houses/flats designated.
.
And as the Council's " Breath of Fresh Air" report clearly states, the cause is not industrial or commercial, but instead primarily vehicle emissions
.
Trying to use AQMA or Priority Areas in this debate is nonsensical in the extreme and seriously undermines the opposition to this initiative.
It is cross refence with other locations around the city, many you can not see because they on streel level where you can see them.
because they not on streel level
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Watcher[/bold] wrote: http://www.southampt on.gov.uk/Images/AQM A7MillbrookRoad2009_ tcm46-258015.pdf As I said the Millbrook Road AQMA is "almost" exclusively the road itself with very few houses/flats designated. . And as the Council's " Breath of Fresh Air" report clearly states, the cause is not industrial or commercial, but instead primarily vehicle emissions . Trying to use AQMA or Priority Areas in this debate is nonsensical in the extreme and seriously undermines the opposition to this initiative.[/p][/quote]It is cross refence with other locations around the city, many you can not see because they on streel level where you can see them.[/p][/quote]because they not on streel level southy
  • Score: 0

3:05pm Wed 1 Aug 12

The Watcher says...

Don't want to pick an argument with you (as the bigger debate is the ridiculous use by the OP regarding AQMA & priority areas), but the siting of the various air monitoring stations do not define the AQMA.
.
Read the Council's "Breath of Fresh Air" report, then do some more research and you will see that almost all the AQMAs are in fact very narrow corridors along the City's main arteries.
.
And the Millbrook Road AQMA is no different. Look at the highlighted area on the map to see the area it encompasses.
Don't want to pick an argument with you (as the bigger debate is the ridiculous use by the OP regarding AQMA & priority areas), but the siting of the various air monitoring stations do not define the AQMA. . Read the Council's "Breath of Fresh Air" report, then do some more research and you will see that almost all the AQMAs are in fact very narrow corridors along the City's main arteries. . And the Millbrook Road AQMA is no different. Look at the highlighted area on the map to see the area it encompasses. The Watcher
  • Score: 0

3:12pm Wed 1 Aug 12

hulla baloo says...

Linesman wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
Linesman wrote:
I consider that the contribution to pollution posed by burning wood to be considerably less than the pollution produced from the refinery at Fawley and the associated factories.

I wonder how many of those who are against this project, using the 'Green' argument, are car owners and use them on a regular basis.

Of Course. Others should not use cars, but their use is essential.
And how much pollution will be added in bringing/shipping all the wood to this 'green' plant?
No more than the pollution caused by the Cruise ships that people flock to see, or the container ships, and less than if an oil-fired power station was planned instead.

I assume that you use electricity.

It has to be produced somewhere, but presumably, not in your back yard.
But we are looking at extra pollution than already being used, to bring the wood/chippings etc to the site. Build nuclear.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: I consider that the contribution to pollution posed by burning wood to be considerably less than the pollution produced from the refinery at Fawley and the associated factories. I wonder how many of those who are against this project, using the 'Green' argument, are car owners and use them on a regular basis. Of Course. Others should not use cars, but their use is essential.[/p][/quote]And how much pollution will be added in bringing/shipping all the wood to this 'green' plant?[/p][/quote]No more than the pollution caused by the Cruise ships that people flock to see, or the container ships, and less than if an oil-fired power station was planned instead. I assume that you use electricity. It has to be produced somewhere, but presumably, not in your back yard.[/p][/quote]But we are looking at extra pollution than already being used, to bring the wood/chippings etc to the site. Build nuclear. hulla baloo
  • Score: 0

3:34pm Wed 1 Aug 12

southy says...

The Watcher wrote:
Don't want to pick an argument with you (as the bigger debate is the ridiculous use by the OP regarding AQMA & priority areas), but the siting of the various air monitoring stations do not define the AQMA.
.
Read the Council's "Breath of Fresh Air" report, then do some more research and you will see that almost all the AQMAs are in fact very narrow corridors along the City's main arteries.
.
And the Millbrook Road AQMA is no different. Look at the highlighted area on the map to see the area it encompasses.
Yes I know but other factors are taking into account and the figures ajusted accordenly, its all one network, sy like if the wind is coming up from the south then monitors station to the North will be added into the equation. if you notice the monitoring stations along millbrrok road are on the river side and not both sides.
[quote][p][bold]The Watcher[/bold] wrote: Don't want to pick an argument with you (as the bigger debate is the ridiculous use by the OP regarding AQMA & priority areas), but the siting of the various air monitoring stations do not define the AQMA. . Read the Council's "Breath of Fresh Air" report, then do some more research and you will see that almost all the AQMAs are in fact very narrow corridors along the City's main arteries. . And the Millbrook Road AQMA is no different. Look at the highlighted area on the map to see the area it encompasses.[/p][/quote]Yes I know but other factors are taking into account and the figures ajusted accordenly, its all one network, sy like if the wind is coming up from the south then monitors station to the North will be added into the equation. if you notice the monitoring stations along millbrrok road are on the river side and not both sides. southy
  • Score: 0

3:38pm Wed 1 Aug 12

southy says...

hulla baloo wrote:
Linesman wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
Linesman wrote:
I consider that the contribution to pollution posed by burning wood to be considerably less than the pollution produced from the refinery at Fawley and the associated factories.

I wonder how many of those who are against this project, using the 'Green' argument, are car owners and use them on a regular basis.

Of Course. Others should not use cars, but their use is essential.
And how much pollution will be added in bringing/shipping all the wood to this 'green' plant?
No more than the pollution caused by the Cruise ships that people flock to see, or the container ships, and less than if an oil-fired power station was planned instead.

I assume that you use electricity.

It has to be produced somewhere, but presumably, not in your back yard.
But we are looking at extra pollution than already being used, to bring the wood/chippings etc to the site. Build nuclear.
I am mix about Nuclear at the moment, if they could do things to improve the recycling when a plant is decommission it more than likely get more support from me, Nuclear Polution is one of the real unseen nasty ones, Around all Nuclear sea water out letts there is a large area of no commerical Fishing area, rod and line fishermen eat there catch at there own peril.
[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: I consider that the contribution to pollution posed by burning wood to be considerably less than the pollution produced from the refinery at Fawley and the associated factories. I wonder how many of those who are against this project, using the 'Green' argument, are car owners and use them on a regular basis. Of Course. Others should not use cars, but their use is essential.[/p][/quote]And how much pollution will be added in bringing/shipping all the wood to this 'green' plant?[/p][/quote]No more than the pollution caused by the Cruise ships that people flock to see, or the container ships, and less than if an oil-fired power station was planned instead. I assume that you use electricity. It has to be produced somewhere, but presumably, not in your back yard.[/p][/quote]But we are looking at extra pollution than already being used, to bring the wood/chippings etc to the site. Build nuclear.[/p][/quote]I am mix about Nuclear at the moment, if they could do things to improve the recycling when a plant is decommission it more than likely get more support from me, Nuclear Polution is one of the real unseen nasty ones, Around all Nuclear sea water out letts there is a large area of no commerical Fishing area, rod and line fishermen eat there catch at there own peril. southy
  • Score: 0

4:18pm Wed 1 Aug 12

loosehead says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Don't you people get it?
ABP's owners want to make money from this chunk of land,
if Bio Mass doesn't go there & you're all cheering ask yourself's "what next" because it's being used by who ever pays the most.
So is it a case of better the devil you know?
I think its you that dont get it !!.
.
ABP can find lots of other ways to produce money from this plot of land .... ... but they havent for 15 years, so perhaps they wont.
.
How can you say "better the devil you know. .............. No one really knows "this devil" .... but what they know about it is ..... they dont like its presence or its product
So Lone Ranger they haven't used it for 15years?
I wonder who sold the land to build the new road?
You who know's it all must know of the American dump? Western Shore?
they soon did away with that didn't they?
But I guess if you use the new Millbrook road you don't mind them tearing down all those trees or widening the road & the knocking down of the pub & Lawton Wilson plus all those houses that went?
I would love to see any government to invest in a country wide Green energy project.
put Solar panels on every building & in tower blocks put it into t5he windows. put water turbines ( wave & Tidal) into our rivers & shorelines.
Use our waste excrement to produce Methane gas & either burn it to produce electricity or use it for A source of Natural gas.
If any party would do this I would seriously consider voting for them but I can't ever see that happening & Bio Mass is less of a pollutant than say coal
What the hell are you on about.
.
Once again a totally incoherent post.
.
Go away ... think about what point you are trying to make and the come back and post it
Read the c+p you posted then READ my post & you'll see exactly what I was saying.
Why do you only respond with insults?
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Don't you people get it? ABP's owners want to make money from this chunk of land, if Bio Mass doesn't go there & you're all cheering ask yourself's "what next" because it's being used by who ever pays the most. So is it a case of better the devil you know?[/p][/quote]I think its you that dont get it !!. . ABP can find lots of other ways to produce money from this plot of land .... ... but they havent for 15 years, so perhaps they wont. . How can you say "better the devil you know. .............. No one really knows "this devil" .... but what they know about it is ..... they dont like its presence or its product[/p][/quote]So Lone Ranger they haven't used it for 15years? I wonder who sold the land to build the new road? You who know's it all must know of the American dump? Western Shore? they soon did away with that didn't they? But I guess if you use the new Millbrook road you don't mind them tearing down all those trees or widening the road & the knocking down of the pub & Lawton Wilson plus all those houses that went? I would love to see any government to invest in a country wide Green energy project. put Solar panels on every building & in tower blocks put it into t5he windows. put water turbines ( wave & Tidal) into our rivers & shorelines. Use our waste excrement to produce Methane gas & either burn it to produce electricity or use it for A source of Natural gas. If any party would do this I would seriously consider voting for them but I can't ever see that happening & Bio Mass is less of a pollutant than say coal[/p][/quote]What the hell are you on about. . Once again a totally incoherent post. . Go away ... think about what point you are trying to make and the come back and post it[/p][/quote]Read the c+p you posted then READ my post & you'll see exactly what I was saying. Why do you only respond with insults? loosehead
  • Score: 0

4:21pm Wed 1 Aug 12

loosehead says...

hulla baloo wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Don't you people get it?
ABP's owners want to make money from this chunk of land,
if Bio Mass doesn't go there & you're all cheering ask yourself's "what next" because it's being used by who ever pays the most.
So is it a case of better the devil you know?
I think its you that dont get it !!.
.
ABP can find lots of other ways to produce money from this plot of land .... ... but they havent for 15 years, so perhaps they wont.
.
How can you say "better the devil you know. .............. No one really knows "this devil" .... but what they know about it is ..... they dont like its presence or its product
So Lone Ranger they haven't used it for 15years?
I wonder who sold the land to build the new road?
You who know's it all must know of the American dump? Western Shore?
they soon did away with that didn't they?
But I guess if you use the new Millbrook road you don't mind them tearing down all those trees or widening the road & the knocking down of the pub & Lawton Wilson plus all those houses that went?
I would love to see any government to invest in a country wide Green energy project.
put Solar panels on every building & in tower blocks put it into t5he windows. put water turbines ( wave & Tidal) into our rivers & shorelines.
Use our waste excrement to produce Methane gas & either burn it to produce electricity or use it for A source of Natural gas.
If any party would do this I would seriously consider voting for them but I can't ever see that happening & Bio Mass is less of a pollutant than say coal
What the hell are you on about.
.
Once again a totally incoherent post.
.
Go away ... think about what point you are trying to make and the come back and post it
Possibly related to Southy?
Are you just jumping on the train? have you the intelligence to comment on this subject? OH! I have nothing what so ever to do with Southy but at least he unlike you Lone Ranger & skin200 replies with a counter argument & not with this rubbish
[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Don't you people get it? ABP's owners want to make money from this chunk of land, if Bio Mass doesn't go there & you're all cheering ask yourself's "what next" because it's being used by who ever pays the most. So is it a case of better the devil you know?[/p][/quote]I think its you that dont get it !!. . ABP can find lots of other ways to produce money from this plot of land .... ... but they havent for 15 years, so perhaps they wont. . How can you say "better the devil you know. .............. No one really knows "this devil" .... but what they know about it is ..... they dont like its presence or its product[/p][/quote]So Lone Ranger they haven't used it for 15years? I wonder who sold the land to build the new road? You who know's it all must know of the American dump? Western Shore? they soon did away with that didn't they? But I guess if you use the new Millbrook road you don't mind them tearing down all those trees or widening the road & the knocking down of the pub & Lawton Wilson plus all those houses that went? I would love to see any government to invest in a country wide Green energy project. put Solar panels on every building & in tower blocks put it into t5he windows. put water turbines ( wave & Tidal) into our rivers & shorelines. Use our waste excrement to produce Methane gas & either burn it to produce electricity or use it for A source of Natural gas. If any party would do this I would seriously consider voting for them but I can't ever see that happening & Bio Mass is less of a pollutant than say coal[/p][/quote]What the hell are you on about. . Once again a totally incoherent post. . Go away ... think about what point you are trying to make and the come back and post it[/p][/quote]Possibly related to Southy?[/p][/quote]Are you just jumping on the train? have you the intelligence to comment on this subject? OH! I have nothing what so ever to do with Southy but at least he unlike you Lone Ranger & skin200 replies with a counter argument & not with this rubbish loosehead
  • Score: 0

4:25pm Wed 1 Aug 12

loosehead says...

skin2000 wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Don't you people get it?
ABP's owners want to make money from this chunk of land,
if Bio Mass doesn't go there & you're all cheering ask yourself's "what next" because it's being used by who ever pays the most.
So is it a case of better the devil you know?
I think its you that dont get it !!.
.
ABP can find lots of other ways to produce money from this plot of land .... ... but they havent for 15 years, so perhaps they wont.
.
How can you say "better the devil you know. .............. No one really knows "this devil" .... but what they know about it is ..... they dont like its presence or its product
So Lone Ranger they haven't used it for 15years?
I wonder who sold the land to build the new road?
You who know's it all must know of the American dump? Western Shore?
they soon did away with that didn't they?
But I guess if you use the new Millbrook road you don't mind them tearing down all those trees or widening the road & the knocking down of the pub & Lawton Wilson plus all those houses that went?
I would love to see any government to invest in a country wide Green energy project.
put Solar panels on every building & in tower blocks put it into t5he windows. put water turbines ( wave & Tidal) into our rivers & shorelines.
Use our waste excrement to produce Methane gas & either burn it to produce electricity or use it for A source of Natural gas.
If any party would do this I would seriously consider voting for them but I can't ever see that happening & Bio Mass is less of a pollutant than say coal
What the hell are you on about.
.
Once again a totally incoherent post.
.
Go away ... think about what point you are trying to make and the come back and post it
Possibly related to Southy?
Probably that's why he calls himself Loosehead.
Well you've just confirmed my thoughts on you're intelligence level.
A LOOSEHEAD PROP is a position in Rugby Union which was my position when I use to play.
I could earn £45,000 a year I owned 3 houses not bad for some one you & those other two call an idiot is it?
Many Rugby forwards work in law or the medical profession unlike me but you better worry in case the surgeon you get looking for your brain is a Loosehead
[quote][p][bold]skin2000[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Don't you people get it? ABP's owners want to make money from this chunk of land, if Bio Mass doesn't go there & you're all cheering ask yourself's "what next" because it's being used by who ever pays the most. So is it a case of better the devil you know?[/p][/quote]I think its you that dont get it !!. . ABP can find lots of other ways to produce money from this plot of land .... ... but they havent for 15 years, so perhaps they wont. . How can you say "better the devil you know. .............. No one really knows "this devil" .... but what they know about it is ..... they dont like its presence or its product[/p][/quote]So Lone Ranger they haven't used it for 15years? I wonder who sold the land to build the new road? You who know's it all must know of the American dump? Western Shore? they soon did away with that didn't they? But I guess if you use the new Millbrook road you don't mind them tearing down all those trees or widening the road & the knocking down of the pub & Lawton Wilson plus all those houses that went? I would love to see any government to invest in a country wide Green energy project. put Solar panels on every building & in tower blocks put it into t5he windows. put water turbines ( wave & Tidal) into our rivers & shorelines. Use our waste excrement to produce Methane gas & either burn it to produce electricity or use it for A source of Natural gas. If any party would do this I would seriously consider voting for them but I can't ever see that happening & Bio Mass is less of a pollutant than say coal[/p][/quote]What the hell are you on about. . Once again a totally incoherent post. . Go away ... think about what point you are trying to make and the come back and post it[/p][/quote]Possibly related to Southy?[/p][/quote]Probably that's why he calls himself Loosehead.[/p][/quote]Well you've just confirmed my thoughts on you're intelligence level. A LOOSEHEAD PROP is a position in Rugby Union which was my position when I use to play. I could earn £45,000 a year I owned 3 houses not bad for some one you & those other two call an idiot is it? Many Rugby forwards work in law or the medical profession unlike me but you better worry in case the surgeon you get looking for your brain is a Loosehead loosehead
  • Score: 0

4:28pm Wed 1 Aug 12

loosehead says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Don't you people get it?
ABP's owners want to make money from this chunk of land,
if Bio Mass doesn't go there & you're all cheering ask yourself's "what next" because it's being used by who ever pays the most.
So is it a case of better the devil you know?
I think its you that dont get it !!.
.
ABP can find lots of other ways to produce money from this plot of land .... ... but they havent for 15 years, so perhaps they wont.
.
How can you say "better the devil you know. .............. No one really knows "this devil" .... but what they know about it is ..... they dont like its presence or its product
So Lone Ranger they haven't used it for 15years?
I wonder who sold the land to build the new road?
You who know's it all must know of the American dump? Western Shore?
they soon did away with that didn't they?
But I guess if you use the new Millbrook road you don't mind them tearing down all those trees or widening the road & the knocking down of the pub & Lawton Wilson plus all those houses that went?
I would love to see any government to invest in a country wide Green energy project.
put Solar panels on every building & in tower blocks put it into t5he windows. put water turbines ( wave & Tidal) into our rivers & shorelines.
Use our waste excrement to produce Methane gas & either burn it to produce electricity or use it for A source of Natural gas.
If any party would do this I would seriously consider voting for them but I can't ever see that happening & Bio Mass is less of a pollutant than say coal
What the hell are you on about.
.
Once again a totally incoherent post.
.
Go away ... think about what point you are trying to make and the come back and post it
Do you not remember your post? can you not see I was replying to your bunk? just in case you forget what you said here it is again.I think its you that dont get it !!.
.
ABP can find lots of other ways to produce money from this plot of land .... ... but they havent for 15 years, so perhaps they wont.
.
How can you say "better the devil you know. .............. No one really knows "this devil" .... but what they know about it is ..... they dont like its presence or its product
so now you see what I was responding too or are you too thick?
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Don't you people get it? ABP's owners want to make money from this chunk of land, if Bio Mass doesn't go there & you're all cheering ask yourself's "what next" because it's being used by who ever pays the most. So is it a case of better the devil you know?[/p][/quote]I think its you that dont get it !!. . ABP can find lots of other ways to produce money from this plot of land .... ... but they havent for 15 years, so perhaps they wont. . How can you say "better the devil you know. .............. No one really knows "this devil" .... but what they know about it is ..... they dont like its presence or its product[/p][/quote]So Lone Ranger they haven't used it for 15years? I wonder who sold the land to build the new road? You who know's it all must know of the American dump? Western Shore? they soon did away with that didn't they? But I guess if you use the new Millbrook road you don't mind them tearing down all those trees or widening the road & the knocking down of the pub & Lawton Wilson plus all those houses that went? I would love to see any government to invest in a country wide Green energy project. put Solar panels on every building & in tower blocks put it into t5he windows. put water turbines ( wave & Tidal) into our rivers & shorelines. Use our waste excrement to produce Methane gas & either burn it to produce electricity or use it for A source of Natural gas. If any party would do this I would seriously consider voting for them but I can't ever see that happening & Bio Mass is less of a pollutant than say coal[/p][/quote]What the hell are you on about. . Once again a totally incoherent post. . Go away ... think about what point you are trying to make and the come back and post it[/p][/quote]Do you not remember your post? can you not see I was replying to your bunk? just in case you forget what you said here it is again.I think its you that dont get it !!. . ABP can find lots of other ways to produce money from this plot of land .... ... but they havent for 15 years, so perhaps they wont. . How can you say "better the devil you know. .............. No one really knows "this devil" .... but what they know about it is ..... they dont like its presence or its product so now you see what I was responding too or are you too thick? loosehead
  • Score: 0

4:45pm Wed 1 Aug 12

Georgem says...

Shoong wrote:
Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Very first comment on this item is cheap shot by Condor Man.

How can he blame Greens for expensive energy when the real reasons are wicked most policies of the self confessed nasty party, which he supports?

Tories privatised gas and electrc industries and lied to the nation that competition will reduce prices. But did not tell the truth that government won't be able to stop greed ridden privateers from ripping people off.

Sadly during their 13 years of misrule while keep on sacrificing Old Labour values at the alter of Thatcherism, the NuLabourites refused to take control of electric gas and water along with railways.

Although I fully support views expressed by MEP from Green Party and welcome opposition to this proposed lunacy, why have local Greens been more or less remained quite on this serious issue, over which not only most of the NuLabour and Tories but even lousy Lib-Dem have been expressing opposition for long time?

I won't be surprised if Soton Green and somebody from Socialist Party will now post some kind of plausible comment and claim full credit for opposing this badly thought out idea.

Yes I have lot of respect for both these small groups, but am mostly disappointed because they often only wake up about real issues that matters to most people has already been taken up by others, and then try to claim all the credits.

They must learn how to beat established main parties in this game.
Dear Daily Echo webmaster,

Any chance of an 'Ignore' button?

regards,
The problem with an ignore button would be when someone you haven't ignored, replies to a comment from someone you have ignored, quoting them. What should happen?
[quote][p][bold]Shoong[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: Very first comment on this item is cheap shot by Condor Man. How can he blame Greens for expensive energy when the real reasons are wicked most policies of the self confessed nasty party, which he supports? Tories privatised gas and electrc industries and lied to the nation that competition will reduce prices. But did not tell the truth that government won't be able to stop greed ridden privateers from ripping people off. Sadly during their 13 years of misrule while keep on sacrificing Old Labour values at the alter of Thatcherism, the NuLabourites refused to take control of electric gas and water along with railways. Although I fully support views expressed by MEP from Green Party and welcome opposition to this proposed lunacy, why have local Greens been more or less remained quite on this serious issue, over which not only most of the NuLabour and Tories but even lousy Lib-Dem have been expressing opposition for long time? I won't be surprised if Soton Green and somebody from Socialist Party will now post some kind of plausible comment and claim full credit for opposing this badly thought out idea. Yes I have lot of respect for both these small groups, but am mostly disappointed because they often only wake up about real issues that matters to most people has already been taken up by others, and then try to claim all the credits. They must learn how to beat established main parties in this game.[/p][/quote]Dear Daily Echo webmaster, Any chance of an 'Ignore' button? regards,[/p][/quote]The problem with an ignore button would be when someone you haven't ignored, replies to a comment from someone you have ignored, quoting them. What should happen? Georgem
  • Score: 0

5:02pm Wed 1 Aug 12

skin2000 says...

loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Don't you people get it?
ABP's owners want to make money from this chunk of land,
if Bio Mass doesn't go there & you're all cheering ask yourself's "what next" because it's being used by who ever pays the most.
So is it a case of better the devil you know?
I think its you that dont get it !!.
.
ABP can find lots of other ways to produce money from this plot of land .... ... but they havent for 15 years, so perhaps they wont.
.
How can you say "better the devil you know. .............. No one really knows "this devil" .... but what they know about it is ..... they dont like its presence or its product
So Lone Ranger they haven't used it for 15years?
I wonder who sold the land to build the new road?
You who know's it all must know of the American dump? Western Shore?
they soon did away with that didn't they?
But I guess if you use the new Millbrook road you don't mind them tearing down all those trees or widening the road & the knocking down of the pub & Lawton Wilson plus all those houses that went?
I would love to see any government to invest in a country wide Green energy project.
put Solar panels on every building & in tower blocks put it into t5he windows. put water turbines ( wave & Tidal) into our rivers & shorelines.
Use our waste excrement to produce Methane gas & either burn it to produce electricity or use it for A source of Natural gas.
If any party would do this I would seriously consider voting for them but I can't ever see that happening & Bio Mass is less of a pollutant than say coal
What the hell are you on about.
.
Once again a totally incoherent post.
.
Go away ... think about what point you are trying to make and the come back and post it
Do you not remember your post? can you not see I was replying to your bunk? just in case you forget what you said here it is again.I think its you that dont get it !!.
.
ABP can find lots of other ways to produce money from this plot of land .... ... but they havent for 15 years, so perhaps they wont.
.
How can you say "better the devil you know. .............. No one really knows "this devil" .... but what they know about it is ..... they dont like its presence or its product
so now you see what I was responding too or are you too thick?
Are you saying the devil is Helius?
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Don't you people get it? ABP's owners want to make money from this chunk of land, if Bio Mass doesn't go there & you're all cheering ask yourself's "what next" because it's being used by who ever pays the most. So is it a case of better the devil you know?[/p][/quote]I think its you that dont get it !!. . ABP can find lots of other ways to produce money from this plot of land .... ... but they havent for 15 years, so perhaps they wont. . How can you say "better the devil you know. .............. No one really knows "this devil" .... but what they know about it is ..... they dont like its presence or its product[/p][/quote]So Lone Ranger they haven't used it for 15years? I wonder who sold the land to build the new road? You who know's it all must know of the American dump? Western Shore? they soon did away with that didn't they? But I guess if you use the new Millbrook road you don't mind them tearing down all those trees or widening the road & the knocking down of the pub & Lawton Wilson plus all those houses that went? I would love to see any government to invest in a country wide Green energy project. put Solar panels on every building & in tower blocks put it into t5he windows. put water turbines ( wave & Tidal) into our rivers & shorelines. Use our waste excrement to produce Methane gas & either burn it to produce electricity or use it for A source of Natural gas. If any party would do this I would seriously consider voting for them but I can't ever see that happening & Bio Mass is less of a pollutant than say coal[/p][/quote]What the hell are you on about. . Once again a totally incoherent post. . Go away ... think about what point you are trying to make and the come back and post it[/p][/quote]Do you not remember your post? can you not see I was replying to your bunk? just in case you forget what you said here it is again.I think its you that dont get it !!. . ABP can find lots of other ways to produce money from this plot of land .... ... but they havent for 15 years, so perhaps they wont. . How can you say "better the devil you know. .............. No one really knows "this devil" .... but what they know about it is ..... they dont like its presence or its product so now you see what I was responding too or are you too thick?[/p][/quote]Are you saying the devil is Helius? skin2000
  • Score: 0

6:44pm Wed 1 Aug 12

jamjar says...

There are some very interesting arguments here however I while some people feel it is ok to be extremely rude to others this will never be a forum for a fair exchange of opinion. I wish the webmaster would delete all personal remarks that could be offensive.
There are some very interesting arguments here however I while some people feel it is ok to be extremely rude to others this will never be a forum for a fair exchange of opinion. I wish the webmaster would delete all personal remarks that could be offensive. jamjar
  • Score: 0

8:39pm Wed 1 Aug 12

forest hump says...

Problem is Euro MP's have zero credibility. On the gravy train trying to impose unnecessary EU legislation. Add being Green to that and you have a hypocritical, money grabbing waste of tax payers money. Two very successful countries in Europe are Norway and Switzerland. Common theme is they are not members of the bloodsucking European Union.
Problem is Euro MP's have zero credibility. On the gravy train trying to impose unnecessary EU legislation. Add being Green to that and you have a hypocritical, money grabbing waste of tax payers money. Two very successful countries in Europe are Norway and Switzerland. Common theme is they are not members of the bloodsucking European Union. forest hump
  • Score: 0

10:41pm Wed 1 Aug 12

Fieldbean says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
Very first comment on this item is cheap shot by Condor Man.

How can he blame Greens for expensive energy when the real reasons are wicked most policies of the self confessed nasty party, which he supports?

Tories privatised gas and electrc industries and lied to the nation that competition will reduce prices. But did not tell the truth that government won't be able to stop greed ridden privateers from ripping people off.

Sadly during their 13 years of misrule while keep on sacrificing Old Labour values at the alter of Thatcherism, the NuLabourites refused to take control of electric gas and water along with railways.

Although I fully support views expressed by MEP from Green Party and welcome opposition to this proposed lunacy, why have local Greens been more or less remained quite on this serious issue, over which not only most of the NuLabour and Tories but even lousy Lib-Dem have been expressing opposition for long time?

I won't be surprised if Soton Green and somebody from Socialist Party will now post some kind of plausible comment and claim full credit for opposing this badly thought out idea.

Yes I have lot of respect for both these small groups, but am mostly disappointed because they often only wake up about real issues that matters to most people has already been taken up by others, and then try to claim all the credits.

They must learn how to beat established main parties in this game.
Well Paramjit, thanks for supporting the Greens. Perhaps a little reminder here from April 2011. I hope that is far back enough for you. Let me know if you want any more snippets of our campaigning credentials. http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/yoursay/lette
rs/8982461.Biomass_n
ot_as_sustainable_as
_you_may_think/
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: Very first comment on this item is cheap shot by Condor Man. How can he blame Greens for expensive energy when the real reasons are wicked most policies of the self confessed nasty party, which he supports? Tories privatised gas and electrc industries and lied to the nation that competition will reduce prices. But did not tell the truth that government won't be able to stop greed ridden privateers from ripping people off. Sadly during their 13 years of misrule while keep on sacrificing Old Labour values at the alter of Thatcherism, the NuLabourites refused to take control of electric gas and water along with railways. Although I fully support views expressed by MEP from Green Party and welcome opposition to this proposed lunacy, why have local Greens been more or less remained quite on this serious issue, over which not only most of the NuLabour and Tories but even lousy Lib-Dem have been expressing opposition for long time? I won't be surprised if Soton Green and somebody from Socialist Party will now post some kind of plausible comment and claim full credit for opposing this badly thought out idea. Yes I have lot of respect for both these small groups, but am mostly disappointed because they often only wake up about real issues that matters to most people has already been taken up by others, and then try to claim all the credits. They must learn how to beat established main parties in this game.[/p][/quote]Well Paramjit, thanks for supporting the Greens. Perhaps a little reminder here from April 2011. I hope that is far back enough for you. Let me know if you want any more snippets of our campaigning credentials. http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/yoursay/lette rs/8982461.Biomass_n ot_as_sustainable_as _you_may_think/ Fieldbean
  • Score: 0

12:25am Thu 2 Aug 12

Steven Galton says...

For clarity the Millbrook road air quality monitoring station is a planning condition of Marchwood Power station and as such only monitors nitrogen dioxide and ozone levels. Nitrogen dioxide is not meeting annual levels. Helius admit to causing localised air pollution but say it will be negligible - residents say any increase is unwelcome, I would also like to see an increase in what is monitored on the site, particularly PM 10 as this currently isn't monitored... Interestingly the AQMA is likely to be extended joining the Millbrook & Redbridge ones up due to established exceedances at residential properties inbetween the 2 current zones. http://www.hantsair.
org.uk/hampshire/rep
orts/sh_pr_2011.pdf
For clarity the Millbrook road air quality monitoring station is a planning condition of Marchwood Power station and as such only monitors nitrogen dioxide and ozone levels. Nitrogen dioxide is not meeting annual levels. Helius admit to causing localised air pollution but say it will be negligible - residents say any increase is unwelcome, I would also like to see an increase in what is monitored on the site, particularly PM 10 as this currently isn't monitored... Interestingly the AQMA is likely to be extended joining the Millbrook & Redbridge ones up due to established exceedances at residential properties inbetween the 2 current zones. http://www.hantsair. org.uk/hampshire/rep orts/sh_pr_2011.pdf Steven Galton
  • Score: 0

1:54am Thu 2 Aug 12

Dan Soton says...

Euro MP Keith Taylor's consultation response to Helius.

-

Southampton Biomass Power Ltd.
Helius Energy.
242 Marylebone Road.
London .
NW1 6JL .
18th July 2012.

Dear Sir/Madam.

Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station.

As a Member of the European Parliament for South East England I am writing to lodge an objection to the above application by Helius Energy. I do not wish to opt for any of the three designs for the proposed biomass station, presented in the most recent consultation. I would like to oppose the application for a Biomass power station.

I believe Helius should take into account the consultation findings of 2011, which highlighted significant opposition to the planned biomass station by Southampton residents. A consultation that merely asks which of three options the public prefer does not do this. It also prematurely assumes that the application itself will be accepted.

I have numerous concerns about any of the three proposals put forward by Helius energy. These include the damaging effect the proposals would have on air quality, biodiversity and quality of life as well as questions as to whether biomass represents a truly ‘green’ form of energy generation as claimed.

Damaging effect on air quality.

Air pollution has a damaging impact on human health and the proposed site in Southampton is next to an Air Quality Management Area. This means that this area is already breaching the legally binding EU air quality legislation, meaning air pollution is already over safe limits.

Emissions from burning biomass, in particular small (PM 2.5, PM10) particulate matter and an increase in nitrogen dioxide from traffic supplying biomass by road, will exacerbate the existing problem. This will increase the risk of respiratory and heart disease among staff and local residents.

Air pollution is an invisible killer which currently causes 29,000 deaths and contributes to 200,000 premature deaths in the UK each year. I am therefore particularly concerned about the impact further air pollution could have on local people in an area which is already breaching safe limits.

Negative effect on biodiversity.

The proposals for a biomass power station make it likely that fish and other aquatic life in the Solent will suffer. Cooling water will be discharged back into the river at up to 10°C higher than
when it was extracted. Even if partly mitigated as indicated in the application, it is known that sudden changes of temperature (even if the temperature itself is not unduly high) are exceptionally.

Effects on Climate Change.

It is highly misleading to claim that the proposed plant is ‘carbon neutral’ or offers carbon savings. Burning biomass creates an immediate release of CO2 , like any other carbon based fuel.

Burning biomass actually releases more carbon, per unit of useful energy generated, than burning gas or oil.

This means that every biomass plant creates a 'carbon debt’ that is only paid off after many decades (estimated at 40-100 years) as replanted trees reach maturity (if trees are replanted). Evidence from around the world indicates that old forests are often not replaced ‘like for like’, but with plantations of fast-growing ‘cash crops’, so the long term damage to the planet and to biodiversity is potentially very extreme.

I call on Helius to take into consideration the opinion of local residents and the important environment and social impacts of the Southampton Biomass station as detailed above. I also will continue to support job creation in the South East through energy proposals that truly renewable power stations such as those that generate energy from wind, tidal and solar. Those power stations will help the UK meet its renewable energy targets, are truly sustainable and will also create employment in the South East.

In summary I reject all the design options for the power station. I truly believe this proposed development is wholly damaging to the local community in relation to visual and air quality impacts, it undermines wider CO2 reduction efforts, is based on an unsustainable energy creation and is damaging to supplier countries' biodiversity, social welfare and food production capacities.

Kind Regards.

Keith Taylor.

Green MEP for South East England.


-


http://www.keithtayl
ormep.org.uk/wp-cont
ent/uploads/Southamp
ton-biomass_Helius_1
8.7.12.pdf
Euro MP Keith Taylor's consultation response to Helius. - Southampton Biomass Power Ltd. Helius Energy. 242 Marylebone Road. London . NW1 6JL . 18th July 2012. Dear Sir/Madam. Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station. As a Member of the European Parliament for South East England I am writing to lodge an objection to the above application by Helius Energy. I do not wish to opt for any of the three designs for the proposed biomass station, presented in the most recent consultation. I would like to oppose the application for a Biomass power station. I believe Helius should take into account the consultation findings of 2011, which highlighted significant opposition to the planned biomass station by Southampton residents. A consultation that merely asks which of three options the public prefer does not do this. It also prematurely assumes that the application itself will be accepted. I have numerous concerns about any of the three proposals put forward by Helius energy. These include the damaging effect the proposals would have on air quality, biodiversity and quality of life as well as questions as to whether biomass represents a truly ‘green’ form of energy generation as claimed. Damaging effect on air quality. Air pollution has a damaging impact on human health and the proposed site in Southampton is next to an Air Quality Management Area. This means that this area is already breaching the legally binding EU air quality legislation, meaning air pollution is already over safe limits. Emissions from burning biomass, in particular small (PM 2.5, PM10) particulate matter and an increase in nitrogen dioxide from traffic supplying biomass by road, will exacerbate the existing problem. This will increase the risk of respiratory and heart disease among staff and local residents. Air pollution is an invisible killer which currently causes 29,000 deaths and contributes to 200,000 premature deaths in the UK each year. I am therefore particularly concerned about the impact further air pollution could have on local people in an area which is already breaching safe limits. Negative effect on biodiversity. The proposals for a biomass power station make it likely that fish and other aquatic life in the Solent will suffer. Cooling water will be discharged back into the river at up to 10°C higher than when it was extracted. Even if partly mitigated as indicated in the application, it is known that sudden changes of temperature (even if the temperature itself is not unduly high) are exceptionally. Effects on Climate Change. It is highly misleading to claim that the proposed plant is ‘carbon neutral’ or offers carbon savings. Burning biomass creates an immediate release of CO2 , like any other carbon based fuel. Burning biomass actually releases more carbon, per unit of useful energy generated, than burning gas or oil. This means that every biomass plant creates a 'carbon debt’ that is only paid off after many decades (estimated at 40-100 years) as replanted trees reach maturity (if trees are replanted). Evidence from around the world indicates that old forests are often not replaced ‘like for like’, but with plantations of fast-growing ‘cash crops’, so the long term damage to the planet and to biodiversity is potentially very extreme. I call on Helius to take into consideration the opinion of local residents and the important environment and social impacts of the Southampton Biomass station as detailed above. I also will continue to support job creation in the South East through energy proposals that truly renewable power stations such as those that generate energy from wind, tidal and solar. Those power stations will help the UK meet its renewable energy targets, are truly sustainable and will also create employment in the South East. In summary I reject all the design options for the power station. I truly believe this proposed development is wholly damaging to the local community in relation to visual and air quality impacts, it undermines wider CO2 reduction efforts, is based on an unsustainable energy creation and is damaging to supplier countries' biodiversity, social welfare and food production capacities. Kind Regards. Keith Taylor. Green MEP for South East England. - http://www.keithtayl ormep.org.uk/wp-cont ent/uploads/Southamp ton-biomass_Helius_1 8.7.12.pdf Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

10:12am Thu 2 Aug 12

Torchie1 says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Euro MP Keith Taylor's consultation response to Helius.

-

Southampton Biomass Power Ltd.
Helius Energy.
242 Marylebone Road.
London .
NW1 6JL .
18th July 2012.

Dear Sir/Madam.

Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station.

As a Member of the European Parliament for South East England I am writing to lodge an objection to the above application by Helius Energy. I do not wish to opt for any of the three designs for the proposed biomass station, presented in the most recent consultation. I would like to oppose the application for a Biomass power station.

I believe Helius should take into account the consultation findings of 2011, which highlighted significant opposition to the planned biomass station by Southampton residents. A consultation that merely asks which of three options the public prefer does not do this. It also prematurely assumes that the application itself will be accepted.

I have numerous concerns about any of the three proposals put forward by Helius energy. These include the damaging effect the proposals would have on air quality, biodiversity and quality of life as well as questions as to whether biomass represents a truly ‘green’ form of energy generation as claimed.

Damaging effect on air quality.

Air pollution has a damaging impact on human health and the proposed site in Southampton is next to an Air Quality Management Area. This means that this area is already breaching the legally binding EU air quality legislation, meaning air pollution is already over safe limits.

Emissions from burning biomass, in particular small (PM 2.5, PM10) particulate matter and an increase in nitrogen dioxide from traffic supplying biomass by road, will exacerbate the existing problem. This will increase the risk of respiratory and heart disease among staff and local residents.

Air pollution is an invisible killer which currently causes 29,000 deaths and contributes to 200,000 premature deaths in the UK each year. I am therefore particularly concerned about the impact further air pollution could have on local people in an area which is already breaching safe limits.

Negative effect on biodiversity.

The proposals for a biomass power station make it likely that fish and other aquatic life in the Solent will suffer. Cooling water will be discharged back into the river at up to 10°C higher than
when it was extracted. Even if partly mitigated as indicated in the application, it is known that sudden changes of temperature (even if the temperature itself is not unduly high) are exceptionally.

Effects on Climate Change.

It is highly misleading to claim that the proposed plant is ‘carbon neutral’ or offers carbon savings. Burning biomass creates an immediate release of CO2 , like any other carbon based fuel.

Burning biomass actually releases more carbon, per unit of useful energy generated, than burning gas or oil.

This means that every biomass plant creates a 'carbon debt’ that is only paid off after many decades (estimated at 40-100 years) as replanted trees reach maturity (if trees are replanted). Evidence from around the world indicates that old forests are often not replaced ‘like for like’, but with plantations of fast-growing ‘cash crops’, so the long term damage to the planet and to biodiversity is potentially very extreme.

I call on Helius to take into consideration the opinion of local residents and the important environment and social impacts of the Southampton Biomass station as detailed above. I also will continue to support job creation in the South East through energy proposals that truly renewable power stations such as those that generate energy from wind, tidal and solar. Those power stations will help the UK meet its renewable energy targets, are truly sustainable and will also create employment in the South East.

In summary I reject all the design options for the power station. I truly believe this proposed development is wholly damaging to the local community in relation to visual and air quality impacts, it undermines wider CO2 reduction efforts, is based on an unsustainable energy creation and is damaging to supplier countries' biodiversity, social welfare and food production capacities.

Kind Regards.

Keith Taylor.

Green MEP for South East England.


-


http://www.keithtayl

ormep.org.uk/wp-cont

ent/uploads/Southamp

ton-biomass_Helius_1

8.7.12.pdf
No doubt another green is congratulating themselves on stalling the Navitus Bay proposal, defeating the Wind Farms on the IOW and starting a campaign against proposals for pylons linking Shropshire to Wind Farms in Wales. The Shareholders in the Power companies support the green agenda knowing that it won't cause a dent in the utility prices.
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Euro MP Keith Taylor's consultation response to Helius. - Southampton Biomass Power Ltd. Helius Energy. 242 Marylebone Road. London . NW1 6JL . 18th July 2012. Dear Sir/Madam. Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station. As a Member of the European Parliament for South East England I am writing to lodge an objection to the above application by Helius Energy. I do not wish to opt for any of the three designs for the proposed biomass station, presented in the most recent consultation. I would like to oppose the application for a Biomass power station. I believe Helius should take into account the consultation findings of 2011, which highlighted significant opposition to the planned biomass station by Southampton residents. A consultation that merely asks which of three options the public prefer does not do this. It also prematurely assumes that the application itself will be accepted. I have numerous concerns about any of the three proposals put forward by Helius energy. These include the damaging effect the proposals would have on air quality, biodiversity and quality of life as well as questions as to whether biomass represents a truly ‘green’ form of energy generation as claimed. Damaging effect on air quality. Air pollution has a damaging impact on human health and the proposed site in Southampton is next to an Air Quality Management Area. This means that this area is already breaching the legally binding EU air quality legislation, meaning air pollution is already over safe limits. Emissions from burning biomass, in particular small (PM 2.5, PM10) particulate matter and an increase in nitrogen dioxide from traffic supplying biomass by road, will exacerbate the existing problem. This will increase the risk of respiratory and heart disease among staff and local residents. Air pollution is an invisible killer which currently causes 29,000 deaths and contributes to 200,000 premature deaths in the UK each year. I am therefore particularly concerned about the impact further air pollution could have on local people in an area which is already breaching safe limits. Negative effect on biodiversity. The proposals for a biomass power station make it likely that fish and other aquatic life in the Solent will suffer. Cooling water will be discharged back into the river at up to 10°C higher than when it was extracted. Even if partly mitigated as indicated in the application, it is known that sudden changes of temperature (even if the temperature itself is not unduly high) are exceptionally. Effects on Climate Change. It is highly misleading to claim that the proposed plant is ‘carbon neutral’ or offers carbon savings. Burning biomass creates an immediate release of CO2 , like any other carbon based fuel. Burning biomass actually releases more carbon, per unit of useful energy generated, than burning gas or oil. This means that every biomass plant creates a 'carbon debt’ that is only paid off after many decades (estimated at 40-100 years) as replanted trees reach maturity (if trees are replanted). Evidence from around the world indicates that old forests are often not replaced ‘like for like’, but with plantations of fast-growing ‘cash crops’, so the long term damage to the planet and to biodiversity is potentially very extreme. I call on Helius to take into consideration the opinion of local residents and the important environment and social impacts of the Southampton Biomass station as detailed above. I also will continue to support job creation in the South East through energy proposals that truly renewable power stations such as those that generate energy from wind, tidal and solar. Those power stations will help the UK meet its renewable energy targets, are truly sustainable and will also create employment in the South East. In summary I reject all the design options for the power station. I truly believe this proposed development is wholly damaging to the local community in relation to visual and air quality impacts, it undermines wider CO2 reduction efforts, is based on an unsustainable energy creation and is damaging to supplier countries' biodiversity, social welfare and food production capacities. Kind Regards. Keith Taylor. Green MEP for South East England. - http://www.keithtayl ormep.org.uk/wp-cont ent/uploads/Southamp ton-biomass_Helius_1 8.7.12.pdf[/p][/quote]No doubt another green is congratulating themselves on stalling the Navitus Bay proposal, defeating the Wind Farms on the IOW and starting a campaign against proposals for pylons linking Shropshire to Wind Farms in Wales. The Shareholders in the Power companies support the green agenda knowing that it won't cause a dent in the utility prices. Torchie1
  • Score: 0

12:10pm Thu 2 Aug 12

Dan Soton says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Euro MP Keith Taylor's consultation response to Helius.

-

Southampton Biomass Power Ltd.
Helius Energy.
242 Marylebone Road.
London .
NW1 6JL .
18th July 2012.

Dear Sir/Madam.

Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station.

As a Member of the European Parliament for South East England I am writing to lodge an objection to the above application by Helius Energy. I do not wish to opt for any of the three designs for the proposed biomass station, presented in the most recent consultation. I would like to oppose the application for a Biomass power station.

I believe Helius should take into account the consultation findings of 2011, which highlighted significant opposition to the planned biomass station by Southampton residents. A consultation that merely asks which of three options the public prefer does not do this. It also prematurely assumes that the application itself will be accepted.

I have numerous concerns about any of the three proposals put forward by Helius energy. These include the damaging effect the proposals would have on air quality, biodiversity and quality of life as well as questions as to whether biomass represents a truly ‘green’ form of energy generation as claimed.

Damaging effect on air quality.

Air pollution has a damaging impact on human health and the proposed site in Southampton is next to an Air Quality Management Area. This means that this area is already breaching the legally binding EU air quality legislation, meaning air pollution is already over safe limits.

Emissions from burning biomass, in particular small (PM 2.5, PM10) particulate matter and an increase in nitrogen dioxide from traffic supplying biomass by road, will exacerbate the existing problem. This will increase the risk of respiratory and heart disease among staff and local residents.

Air pollution is an invisible killer which currently causes 29,000 deaths and contributes to 200,000 premature deaths in the UK each year. I am therefore particularly concerned about the impact further air pollution could have on local people in an area which is already breaching safe limits.

Negative effect on biodiversity.

The proposals for a biomass power station make it likely that fish and other aquatic life in the Solent will suffer. Cooling water will be discharged back into the river at up to 10°C higher than
when it was extracted. Even if partly mitigated as indicated in the application, it is known that sudden changes of temperature (even if the temperature itself is not unduly high) are exceptionally.

Effects on Climate Change.

It is highly misleading to claim that the proposed plant is ‘carbon neutral’ or offers carbon savings. Burning biomass creates an immediate release of CO2 , like any other carbon based fuel.

Burning biomass actually releases more carbon, per unit of useful energy generated, than burning gas or oil.

This means that every biomass plant creates a 'carbon debt’ that is only paid off after many decades (estimated at 40-100 years) as replanted trees reach maturity (if trees are replanted). Evidence from around the world indicates that old forests are often not replaced ‘like for like’, but with plantations of fast-growing ‘cash crops’, so the long term damage to the planet and to biodiversity is potentially very extreme.

I call on Helius to take into consideration the opinion of local residents and the important environment and social impacts of the Southampton Biomass station as detailed above. I also will continue to support job creation in the South East through energy proposals that truly renewable power stations such as those that generate energy from wind, tidal and solar. Those power stations will help the UK meet its renewable energy targets, are truly sustainable and will also create employment in the South East.

In summary I reject all the design options for the power station. I truly believe this proposed development is wholly damaging to the local community in relation to visual and air quality impacts, it undermines wider CO2 reduction efforts, is based on an unsustainable energy creation and is damaging to supplier countries' biodiversity, social welfare and food production capacities.

Kind Regards.

Keith Taylor.

Green MEP for South East England.


-


http://www.keithtayl


ormep.org.uk/wp-cont


ent/uploads/Southamp


ton-biomass_Helius_1


8.7.12.pdf
No doubt another green is congratulating themselves on stalling the Navitus Bay proposal, defeating the Wind Farms on the IOW and starting a campaign against proposals for pylons linking Shropshire to Wind Farms in Wales. The Shareholders in the Power companies support the green agenda knowing that it won't cause a dent in the utility prices.
Torchie1 says Shareholders in the Power companies support the green agenda.. An inquiry headed by David Attenborough ?

-
 

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

-

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


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


2) This Coalition Government says Cost reductions are expected for offshore wind and solar PV as supply chains and technologies develop to 2020.. Torchie, AFAIK this Government sees no 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]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Euro MP Keith Taylor's consultation response to Helius. - Southampton Biomass Power Ltd. Helius Energy. 242 Marylebone Road. London . NW1 6JL . 18th July 2012. Dear Sir/Madam. Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station. As a Member of the European Parliament for South East England I am writing to lodge an objection to the above application by Helius Energy. I do not wish to opt for any of the three designs for the proposed biomass station, presented in the most recent consultation. I would like to oppose the application for a Biomass power station. I believe Helius should take into account the consultation findings of 2011, which highlighted significant opposition to the planned biomass station by Southampton residents. A consultation that merely asks which of three options the public prefer does not do this. It also prematurely assumes that the application itself will be accepted. I have numerous concerns about any of the three proposals put forward by Helius energy. These include the damaging effect the proposals would have on air quality, biodiversity and quality of life as well as questions as to whether biomass represents a truly ‘green’ form of energy generation as claimed. Damaging effect on air quality. Air pollution has a damaging impact on human health and the proposed site in Southampton is next to an Air Quality Management Area. This means that this area is already breaching the legally binding EU air quality legislation, meaning air pollution is already over safe limits. Emissions from burning biomass, in particular small (PM 2.5, PM10) particulate matter and an increase in nitrogen dioxide from traffic supplying biomass by road, will exacerbate the existing problem. This will increase the risk of respiratory and heart disease among staff and local residents. Air pollution is an invisible killer which currently causes 29,000 deaths and contributes to 200,000 premature deaths in the UK each year. I am therefore particularly concerned about the impact further air pollution could have on local people in an area which is already breaching safe limits. Negative effect on biodiversity. The proposals for a biomass power station make it likely that fish and other aquatic life in the Solent will suffer. Cooling water will be discharged back into the river at up to 10°C higher than when it was extracted. Even if partly mitigated as indicated in the application, it is known that sudden changes of temperature (even if the temperature itself is not unduly high) are exceptionally. Effects on Climate Change. It is highly misleading to claim that the proposed plant is ‘carbon neutral’ or offers carbon savings. Burning biomass creates an immediate release of CO2 , like any other carbon based fuel. Burning biomass actually releases more carbon, per unit of useful energy generated, than burning gas or oil. This means that every biomass plant creates a 'carbon debt’ that is only paid off after many decades (estimated at 40-100 years) as replanted trees reach maturity (if trees are replanted). Evidence from around the world indicates that old forests are often not replaced ‘like for like’, but with plantations of fast-growing ‘cash crops’, so the long term damage to the planet and to biodiversity is potentially very extreme. I call on Helius to take into consideration the opinion of local residents and the important environment and social impacts of the Southampton Biomass station as detailed above. I also will continue to support job creation in the South East through energy proposals that truly renewable power stations such as those that generate energy from wind, tidal and solar. Those power stations will help the UK meet its renewable energy targets, are truly sustainable and will also create employment in the South East. In summary I reject all the design options for the power station. I truly believe this proposed development is wholly damaging to the local community in relation to visual and air quality impacts, it undermines wider CO2 reduction efforts, is based on an unsustainable energy creation and is damaging to supplier countries' biodiversity, social welfare and food production capacities. Kind Regards. Keith Taylor. Green MEP for South East England. - http://www.keithtayl ormep.org.uk/wp-cont ent/uploads/Southamp ton-biomass_Helius_1 8.7.12.pdf[/p][/quote]No doubt another green is congratulating themselves on stalling the Navitus Bay proposal, defeating the Wind Farms on the IOW and starting a campaign against proposals for pylons linking Shropshire to Wind Farms in Wales. The Shareholders in the Power companies support the green agenda knowing that it won't cause a dent in the utility prices.[/p][/quote]Torchie1 says Shareholders in the Power companies support the green agenda.. An inquiry headed by David Attenborough ? -   Going by the below UK Renewable Energy Roadmap this Coalition Government hasn't carried out an in-depth inquiry into the sustainability of Wood/Grass Biomass Energy. - An inquiry headed by David Attenborough could keep everyone happy?.. He supported Glyndebourne in their successful application to obtain planning permission for a wind turbine in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and gave evidence at the planning inquiry arguing in favour of the proposal. 1) This Coalition Government says Biomass heat technologies supply chains have not yet been tested at scale, the key issue of whether the global supply of sustainable feedstocks can fuel it, given that supplies are finite and there are competing uses in the bio-economy. 2) This Coalition Government says Cost reductions are expected for offshore wind and solar PV as supply chains and technologies develop to 2020.. Torchie, AFAIK this Government sees no 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

12:34pm Tue 7 Aug 12

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Euro MP Keith Taylor's consultation response to Helius.

-

Southampton Biomass Power Ltd.
Helius Energy.
242 Marylebone Road.
London .
NW1 6JL .
18th July 2012.

Dear Sir/Madam.

Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station.

As a Member of the European Parliament for South East England I am writing to lodge an objection to the above application by Helius Energy. I do not wish to opt for any of the three designs for the proposed biomass station, presented in the most recent consultation. I would like to oppose the application for a Biomass power station.

I believe Helius should take into account the consultation findings of 2011, which highlighted significant opposition to the planned biomass station by Southampton residents. A consultation that merely asks which of three options the public prefer does not do this. It also prematurely assumes that the application itself will be accepted.

I have numerous concerns about any of the three proposals put forward by Helius energy. These include the damaging effect the proposals would have on air quality, biodiversity and quality of life as well as questions as to whether biomass represents a truly ‘green’ form of energy generation as claimed.

Damaging effect on air quality.

Air pollution has a damaging impact on human health and the proposed site in Southampton is next to an Air Quality Management Area. This means that this area is already breaching the legally binding EU air quality legislation, meaning air pollution is already over safe limits.

Emissions from burning biomass, in particular small (PM 2.5, PM10) particulate matter and an increase in nitrogen dioxide from traffic supplying biomass by road, will exacerbate the existing problem. This will increase the risk of respiratory and heart disease among staff and local residents.

Air pollution is an invisible killer which currently causes 29,000 deaths and contributes to 200,000 premature deaths in the UK each year. I am therefore particularly concerned about the impact further air pollution could have on local people in an area which is already breaching safe limits.

Negative effect on biodiversity.

The proposals for a biomass power station make it likely that fish and other aquatic life in the Solent will suffer. Cooling water will be discharged back into the river at up to 10°C higher than
when it was extracted. Even if partly mitigated as indicated in the application, it is known that sudden changes of temperature (even if the temperature itself is not unduly high) are exceptionally.

Effects on Climate Change.

It is highly misleading to claim that the proposed plant is ‘carbon neutral’ or offers carbon savings. Burning biomass creates an immediate release of CO2 , like any other carbon based fuel.

Burning biomass actually releases more carbon, per unit of useful energy generated, than burning gas or oil.

This means that every biomass plant creates a 'carbon debt’ that is only paid off after many decades (estimated at 40-100 years) as replanted trees reach maturity (if trees are replanted). Evidence from around the world indicates that old forests are often not replaced ‘like for like’, but with plantations of fast-growing ‘cash crops’, so the long term damage to the planet and to biodiversity is potentially very extreme.

I call on Helius to take into consideration the opinion of local residents and the important environment and social impacts of the Southampton Biomass station as detailed above. I also will continue to support job creation in the South East through energy proposals that truly renewable power stations such as those that generate energy from wind, tidal and solar. Those power stations will help the UK meet its renewable energy targets, are truly sustainable and will also create employment in the South East.

In summary I reject all the design options for the power station. I truly believe this proposed development is wholly damaging to the local community in relation to visual and air quality impacts, it undermines wider CO2 reduction efforts, is based on an unsustainable energy creation and is damaging to supplier countries' biodiversity, social welfare and food production capacities.

Kind Regards.

Keith Taylor.

Green MEP for South East England.


-


http://www.keithtayl



ormep.org.uk/wp-cont



ent/uploads/Southamp



ton-biomass_Helius_1



8.7.12.pdf
No doubt another green is congratulating themselves on stalling the Navitus Bay proposal, defeating the Wind Farms on the IOW and starting a campaign against proposals for pylons linking Shropshire to Wind Farms in Wales. The Shareholders in the Power companies support the green agenda knowing that it won't cause a dent in the utility prices.
Torchie1 says Shareholders in the Power companies support the green agenda.. An inquiry headed by David Attenborough ?

-
 

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

-

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


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


2) This Coalition Government says Cost reductions are expected for offshore wind and solar PV as supply chains and technologies develop to 2020.. Torchie, AFAIK this Government sees no Cost reductions for wood/grass biomass energy.

-



UK Renewable Energy Roadmap.

July 2011.

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

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

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

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


Plant Biomass

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-


http://www.decc.gov.

uk/assets/decc/11/me

eting-energy-demand/

renewable-energy/216

7-uk-renewable-energ

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


-


Greens warn biomass plan could reduce food supplies.

Sunday 05 August 2012 by Tony Patey.

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

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

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

-

http://www.morningst
aronline.co.uk/news/
content/view/full/12
2307?
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Euro MP Keith Taylor's consultation response to Helius. - Southampton Biomass Power Ltd. Helius Energy. 242 Marylebone Road. London . NW1 6JL . 18th July 2012. Dear Sir/Madam. Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station. As a Member of the European Parliament for South East England I am writing to lodge an objection to the above application by Helius Energy. I do not wish to opt for any of the three designs for the proposed biomass station, presented in the most recent consultation. I would like to oppose the application for a Biomass power station. I believe Helius should take into account the consultation findings of 2011, which highlighted significant opposition to the planned biomass station by Southampton residents. A consultation that merely asks which of three options the public prefer does not do this. It also prematurely assumes that the application itself will be accepted. I have numerous concerns about any of the three proposals put forward by Helius energy. These include the damaging effect the proposals would have on air quality, biodiversity and quality of life as well as questions as to whether biomass represents a truly ‘green’ form of energy generation as claimed. Damaging effect on air quality. Air pollution has a damaging impact on human health and the proposed site in Southampton is next to an Air Quality Management Area. This means that this area is already breaching the legally binding EU air quality legislation, meaning air pollution is already over safe limits. Emissions from burning biomass, in particular small (PM 2.5, PM10) particulate matter and an increase in nitrogen dioxide from traffic supplying biomass by road, will exacerbate the existing problem. This will increase the risk of respiratory and heart disease among staff and local residents. Air pollution is an invisible killer which currently causes 29,000 deaths and contributes to 200,000 premature deaths in the UK each year. I am therefore particularly concerned about the impact further air pollution could have on local people in an area which is already breaching safe limits. Negative effect on biodiversity. The proposals for a biomass power station make it likely that fish and other aquatic life in the Solent will suffer. Cooling water will be discharged back into the river at up to 10°C higher than when it was extracted. Even if partly mitigated as indicated in the application, it is known that sudden changes of temperature (even if the temperature itself is not unduly high) are exceptionally. Effects on Climate Change. It is highly misleading to claim that the proposed plant is ‘carbon neutral’ or offers carbon savings. Burning biomass creates an immediate release of CO2 , like any other carbon based fuel. Burning biomass actually releases more carbon, per unit of useful energy generated, than burning gas or oil. This means that every biomass plant creates a 'carbon debt’ that is only paid off after many decades (estimated at 40-100 years) as replanted trees reach maturity (if trees are replanted). Evidence from around the world indicates that old forests are often not replaced ‘like for like’, but with plantations of fast-growing ‘cash crops’, so the long term damage to the planet and to biodiversity is potentially very extreme. I call on Helius to take into consideration the opinion of local residents and the important environment and social impacts of the Southampton Biomass station as detailed above. I also will continue to support job creation in the South East through energy proposals that truly renewable power stations such as those that generate energy from wind, tidal and solar. Those power stations will help the UK meet its renewable energy targets, are truly sustainable and will also create employment in the South East. In summary I reject all the design options for the power station. I truly believe this proposed development is wholly damaging to the local community in relation to visual and air quality impacts, it undermines wider CO2 reduction efforts, is based on an unsustainable energy creation and is damaging to supplier countries' biodiversity, social welfare and food production capacities. Kind Regards. Keith Taylor. Green MEP for South East England. - http://www.keithtayl ormep.org.uk/wp-cont ent/uploads/Southamp ton-biomass_Helius_1 8.7.12.pdf[/p][/quote]No doubt another green is congratulating themselves on stalling the Navitus Bay proposal, defeating the Wind Farms on the IOW and starting a campaign against proposals for pylons linking Shropshire to Wind Farms in Wales. The Shareholders in the Power companies support the green agenda knowing that it won't cause a dent in the utility prices.[/p][/quote]Torchie1 says Shareholders in the Power companies support the green agenda.. An inquiry headed by David Attenborough ? -   Going by the below UK Renewable Energy Roadmap this Coalition Government hasn't carried out an in-depth inquiry into the sustainability of Wood/Grass Biomass Energy. - An inquiry headed by David Attenborough could keep everyone happy?.. He supported Glyndebourne in their successful application to obtain planning permission for a wind turbine in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and gave evidence at the planning inquiry arguing in favour of the proposal. 1) This Coalition Government says Biomass heat technologies supply chains have not yet been tested at scale, the key issue of whether the global supply of sustainable feedstocks can fuel it, given that supplies are finite and there are competing uses in the bio-economy. 2) This Coalition Government says Cost reductions are expected for offshore wind and solar PV as supply chains and technologies develop to 2020.. Torchie, AFAIK this Government sees no 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[/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

3:15pm Tue 7 Aug 12

loosehead says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Euro MP Keith Taylor's consultation response to Helius.

-

Southampton Biomass Power Ltd.
Helius Energy.
242 Marylebone Road.
London .
NW1 6JL .
18th July 2012.

Dear Sir/Madam.

Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station.

As a Member of the European Parliament for South East England I am writing to lodge an objection to the above application by Helius Energy. I do not wish to opt for any of the three designs for the proposed biomass station, presented in the most recent consultation. I would like to oppose the application for a Biomass power station.

I believe Helius should take into account the consultation findings of 2011, which highlighted significant opposition to the planned biomass station by Southampton residents. A consultation that merely asks which of three options the public prefer does not do this. It also prematurely assumes that the application itself will be accepted.

I have numerous concerns about any of the three proposals put forward by Helius energy. These include the damaging effect the proposals would have on air quality, biodiversity and quality of life as well as questions as to whether biomass represents a truly ‘green’ form of energy generation as claimed.

Damaging effect on air quality.

Air pollution has a damaging impact on human health and the proposed site in Southampton is next to an Air Quality Management Area. This means that this area is already breaching the legally binding EU air quality legislation, meaning air pollution is already over safe limits.

Emissions from burning biomass, in particular small (PM 2.5, PM10) particulate matter and an increase in nitrogen dioxide from traffic supplying biomass by road, will exacerbate the existing problem. This will increase the risk of respiratory and heart disease among staff and local residents.

Air pollution is an invisible killer which currently causes 29,000 deaths and contributes to 200,000 premature deaths in the UK each year. I am therefore particularly concerned about the impact further air pollution could have on local people in an area which is already breaching safe limits.

Negative effect on biodiversity.

The proposals for a biomass power station make it likely that fish and other aquatic life in the Solent will suffer. Cooling water will be discharged back into the river at up to 10°C higher than
when it was extracted. Even if partly mitigated as indicated in the application, it is known that sudden changes of temperature (even if the temperature itself is not unduly high) are exceptionally.

Effects on Climate Change.

It is highly misleading to claim that the proposed plant is ‘carbon neutral’ or offers carbon savings. Burning biomass creates an immediate release of CO2 , like any other carbon based fuel.

Burning biomass actually releases more carbon, per unit of useful energy generated, than burning gas or oil.

This means that every biomass plant creates a 'carbon debt’ that is only paid off after many decades (estimated at 40-100 years) as replanted trees reach maturity (if trees are replanted). Evidence from around the world indicates that old forests are often not replaced ‘like for like’, but with plantations of fast-growing ‘cash crops’, so the long term damage to the planet and to biodiversity is potentially very extreme.

I call on Helius to take into consideration the opinion of local residents and the important environment and social impacts of the Southampton Biomass station as detailed above. I also will continue to support job creation in the South East through energy proposals that truly renewable power stations such as those that generate energy from wind, tidal and solar. Those power stations will help the UK meet its renewable energy targets, are truly sustainable and will also create employment in the South East.

In summary I reject all the design options for the power station. I truly believe this proposed development is wholly damaging to the local community in relation to visual and air quality impacts, it undermines wider CO2 reduction efforts, is based on an unsustainable energy creation and is damaging to supplier countries' biodiversity, social welfare and food production capacities.

Kind Regards.

Keith Taylor.

Green MEP for South East England.


-


http://www.keithtayl




ormep.org.uk/wp-cont




ent/uploads/Southamp




ton-biomass_Helius_1




8.7.12.pdf
No doubt another green is congratulating themselves on stalling the Navitus Bay proposal, defeating the Wind Farms on the IOW and starting a campaign against proposals for pylons linking Shropshire to Wind Farms in Wales. The Shareholders in the Power companies support the green agenda knowing that it won't cause a dent in the utility prices.
Torchie1 says Shareholders in the Power companies support the green agenda.. An inquiry headed by David Attenborough ?

-
 

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

-

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


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


2) This Coalition Government says Cost reductions are expected for offshore wind and solar PV as supply chains and technologies develop to 2020.. Torchie, AFAIK this Government sees no Cost reductions for wood/grass biomass energy.

-



UK Renewable Energy Roadmap.

July 2011.

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

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

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

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


Plant Biomass

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-


http://www.decc.gov.


uk/assets/decc/11/me


eting-energy-demand/


renewable-energy/216


7-uk-renewable-energ


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


-


Greens warn biomass plan could reduce food supplies.

Sunday 05 August 2012 by Tony Patey.

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

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

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

-

http://www.morningst

aronline.co.uk/news/

content/view/full/12

2307?
once again you can't accept debate but just swamp every article with the same piece
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Euro MP Keith Taylor's consultation response to Helius. - Southampton Biomass Power Ltd. Helius Energy. 242 Marylebone Road. London . NW1 6JL . 18th July 2012. Dear Sir/Madam. Proposed Southampton Biomass Power Station. As a Member of the European Parliament for South East England I am writing to lodge an objection to the above application by Helius Energy. I do not wish to opt for any of the three designs for the proposed biomass station, presented in the most recent consultation. I would like to oppose the application for a Biomass power station. I believe Helius should take into account the consultation findings of 2011, which highlighted significant opposition to the planned biomass station by Southampton residents. A consultation that merely asks which of three options the public prefer does not do this. It also prematurely assumes that the application itself will be accepted. I have numerous concerns about any of the three proposals put forward by Helius energy. These include the damaging effect the proposals would have on air quality, biodiversity and quality of life as well as questions as to whether biomass represents a truly ‘green’ form of energy generation as claimed. Damaging effect on air quality. Air pollution has a damaging impact on human health and the proposed site in Southampton is next to an Air Quality Management Area. This means that this area is already breaching the legally binding EU air quality legislation, meaning air pollution is already over safe limits. Emissions from burning biomass, in particular small (PM 2.5, PM10) particulate matter and an increase in nitrogen dioxide from traffic supplying biomass by road, will exacerbate the existing problem. This will increase the risk of respiratory and heart disease among staff and local residents. Air pollution is an invisible killer which currently causes 29,000 deaths and contributes to 200,000 premature deaths in the UK each year. I am therefore particularly concerned about the impact further air pollution could have on local people in an area which is already breaching safe limits. Negative effect on biodiversity. The proposals for a biomass power station make it likely that fish and other aquatic life in the Solent will suffer. Cooling water will be discharged back into the river at up to 10°C higher than when it was extracted. Even if partly mitigated as indicated in the application, it is known that sudden changes of temperature (even if the temperature itself is not unduly high) are exceptionally. Effects on Climate Change. It is highly misleading to claim that the proposed plant is ‘carbon neutral’ or offers carbon savings. Burning biomass creates an immediate release of CO2 , like any other carbon based fuel. Burning biomass actually releases more carbon, per unit of useful energy generated, than burning gas or oil. This means that every biomass plant creates a 'carbon debt’ that is only paid off after many decades (estimated at 40-100 years) as replanted trees reach maturity (if trees are replanted). Evidence from around the world indicates that old forests are often not replaced ‘like for like’, but with plantations of fast-growing ‘cash crops’, so the long term damage to the planet and to biodiversity is potentially very extreme. I call on Helius to take into consideration the opinion of local residents and the important environment and social impacts of the Southampton Biomass station as detailed above. I also will continue to support job creation in the South East through energy proposals that truly renewable power stations such as those that generate energy from wind, tidal and solar. Those power stations will help the UK meet its renewable energy targets, are truly sustainable and will also create employment in the South East. In summary I reject all the design options for the power station. I truly believe this proposed development is wholly damaging to the local community in relation to visual and air quality impacts, it undermines wider CO2 reduction efforts, is based on an unsustainable energy creation and is damaging to supplier countries' biodiversity, social welfare and food production capacities. Kind Regards. Keith Taylor. Green MEP for South East England. - http://www.keithtayl ormep.org.uk/wp-cont ent/uploads/Southamp ton-biomass_Helius_1 8.7.12.pdf[/p][/quote]No doubt another green is congratulating themselves on stalling the Navitus Bay proposal, defeating the Wind Farms on the IOW and starting a campaign against proposals for pylons linking Shropshire to Wind Farms in Wales. The Shareholders in the Power companies support the green agenda knowing that it won't cause a dent in the utility prices.[/p][/quote]Torchie1 says Shareholders in the Power companies support the green agenda.. An inquiry headed by David Attenborough ? -   Going by the below UK Renewable Energy Roadmap this Coalition Government hasn't carried out an in-depth inquiry into the sustainability of Wood/Grass Biomass Energy. - An inquiry headed by David Attenborough could keep everyone happy?.. He supported Glyndebourne in their successful application to obtain planning permission for a wind turbine in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and gave evidence at the planning inquiry arguing in favour of the proposal. 1) This Coalition Government says Biomass heat technologies supply chains have not yet been tested at scale, the key issue of whether the global supply of sustainable feedstocks can fuel it, given that supplies are finite and there are competing uses in the bio-economy. 2) This Coalition Government says Cost reductions are expected for offshore wind and solar PV as supply chains and technologies develop to 2020.. Torchie, AFAIK this Government sees no 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[/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]once again you can't accept debate but just swamp every article with the same piece loosehead
  • Score: 0

5:21pm Tue 7 Aug 12

Dan Soton says...

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

-

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


-


Almost a billion go hungry worldwide

SARAH MORRISON SUNDAY 05 AUGUST 2012.

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

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

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

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

-

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