Southampton City Council scraps planned public vote on biomass power station plan

Daily Echo: Public vote on biomass plan scrapped Public vote on biomass plan scrapped

COUNCILLORS have scrapped a public vote on a biomass power station in Southampton after the cost of the poll soared 15 times the first estimate.

Labour council leader Richard Williams admitted while it was a good idea it was too expensive for the cash strapped authority which faces a £42m budget deficit over the next two years.

He blamed the Government for refusing to remove the legal hurdles so it could be held side-by-side with the police commissioner elections instead of in separate polling stations, pushing up costs.

Campaigners fighting the proposed plant at the city's western docks argued the estimated £75,000 cost of holding a so-called “preferendum” later this year would be better spent fighting a planning application.

Southampton City Council had originally set aside £5,000 for the vote on energy firm Helius' proposals to build the 100-megawatt facility near homes in Millbrook and Freemantle.

No Southampton Biomass said its members wanted the council to spend the money more “wisely” on getting expert legal advice on the planning process.

Opposition Tories said the referendum had become a vanity project for the Labour administration.

Councillors this afternoon debated whether or not to continue with the planned vote on the question: “Do you support the current proposals by Helius Energy for a 100-megawatt biomass power plant on the Western Docks?”It would not be legally binding.”

Helius said its proposed biomasss power plant, which could generate enough electricity to power 200,000 homes, is needed to help cut the country's carbon emissions.

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

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

Comments (28)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:26pm Wed 12 Sep 12

HillsidePaul says...

This was always a stupid idea even if it cost nothing.

Good Councillors will of course pay attention to public views but they are elected by us to make decisions on the running of the city. Sometimes those decisions will be easy and popular, sometimes they will be difficult and unpopular. We expect and require them to do the job we elected them to do.

As voters will decide how well we think they have done at the local elections. That is democracy in action not single issue popularity contests either to make themselves look good, or even worse to avoid having to take unpopular decisions.

To add insult to injury the Council does not have any decision making powers on the biomass issue.

Grow up and get on with the job your voters have elected you to do.
This was always a stupid idea even if it cost nothing. Good Councillors will of course pay attention to public views but they are elected by us to make decisions on the running of the city. Sometimes those decisions will be easy and popular, sometimes they will be difficult and unpopular. We expect and require them to do the job we elected them to do. As voters will decide how well we think they have done at the local elections. That is democracy in action not single issue popularity contests either to make themselves look good, or even worse to avoid having to take unpopular decisions. To add insult to injury the Council does not have any decision making powers on the biomass issue. Grow up and get on with the job your voters have elected you to do. HillsidePaul
  • Score: 0

3:39pm Wed 12 Sep 12

Shoong says...

Pen and paper ready for Buzzword Bingo with Mr Bahia...
Pen and paper ready for Buzzword Bingo with Mr Bahia... Shoong
  • Score: 0

4:00pm Wed 12 Sep 12

George4th says...

One disaster after another with this council! It's as if the people of Southampton swopped a perfectly good Tory council for Fred Karno's Circus!!
>
One disaster after another with this council! It's as if the people of Southampton swopped a perfectly good Tory council for Fred Karno's Circus!! > George4th
  • Score: 0

4:22pm Wed 12 Sep 12

alan.of.eastleigh says...

George4th wrote:
One disaster after another with this council! It's as if the people of Southampton swopped a perfectly good Tory council for Fred Karno's Circus!! >
That's a very intelligent comment George. Campaigners have asked the council not to proceed with the vote and the Council listened and cancelled it. How is that a disaster?
[quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: One disaster after another with this council! It's as if the people of Southampton swopped a perfectly good Tory council for Fred Karno's Circus!! >[/p][/quote]That's a very intelligent comment George. Campaigners have asked the council not to proceed with the vote and the Council listened and cancelled it. How is that a disaster? alan.of.eastleigh
  • Score: 0

4:34pm Wed 12 Sep 12

George4th says...

alan.of.eastleigh wrote:
George4th wrote:
One disaster after another with this council! It's as if the people of Southampton swopped a perfectly good Tory council for Fred Karno's Circus!! >
That's a very intelligent comment George. Campaigners have asked the council not to proceed with the vote and the Council listened and cancelled it. How is that a disaster?
Nothing to do with the campaigners and everything to do with the COST!
The current Labour council called for the referendum in the first place! They are a bunch of numpties! One bad decision after another - The City of Southampton is rapidly gaining a reputation for cack handed governance!
[quote][p][bold]alan.of.eastleigh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]George4th[/bold] wrote: One disaster after another with this council! It's as if the people of Southampton swopped a perfectly good Tory council for Fred Karno's Circus!! >[/p][/quote]That's a very intelligent comment George. Campaigners have asked the council not to proceed with the vote and the Council listened and cancelled it. How is that a disaster?[/p][/quote]Nothing to do with the campaigners and everything to do with the COST! The current Labour council called for the referendum in the first place! They are a bunch of numpties! One bad decision after another - The City of Southampton is rapidly gaining a reputation for cack handed governance! George4th
  • Score: 0

4:47pm Wed 12 Sep 12

Portswoodfoke says...

Have some balls and decide without making the public take the blame. Pathetic labour being spineless as usual... god forbid they do their jobs and upset anyone...
Have some balls and decide without making the public take the blame. Pathetic labour being spineless as usual... god forbid they do their jobs and upset anyone... Portswoodfoke
  • Score: 0

5:07pm Wed 12 Sep 12

Lone Ranger. says...

The referendum wasnever a great idea ... however it has been priced out by the Tory led Government in not allowing it to be combined with Police Commisioner cr*p.
.
This government must be the most inept that this country has ever had.
.
Well done the No Southampton Biomass in realising and accepting that the referendum voting "hurdles" put in place by the government just about made it unaffordable
The referendum wasnever a great idea ... however it has been priced out by the Tory led Government in not allowing it to be combined with Police Commisioner cr*p. . This government must be the most inept that this country has ever had. . Well done the No Southampton Biomass in realising and accepting that the referendum voting "hurdles" put in place by the government just about made it unaffordable Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

5:16pm Wed 12 Sep 12

originalsfc says...

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

The Port currently has approx 4 - 6 vessels calling each of which load approx 2000 ton of woodchip for export to sweeden for their power station. The UK shippers get paid twice for each load - once by the sweedish and then again by the UK Government (per ton as its not been put to uk landfill).

Due to the freight terms in place it costs to the Shipper are zero so whether there would be enough available for a new plant would come down to whos prepared to pay more - UK or Sweeden.

The UK stocks of woodchip in Southampton, Brightlingsea and Tilbury are stretched as it is.
"It would burn up to 800,000 tonnes of wood fuel each year, mostly shipped in through the docks from abroad." The Port currently has approx 4 - 6 vessels calling each of which load approx 2000 ton of woodchip for export to sweeden for their power station. The UK shippers get paid twice for each load - once by the sweedish and then again by the UK Government (per ton as its not been put to uk landfill). Due to the freight terms in place it costs to the Shipper are zero so whether there would be enough available for a new plant would come down to whos prepared to pay more - UK or Sweeden. The UK stocks of woodchip in Southampton, Brightlingsea and Tilbury are stretched as it is. originalsfc
  • Score: 0

5:19pm Wed 12 Sep 12

originalsfc says...

originalsfc wrote:
"It would burn up to 800,000 tonnes of wood fuel each year, mostly shipped in through the docks from abroad."

The Port currently has approx 4 - 6 vessels calling each of which load approx 2000 ton of woodchip for export to sweeden for their power station. The UK shippers get paid twice for each load - once by the sweedish and then again by the UK Government (per ton as its not been put to uk landfill).

Due to the freight terms in place it costs to the Shipper are zero so whether there would be enough available for a new plant would come down to whos prepared to pay more - UK or Sweeden.

The UK stocks of woodchip in Southampton, Brightlingsea and Tilbury are stretched as it is.
Europe already supply themselves and the shortfall comes from the UK - So why would they sell it to us ?
[quote][p][bold]originalsfc[/bold] wrote: "It would burn up to 800,000 tonnes of wood fuel each year, mostly shipped in through the docks from abroad." The Port currently has approx 4 - 6 vessels calling each of which load approx 2000 ton of woodchip for export to sweeden for their power station. The UK shippers get paid twice for each load - once by the sweedish and then again by the UK Government (per ton as its not been put to uk landfill). Due to the freight terms in place it costs to the Shipper are zero so whether there would be enough available for a new plant would come down to whos prepared to pay more - UK or Sweeden. The UK stocks of woodchip in Southampton, Brightlingsea and Tilbury are stretched as it is.[/p][/quote]Europe already supply themselves and the shortfall comes from the UK - So why would they sell it to us ? originalsfc
  • Score: 0

6:25pm Wed 12 Sep 12

TEBOURBA says...

If, during my working life, I had under estimated the cost of an operation by
-93.333 % I would have been sacked and deservedly so!
Whoever estmated a cost £5k which became £75k should be treated likewise.
As this is a publicly funded Council **** up, it will pass by unnoticed, due to bottomless taxpayer funding --- who gives a toss? -- I do !!
If, during my working life, I had under estimated the cost of an operation by -93.333 % I would have been sacked and deservedly so! Whoever estmated a cost £5k which became £75k should be treated likewise. As this is a publicly funded Council **** up, it will pass by unnoticed, due to bottomless taxpayer funding --- who gives a toss? -- I do !! TEBOURBA
  • Score: 0

7:01pm Wed 12 Sep 12

On the inside says...

Referrenda are not the answer we should not even have annual elections as that just means they will never consider long term changes. Elect them, let them get on with it for four years, and then re-elect them or sack them as you see fit.
Referrenda are not the answer we should not even have annual elections as that just means they will never consider long term changes. Elect them, let them get on with it for four years, and then re-elect them or sack them as you see fit. On the inside
  • Score: 0

8:16pm Wed 12 Sep 12

Paramjit Bahia says...

HillsidePaul wrote:
This was always a stupid idea even if it cost nothing. Good Councillors will of course pay attention to public views but they are elected by us to make decisions on the running of the city. Sometimes those decisions will be easy and popular, sometimes they will be difficult and unpopular. We expect and require them to do the job we elected them to do. As voters will decide how well we think they have done at the local elections. That is democracy in action not single issue popularity contests either to make themselves look good, or even worse to avoid having to take unpopular decisions. To add insult to injury the Council does not have any decision making powers on the biomass issue. Grow up and get on with the job your voters have elected you to do.
Hi
Stop darting bull's eye. Unfit for the purpose Dear Leader may not like the truth you tell.

If he finds out who you actually are he may send his poodles after you.

And you may also be sent to dog house like councillors Thomas and Morrell, whose only crime was to represent the serious concerns of people who elected them in the first place, which these days for control freaks NuLabourites is serious most sin.

While both Don Thomas and Keith Morrell may have lost NuLabour whip for four months, but have kept their credibility and conscience intact. Will Cllr Williams and rest of his gutless useless and unprincipled side kicks, the traitors of Labour, have same luxury?....

I don't thik so, unless somebody is going to tell me that members of NuLabour Group in Southampton never had any conscience in the first place...
[quote][p][bold]HillsidePaul[/bold] wrote: This was always a stupid idea even if it cost nothing. Good Councillors will of course pay attention to public views but they are elected by us to make decisions on the running of the city. Sometimes those decisions will be easy and popular, sometimes they will be difficult and unpopular. We expect and require them to do the job we elected them to do. As voters will decide how well we think they have done at the local elections. That is democracy in action not single issue popularity contests either to make themselves look good, or even worse to avoid having to take unpopular decisions. To add insult to injury the Council does not have any decision making powers on the biomass issue. Grow up and get on with the job your voters have elected you to do.[/p][/quote]Hi Stop darting bull's eye. Unfit for the purpose Dear Leader may not like the truth you tell. If he finds out who you actually are he may send his poodles after you. And you may also be sent to dog house like councillors Thomas and Morrell, whose only crime was to represent the serious concerns of people who elected them in the first place, which these days for control freaks NuLabourites is serious most sin. While both Don Thomas and Keith Morrell may have lost NuLabour whip for four months, but have kept their credibility and conscience intact. Will Cllr Williams and rest of his gutless useless and unprincipled side kicks, the traitors of Labour, have same luxury?.... I don't thik so, unless somebody is going to tell me that members of NuLabour Group in Southampton never had any conscience in the first place... Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

10:35pm Wed 12 Sep 12

IronLady2010 says...

Can we have a breakdown of how much this decision has cost us?

How many man hours has gone into this etc. Costs please so I can see how my money is being spent.
Can we have a breakdown of how much this decision has cost us? How many man hours has gone into this etc. Costs please so I can see how my money is being spent. IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

11:15pm Wed 12 Sep 12

Paramjit Bahia says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
Can we have a breakdown of how much this decision has cost us?

How many man hours has gone into this etc. Costs please so I can see how my money is being spent.
Very difficult for ordinary members of public to know that figure.

Request to Council under FOI could be one way to find out.

Demand from some elected member.

Since all 48 of them are in it together, I doubt if anyone of them will do it.

My guess only: Considering all the senior most officers (probably paid around at least £100,000 per year attend full Council meetings and other back up staff, just imagine even half hour time was spent discussing this matter twice, you can imagine cost could run into thousands.

While it can be argued that if we are going to have democracy price has to be paid, there should be no excuse for inconsistencies in decisions being made. People who keep on changing minds and pretend to be always right should not be in such powerful positions.
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Can we have a breakdown of how much this decision has cost us? How many man hours has gone into this etc. Costs please so I can see how my money is being spent.[/p][/quote]Very difficult for ordinary members of public to know that figure. Request to Council under FOI could be one way to find out. Demand from some elected member. Since all 48 of them are in it together, I doubt if anyone of them will do it. My guess only: Considering all the senior most officers (probably paid around at least £100,000 per year attend full Council meetings and other back up staff, just imagine even half hour time was spent discussing this matter twice, you can imagine cost could run into thousands. While it can be argued that if we are going to have democracy price has to be paid, there should be no excuse for inconsistencies in decisions being made. People who keep on changing minds and pretend to be always right should not be in such powerful positions. Paramjit Bahia
  • Score: 0

12:24am Thu 13 Sep 12

IronLady2010 says...

Paramjit Bahia wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
Can we have a breakdown of how much this decision has cost us?

How many man hours has gone into this etc. Costs please so I can see how my money is being spent.
Very difficult for ordinary members of public to know that figure.

Request to Council under FOI could be one way to find out.

Demand from some elected member.

Since all 48 of them are in it together, I doubt if anyone of them will do it.

My guess only: Considering all the senior most officers (probably paid around at least £100,000 per year attend full Council meetings and other back up staff, just imagine even half hour time was spent discussing this matter twice, you can imagine cost could run into thousands.

While it can be argued that if we are going to have democracy price has to be paid, there should be no excuse for inconsistencies in decisions being made. People who keep on changing minds and pretend to be always right should not be in such powerful positions.
Surely The Echo could do this? I'd be interested to know the costs.

With all these savings and all these pointless meetings, let's make all the costings open.
[quote][p][bold]Paramjit Bahia[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: Can we have a breakdown of how much this decision has cost us? How many man hours has gone into this etc. Costs please so I can see how my money is being spent.[/p][/quote]Very difficult for ordinary members of public to know that figure. Request to Council under FOI could be one way to find out. Demand from some elected member. Since all 48 of them are in it together, I doubt if anyone of them will do it. My guess only: Considering all the senior most officers (probably paid around at least £100,000 per year attend full Council meetings and other back up staff, just imagine even half hour time was spent discussing this matter twice, you can imagine cost could run into thousands. While it can be argued that if we are going to have democracy price has to be paid, there should be no excuse for inconsistencies in decisions being made. People who keep on changing minds and pretend to be always right should not be in such powerful positions.[/p][/quote]Surely The Echo could do this? I'd be interested to know the costs. With all these savings and all these pointless meetings, let's make all the costings open. IronLady2010
  • Score: 0

7:15am Thu 13 Sep 12

FoysCornerBoy says...

My understanding is that a resolution to the Council was made requesting the executive (i.e. the Labour cabinet) to look at a cost effective means for gauging the views of those residents most affected by the proposals for a biomass plant in the western docks. This policy still remains.

A modest and uncontroversial £5,000 was provisionally set aside for meeting the costs of this. However, the only option so far costed by Council officers is far in excess of this and this cannot be deemed by any stretch of the imagination as cost effective.

What disappoints me is the failure to consider other alternative options that may have been more affordable.

I'm also not sure how many members of the no to biomass group agree with the conservatives' plan for spending £75,000 of taxpayers' money on hiring expensive lawyers when ultimately the decision on this will be made politically by the secretary of state. I certainly don't.
My understanding is that a resolution to the Council was made requesting the executive (i.e. the Labour cabinet) to look at a cost effective means for gauging the views of those residents most affected by the proposals for a biomass plant in the western docks. This policy still remains. A modest and uncontroversial £5,000 was provisionally set aside for meeting the costs of this. However, the only option so far costed by Council officers is far in excess of this and this cannot be deemed by any stretch of the imagination as cost effective. What disappoints me is the failure to consider other alternative options that may have been more affordable. I'm also not sure how many members of the no to biomass group agree with the conservatives' plan for spending £75,000 of taxpayers' money on hiring expensive lawyers when ultimately the decision on this will be made politically by the secretary of state. I certainly don't. FoysCornerBoy
  • Score: 0

7:16am Thu 13 Sep 12

FoysCornerBoy says...

My understanding is that a resolution to the Council was made requesting the executive (i.e. the Labour cabinet) to look at a cost effective means for gauging the views of those residents most affected by the proposals for a biomass plant in the western docks. This policy still remains.

A modest and uncontroversial £5,000 was provisionally set aside for meeting the costs of this. However, the only option so far costed by Council officers is far in excess of this and this cannot be deemed by any stretch of the imagination as cost effective.

What disappoints me is the failure to consider other alternative options that may have been more affordable.

I'm also not sure how many members of the no to biomass group agree with the conservatives' plan for spending £75,000 of taxpayers' money on hiring expensive lawyers when ultimately the decision on this will be made politically by the secretary of state. I certainly don't.
My understanding is that a resolution to the Council was made requesting the executive (i.e. the Labour cabinet) to look at a cost effective means for gauging the views of those residents most affected by the proposals for a biomass plant in the western docks. This policy still remains. A modest and uncontroversial £5,000 was provisionally set aside for meeting the costs of this. However, the only option so far costed by Council officers is far in excess of this and this cannot be deemed by any stretch of the imagination as cost effective. What disappoints me is the failure to consider other alternative options that may have been more affordable. I'm also not sure how many members of the no to biomass group agree with the conservatives' plan for spending £75,000 of taxpayers' money on hiring expensive lawyers when ultimately the decision on this will be made politically by the secretary of state. I certainly don't. FoysCornerBoy
  • Score: 0

7:43am Thu 13 Sep 12

skeptik says...

The Poet 1793:


In Politics if thou would'st mix,
And mean thy fortunes be;
Bear this in mind,-be deaf and blind,
Let great folk hear and see.


They do after all elect them.
The Poet 1793: In Politics if thou would'st mix, And mean thy fortunes be; Bear this in mind,-be deaf and blind, Let great folk hear and see. They do after all elect them. skeptik
  • Score: 0

10:50am Thu 13 Sep 12

southy says...

What the No-Bio mass need to do now is start a new petition to lobby the secretary of state, they will need a great deal more signatures,so they will need to widen there field much wider than it is now, and might help them by calling in another group to help out, one that as the man power to do stalls
What the No-Bio mass need to do now is start a new petition to lobby the secretary of state, they will need a great deal more signatures,so they will need to widen there field much wider than it is now, and might help them by calling in another group to help out, one that as the man power to do stalls southy
  • Score: 0

10:55am Thu 13 Sep 12

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
What the No-Bio mass need to do now is start a new petition to lobby the secretary of state, they will need a great deal more signatures,so they will need to widen there field much wider than it is now, and might help them by calling in another group to help out, one that as the man power to do stalls
.. no southy, calling in the Trots is the very last thing they need.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: What the No-Bio mass need to do now is start a new petition to lobby the secretary of state, they will need a great deal more signatures,so they will need to widen there field much wider than it is now, and might help them by calling in another group to help out, one that as the man power to do stalls[/p][/quote].. no southy, calling in the Trots is the very last thing they need. freefinker
  • Score: 0

12:46pm Thu 13 Sep 12

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
What the No-Bio mass need to do now is start a new petition to lobby the secretary of state, they will need a great deal more signatures,so they will need to widen there field much wider than it is now, and might help them by calling in another group to help out, one that as the man power to do stalls
.. no southy, calling in the Trots is the very last thing they need.
Keep it up free you helping in our membership, to be called a Trots is being called Working Class aka the Masses, the Majority, The Ordinary person on the street.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: What the No-Bio mass need to do now is start a new petition to lobby the secretary of state, they will need a great deal more signatures,so they will need to widen there field much wider than it is now, and might help them by calling in another group to help out, one that as the man power to do stalls[/p][/quote].. no southy, calling in the Trots is the very last thing they need.[/p][/quote]Keep it up free you helping in our membership, to be called a Trots is being called Working Class aka the Masses, the Majority, The Ordinary person on the street. southy
  • Score: 0

7:12pm Thu 13 Sep 12

FoysCornerBoy says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
What the No-Bio mass need to do now is start a new petition to lobby the secretary of state, they will need a great deal more signatures,so they will need to widen there field much wider than it is now, and might help them by calling in another group to help out, one that as the man power to do stalls
.. no southy, calling in the Trots is the very last thing they need.
Keep it up free you helping in our membership, to be called a Trots is being called Working Class aka the Masses, the Majority, The Ordinary person on the street.
I was informed that the nosouthamptonbiomass group has already been infiltrated and taken over by a small clique of entryists holding extreme political views. This looks like classic Trotskyism to me.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: What the No-Bio mass need to do now is start a new petition to lobby the secretary of state, they will need a great deal more signatures,so they will need to widen there field much wider than it is now, and might help them by calling in another group to help out, one that as the man power to do stalls[/p][/quote].. no southy, calling in the Trots is the very last thing they need.[/p][/quote]Keep it up free you helping in our membership, to be called a Trots is being called Working Class aka the Masses, the Majority, The Ordinary person on the street.[/p][/quote]I was informed that the nosouthamptonbiomass group has already been infiltrated and taken over by a small clique of entryists holding extreme political views. This looks like classic Trotskyism to me. FoysCornerBoy
  • Score: 0

9:30pm Thu 13 Sep 12

Dan Soton says...

Helius is heading for bankruptcy.. wind/solar power is cheaper than pollution generating timber/grass incinerators.


Oxfam, Unicef and Save the Children are in talks with David Cameron to end to biomass/biofuel subsidies.


-


Calculating the true cost of electricity.

Date 13.09.2012.

Taking into account health and environmental damage, wind and solar power from new plants in Europe is actually cheaper than energy from coal and nuclear power plants, according to a new report.

Wind and solar power costs the least of current energy sources.

The report points out that electricity produced from new coal plants costs twice as much as wind, and about the same as solar power.

GBG says by 2020, the combination of rising energy costs and innovation in the energy sector will make wind and solar power the most economical way to generate power.

-

http://www.dw.de/dw/
article/0,,16235063,
00.html

-


According to TV presenter Robert Llewellyn.. by 2020 one solar home could be generating 16,000kWh of energy and only using 4,000-5,000kWh a year.


-

see YouTube Video..

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=Ac0cPOZMT
Tk
Helius is heading for bankruptcy.. wind/solar power is cheaper than pollution generating timber/grass incinerators. Oxfam, Unicef and Save the Children are in talks with David Cameron to end to biomass/biofuel subsidies. - Calculating the true cost of electricity. Date 13.09.2012. Taking into account health and environmental damage, wind and solar power from new plants in Europe is actually cheaper than energy from coal and nuclear power plants, according to a new report. Wind and solar power costs the least of current energy sources. The report points out that electricity produced from new coal plants costs twice as much as wind, and about the same as solar power. GBG says by 2020, the combination of rising energy costs and innovation in the energy sector will make wind and solar power the most economical way to generate power. - http://www.dw.de/dw/ article/0,,16235063, 00.html - According to TV presenter Robert Llewellyn.. by 2020 one solar home could be generating 16,000kWh of energy and only using 4,000-5,000kWh a year. - see YouTube Video.. http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=Ac0cPOZMT Tk Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

6:56am Fri 14 Sep 12

freemantlegirl2 says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
What the No-Bio mass need to do now is start a new petition to lobby the secretary of state, they will need a great deal more signatures,so they will need to widen there field much wider than it is now, and might help them by calling in another group to help out, one that as the man power to do stalls
.. no southy, calling in the Trots is the very last thing they need.
Keep it up free you helping in our membership, to be called a Trots is being called Working Class aka the Masses, the Majority, The Ordinary person on the street.
I was informed that the nosouthamptonbiomass group has already been infiltrated and taken over by a small clique of entryists holding extreme political views. This looks like classic Trotskyism to me.
What a load of rubbish!!! one of the most prominent members stood recently for a TORY councillor. We are all big enough to try to keep Politics out of it, and work together whatever our political affilations are. We are people living in a community, working for a common cause and that transcends petty litte squabbles about 'my party is better than yours' - grow up!

Southy is not part of the NSBM group, although he's attended a couple of public meetings. Just because he agrees that it shouldn't happen he does NOT in any way reflect all the views in the group.

We are a campaigning group, and worked with the previous Tory administration and this one too.

I agree with the scrapping of the referendum, and the person who pointed out that it was only being 'looked into' - no decision was made (until yesterday) is right. If the current council hadn't of looked into it, then they would have been criticised! a Tory government brought this in but has made it completely unworkable George4th, if you're going to lay into people at least formulate some good arguments!
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: What the No-Bio mass need to do now is start a new petition to lobby the secretary of state, they will need a great deal more signatures,so they will need to widen there field much wider than it is now, and might help them by calling in another group to help out, one that as the man power to do stalls[/p][/quote].. no southy, calling in the Trots is the very last thing they need.[/p][/quote]Keep it up free you helping in our membership, to be called a Trots is being called Working Class aka the Masses, the Majority, The Ordinary person on the street.[/p][/quote]I was informed that the nosouthamptonbiomass group has already been infiltrated and taken over by a small clique of entryists holding extreme political views. This looks like classic Trotskyism to me.[/p][/quote]What a load of rubbish!!! one of the most prominent members stood recently for a TORY councillor. We are all big enough to try to keep Politics out of it, and work together whatever our political affilations are. We are people living in a community, working for a common cause and that transcends petty litte squabbles about 'my party is better than yours' - grow up! Southy is not part of the NSBM group, although he's attended a couple of public meetings. Just because he agrees that it shouldn't happen he does NOT in any way reflect all the views in the group. We are a campaigning group, and worked with the previous Tory administration and this one too. I agree with the scrapping of the referendum, and the person who pointed out that it was only being 'looked into' - no decision was made (until yesterday) is right. If the current council hadn't of looked into it, then they would have been criticised! a Tory government brought this in but has made it completely unworkable George4th, if you're going to lay into people at least formulate some good arguments! freemantlegirl2
  • Score: 0

6:46pm Fri 14 Sep 12

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Helius is heading for bankruptcy.. wind/solar power is cheaper than pollution generating timber/grass incinerators.


Oxfam, Unicef and Save the Children are in talks with David Cameron to end to biomass/biofuel subsidies.


-


Calculating the true cost of electricity.

Date 13.09.2012.

Taking into account health and environmental damage, wind and solar power from new plants in Europe is actually cheaper than energy from coal and nuclear power plants, according to a new report.

Wind and solar power costs the least of current energy sources.

The report points out that electricity produced from new coal plants costs twice as much as wind, and about the same as solar power.

GBG says by 2020, the combination of rising energy costs and innovation in the energy sector will make wind and solar power the most economical way to generate power.

-

http://www.dw.de/dw/

article/0,,16235063,

00.html

-


According to TV presenter Robert Llewellyn.. by 2020 one solar home could be generating 16,000kWh of energy and only using 4,000-5,000kWh a year.


-

see YouTube Video..

http://www.youtube.c

om/watch?v=Ac0cPOZMT

Tk
Helius is heading for bankruptcy.. Today, the EU is applying the brakes on biomass/biofuels subsidies to stop land grabbing in developing countries.



Oxfam & Friends of the Earth says the EU needs to go further.. biomass/biofuels producers are appalled.

-


Commission wants to limit use of conventional biofuels.

By Marie-Martine Buckens | Friday 14 September 2012.

-
These effects can be classed into two types: economic and social – by aggravating the soaring prices of food and by being part of the extension of land grabbing, in particular in developing countries; and climate-related in the case where biofuels are cultivated on lands which have been previously deforested or which shelter a wide biodiversity.

-
In its draft, the Commission aims to propose limiting, after 2020, subsidies to biofuels that allow substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. With this in mind, the Commission proposes attributing a scale of ‘climate values’ to biofuels: it would be double for second-generation biofuels, compared to current biofuels, and four times more for third-generation biofuels.

NGOs delighted, producers appalled.

Robbie Blake, of the NGO Friends of the Earth, welcomes the conclusions the Commission has drawn, but says it needs to go further still. He says biofuels made from food crops must be withdrawn, rather than just capped at 5%. Oxfam agrees, and says that all the plan will achieve is to put a brake on the increase of food products.

-

http://www.europolit
ics.info/europolitic
s/commission-wants-t
o-limit-use-of-conve
ntional-biofuels-art
342921-46.html
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Helius is heading for bankruptcy.. wind/solar power is cheaper than pollution generating timber/grass incinerators. Oxfam, Unicef and Save the Children are in talks with David Cameron to end to biomass/biofuel subsidies. - Calculating the true cost of electricity. Date 13.09.2012. Taking into account health and environmental damage, wind and solar power from new plants in Europe is actually cheaper than energy from coal and nuclear power plants, according to a new report. Wind and solar power costs the least of current energy sources. The report points out that electricity produced from new coal plants costs twice as much as wind, and about the same as solar power. GBG says by 2020, the combination of rising energy costs and innovation in the energy sector will make wind and solar power the most economical way to generate power. - http://www.dw.de/dw/ article/0,,16235063, 00.html - According to TV presenter Robert Llewellyn.. by 2020 one solar home could be generating 16,000kWh of energy and only using 4,000-5,000kWh a year. - see YouTube Video.. http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=Ac0cPOZMT Tk[/p][/quote]Helius is heading for bankruptcy.. Today, the EU is applying the brakes on biomass/biofuels subsidies to stop land grabbing in developing countries. Oxfam & Friends of the Earth says the EU needs to go further.. biomass/biofuels producers are appalled. - Commission wants to limit use of conventional biofuels. By Marie-Martine Buckens | Friday 14 September 2012. - These effects can be classed into two types: economic and social – by aggravating the soaring prices of food and by being part of the extension of land grabbing, in particular in developing countries; and climate-related in the case where biofuels are cultivated on lands which have been previously deforested or which shelter a wide biodiversity. - In its draft, the Commission aims to propose limiting, after 2020, subsidies to biofuels that allow substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. With this in mind, the Commission proposes attributing a scale of ‘climate values’ to biofuels: it would be double for second-generation biofuels, compared to current biofuels, and four times more for third-generation biofuels. NGOs delighted, producers appalled. Robbie Blake, of the NGO Friends of the Earth, welcomes the conclusions the Commission has drawn, but says it needs to go further still. He says biofuels made from food crops must be withdrawn, rather than just capped at 5%. Oxfam agrees, and says that all the plan will achieve is to put a brake on the increase of food products. - http://www.europolit ics.info/europolitic s/commission-wants-t o-limit-use-of-conve ntional-biofuels-art 342921-46.html Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

6:47pm Fri 14 Sep 12

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Helius is heading for bankruptcy.. wind/solar power is cheaper than pollution generating timber/grass incinerators.


Oxfam, Unicef and Save the Children are in talks with David Cameron to end to biomass/biofuel subsidies.


-


Calculating the true cost of electricity.

Date 13.09.2012.

Taking into account health and environmental damage, wind and solar power from new plants in Europe is actually cheaper than energy from coal and nuclear power plants, according to a new report.

Wind and solar power costs the least of current energy sources.

The report points out that electricity produced from new coal plants costs twice as much as wind, and about the same as solar power.

GBG says by 2020, the combination of rising energy costs and innovation in the energy sector will make wind and solar power the most economical way to generate power.

-

http://www.dw.de/dw/

article/0,,16235063,

00.html

-


According to TV presenter Robert Llewellyn.. by 2020 one solar home could be generating 16,000kWh of energy and only using 4,000-5,000kWh a year.


-

see YouTube Video..

http://www.youtube.c

om/watch?v=Ac0cPOZMT

Tk
Helius is heading for bankruptcy.. Today, the EU is applying the brakes to biomass/biofuels subsidies to stop land grabbing in developing countries.



Oxfam & Friends of the Earth says the EU needs to go further.. biomass/biofuels producers are appalled.

-


Commission wants to limit use of conventional biofuels.

By Marie-Martine Buckens | Friday 14 September 2012.

-
These effects can be classed into two types: economic and social – by aggravating the soaring prices of food and by being part of the extension of land grabbing, in particular in developing countries; and climate-related in the case where biofuels are cultivated on lands which have been previously deforested or which shelter a wide biodiversity.

-
In its draft, the Commission aims to propose limiting, after 2020, subsidies to biofuels that allow substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. With this in mind, the Commission proposes attributing a scale of ‘climate values’ to biofuels: it would be double for second-generation biofuels, compared to current biofuels, and four times more for third-generation biofuels.

NGOs delighted, producers appalled.

Robbie Blake, of the NGO Friends of the Earth, welcomes the conclusions the Commission has drawn, but says it needs to go further still. He says biofuels made from food crops must be withdrawn, rather than just capped at 5%. Oxfam agrees, and says that all the plan will achieve is to put a brake on the increase of food products.

-

http://www.europolit
ics.info/europolitic
s/commission-wants-t
o-limit-use-of-conve
ntional-biofuels-art
342921-46.html
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Helius is heading for bankruptcy.. wind/solar power is cheaper than pollution generating timber/grass incinerators. Oxfam, Unicef and Save the Children are in talks with David Cameron to end to biomass/biofuel subsidies. - Calculating the true cost of electricity. Date 13.09.2012. Taking into account health and environmental damage, wind and solar power from new plants in Europe is actually cheaper than energy from coal and nuclear power plants, according to a new report. Wind and solar power costs the least of current energy sources. The report points out that electricity produced from new coal plants costs twice as much as wind, and about the same as solar power. GBG says by 2020, the combination of rising energy costs and innovation in the energy sector will make wind and solar power the most economical way to generate power. - http://www.dw.de/dw/ article/0,,16235063, 00.html - According to TV presenter Robert Llewellyn.. by 2020 one solar home could be generating 16,000kWh of energy and only using 4,000-5,000kWh a year. - see YouTube Video.. http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=Ac0cPOZMT Tk[/p][/quote]Helius is heading for bankruptcy.. Today, the EU is applying the brakes to biomass/biofuels subsidies to stop land grabbing in developing countries. Oxfam & Friends of the Earth says the EU needs to go further.. biomass/biofuels producers are appalled. - Commission wants to limit use of conventional biofuels. By Marie-Martine Buckens | Friday 14 September 2012. - These effects can be classed into two types: economic and social – by aggravating the soaring prices of food and by being part of the extension of land grabbing, in particular in developing countries; and climate-related in the case where biofuels are cultivated on lands which have been previously deforested or which shelter a wide biodiversity. - In its draft, the Commission aims to propose limiting, after 2020, subsidies to biofuels that allow substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. With this in mind, the Commission proposes attributing a scale of ‘climate values’ to biofuels: it would be double for second-generation biofuels, compared to current biofuels, and four times more for third-generation biofuels. NGOs delighted, producers appalled. Robbie Blake, of the NGO Friends of the Earth, welcomes the conclusions the Commission has drawn, but says it needs to go further still. He says biofuels made from food crops must be withdrawn, rather than just capped at 5%. Oxfam agrees, and says that all the plan will achieve is to put a brake on the increase of food products. - http://www.europolit ics.info/europolitic s/commission-wants-t o-limit-use-of-conve ntional-biofuels-art 342921-46.html Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

5:13pm Mon 17 Sep 12

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Helius is heading for bankruptcy.. wind/solar power is cheaper than pollution generating timber/grass incinerators.


Oxfam, Unicef and Save the Children are in talks with David Cameron to end to biomass/biofuel subsidies.


-


Calculating the true cost of electricity.

Date 13.09.2012.

Taking into account health and environmental damage, wind and solar power from new plants in Europe is actually cheaper than energy from coal and nuclear power plants, according to a new report.

Wind and solar power costs the least of current energy sources.

The report points out that electricity produced from new coal plants costs twice as much as wind, and about the same as solar power.

GBG says by 2020, the combination of rising energy costs and innovation in the energy sector will make wind and solar power the most economical way to generate power.

-

http://www.dw.de/dw/


article/0,,16235063,


00.html

-


According to TV presenter Robert Llewellyn.. by 2020 one solar home could be generating 16,000kWh of energy and only using 4,000-5,000kWh a year.


-

see YouTube Video..

http://www.youtube.c


om/watch?v=Ac0cPOZMT


Tk
Helius is heading for bankruptcy.. Today, the EU is applying the brakes to biomass/biofuels subsidies to stop land grabbing in developing countries.



Oxfam & Friends of the Earth says the EU needs to go further.. biomass/biofuels producers are appalled.

-


Commission wants to limit use of conventional biofuels.

By Marie-Martine Buckens | Friday 14 September 2012.

-
These effects can be classed into two types: economic and social – by aggravating the soaring prices of food and by being part of the extension of land grabbing, in particular in developing countries; and climate-related in the case where biofuels are cultivated on lands which have been previously deforested or which shelter a wide biodiversity.

-
In its draft, the Commission aims to propose limiting, after 2020, subsidies to biofuels that allow substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. With this in mind, the Commission proposes attributing a scale of ‘climate values’ to biofuels: it would be double for second-generation biofuels, compared to current biofuels, and four times more for third-generation biofuels.

NGOs delighted, producers appalled.

Robbie Blake, of the NGO Friends of the Earth, welcomes the conclusions the Commission has drawn, but says it needs to go further still. He says biofuels made from food crops must be withdrawn, rather than just capped at 5%. Oxfam agrees, and says that all the plan will achieve is to put a brake on the increase of food products.

-

http://www.europolit

ics.info/europolitic

s/commission-wants-t

o-limit-use-of-conve

ntional-biofuels-art

342921-46.html
Helius is heading for bankruptcy.. The EU to end all subsidies for crop biomass/biofuels, saving Taxpayers over €17 billion a year in the process.


-


Friends of the Earth say.. "Biofuels are wreaking havoc on tight food markets and our forests, increasing hunger and accelerating climate change, what we need at this time of food crisis is to stop burning them altogether."



-

EU proposal would limit use of crop-based biofuels.

published 11 September 20124.

The European Union plans to impose a limit on the use of crop-based biofuels over fears they are less climate-friendly than initially thought and compete with food production, according to draft EU legislation.

The new rules, which will need the approval of EU governments and lawmakers, represent a major shift in Europe's much-criticised biofuel policy and a tacit admission by policymakers that the EU's 2020 biofuel target was flawed from the outset.

The plans also include a promise to end all public subsidies for crop-based biofuels after the current legislation expires in 2020, effectively ensuring the decline of a European sector now estimated to be worth €17 billion a year.


-

http://www.euractiv.
com/climate-environm
ent/eu-legislation-l
imit-use-crop-ba-new
s-514714
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Helius is heading for bankruptcy.. wind/solar power is cheaper than pollution generating timber/grass incinerators. Oxfam, Unicef and Save the Children are in talks with David Cameron to end to biomass/biofuel subsidies. - Calculating the true cost of electricity. Date 13.09.2012. Taking into account health and environmental damage, wind and solar power from new plants in Europe is actually cheaper than energy from coal and nuclear power plants, according to a new report. Wind and solar power costs the least of current energy sources. The report points out that electricity produced from new coal plants costs twice as much as wind, and about the same as solar power. GBG says by 2020, the combination of rising energy costs and innovation in the energy sector will make wind and solar power the most economical way to generate power. - http://www.dw.de/dw/ article/0,,16235063, 00.html - According to TV presenter Robert Llewellyn.. by 2020 one solar home could be generating 16,000kWh of energy and only using 4,000-5,000kWh a year. - see YouTube Video.. http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=Ac0cPOZMT Tk[/p][/quote]Helius is heading for bankruptcy.. Today, the EU is applying the brakes to biomass/biofuels subsidies to stop land grabbing in developing countries. Oxfam & Friends of the Earth says the EU needs to go further.. biomass/biofuels producers are appalled. - Commission wants to limit use of conventional biofuels. By Marie-Martine Buckens | Friday 14 September 2012. - These effects can be classed into two types: economic and social – by aggravating the soaring prices of food and by being part of the extension of land grabbing, in particular in developing countries; and climate-related in the case where biofuels are cultivated on lands which have been previously deforested or which shelter a wide biodiversity. - In its draft, the Commission aims to propose limiting, after 2020, subsidies to biofuels that allow substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. With this in mind, the Commission proposes attributing a scale of ‘climate values’ to biofuels: it would be double for second-generation biofuels, compared to current biofuels, and four times more for third-generation biofuels. NGOs delighted, producers appalled. Robbie Blake, of the NGO Friends of the Earth, welcomes the conclusions the Commission has drawn, but says it needs to go further still. He says biofuels made from food crops must be withdrawn, rather than just capped at 5%. Oxfam agrees, and says that all the plan will achieve is to put a brake on the increase of food products. - http://www.europolit ics.info/europolitic s/commission-wants-t o-limit-use-of-conve ntional-biofuels-art 342921-46.html[/p][/quote]Helius is heading for bankruptcy.. The EU to end all subsidies for crop biomass/biofuels, saving Taxpayers over €17 billion a year in the process. - Friends of the Earth say.. "Biofuels are wreaking havoc on tight food markets and our forests, increasing hunger and accelerating climate change, what we need at this time of food crisis is to stop burning them altogether." - EU proposal would limit use of crop-based biofuels. published 11 September 20124. The European Union plans to impose a limit on the use of crop-based biofuels over fears they are less climate-friendly than initially thought and compete with food production, according to draft EU legislation. The new rules, which will need the approval of EU governments and lawmakers, represent a major shift in Europe's much-criticised biofuel policy and a tacit admission by policymakers that the EU's 2020 biofuel target was flawed from the outset. The plans also include a promise to end all public subsidies for crop-based biofuels after the current legislation expires in 2020, effectively ensuring the decline of a European sector now estimated to be worth €17 billion a year. - http://www.euractiv. com/climate-environm ent/eu-legislation-l imit-use-crop-ba-new s-514714 Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

2:03pm Wed 19 Sep 12

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Helius is heading for bankruptcy.. wind/solar power is cheaper than pollution generating timber/grass incinerators.


Oxfam, Unicef and Save the Children are in talks with David Cameron to end to biomass/biofuel subsidies.


-


Calculating the true cost of electricity.

Date 13.09.2012.

Taking into account health and environmental damage, wind and solar power from new plants in Europe is actually cheaper than energy from coal and nuclear power plants, according to a new report.

Wind and solar power costs the least of current energy sources.

The report points out that electricity produced from new coal plants costs twice as much as wind, and about the same as solar power.

GBG says by 2020, the combination of rising energy costs and innovation in the energy sector will make wind and solar power the most economical way to generate power.

-

http://www.dw.de/dw/



article/0,,16235063,



00.html

-


According to TV presenter Robert Llewellyn.. by 2020 one solar home could be generating 16,000kWh of energy and only using 4,000-5,000kWh a year.


-

see YouTube Video..

http://www.youtube.c



om/watch?v=Ac0cPOZMT



Tk
Helius is heading for bankruptcy.. Today, the EU is applying the brakes to biomass/biofuels subsidies to stop land grabbing in developing countries.



Oxfam & Friends of the Earth says the EU needs to go further.. biomass/biofuels producers are appalled.

-


Commission wants to limit use of conventional biofuels.

By Marie-Martine Buckens | Friday 14 September 2012.

-
These effects can be classed into two types: economic and social – by aggravating the soaring prices of food and by being part of the extension of land grabbing, in particular in developing countries; and climate-related in the case where biofuels are cultivated on lands which have been previously deforested or which shelter a wide biodiversity.

-
In its draft, the Commission aims to propose limiting, after 2020, subsidies to biofuels that allow substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. With this in mind, the Commission proposes attributing a scale of ‘climate values’ to biofuels: it would be double for second-generation biofuels, compared to current biofuels, and four times more for third-generation biofuels.

NGOs delighted, producers appalled.

Robbie Blake, of the NGO Friends of the Earth, welcomes the conclusions the Commission has drawn, but says it needs to go further still. He says biofuels made from food crops must be withdrawn, rather than just capped at 5%. Oxfam agrees, and says that all the plan will achieve is to put a brake on the increase of food products.

-

http://www.europolit


ics.info/europolitic


s/commission-wants-t


o-limit-use-of-conve


ntional-biofuels-art


342921-46.html
Helius is heading for bankruptcy.. The EU to end all subsidies for crop biomass/biofuels, saving Taxpayers over €17 billion a year in the process.


-


Friends of the Earth say.. "Biofuels are wreaking havoc on tight food markets and our forests, increasing hunger and accelerating climate change, what we need at this time of food crisis is to stop burning them altogether."



-

EU proposal would limit use of crop-based biofuels.

published 11 September 20124.

The European Union plans to impose a limit on the use of crop-based biofuels over fears they are less climate-friendly than initially thought and compete with food production, according to draft EU legislation.

The new rules, which will need the approval of EU governments and lawmakers, represent a major shift in Europe's much-criticised biofuel policy and a tacit admission by policymakers that the EU's 2020 biofuel target was flawed from the outset.

The plans also include a promise to end all public subsidies for crop-based biofuels after the current legislation expires in 2020, effectively ensuring the decline of a European sector now estimated to be worth €17 billion a year.


-

http://www.euractiv.

com/climate-environm

ent/eu-legislation-l

imit-use-crop-ba-new

s-514714
Helius would not get planning permission in Scotland.. no Combined Heat and Power, not close to local Biomass supplies.




Helius's Southampton pollution generating timber/grass incinerator lacks Combined Heat and Power (CHP), Helius to source timber/grass materials from Canada, South Africa, South America and Australia.

-


Summary.. Scotlands vision for biomass is clear: it is for small and sustainable stations that are close to available local supplies and operate as efficiently as possible, 10MW and that are not good quality combined heat and power(CHP) stations will not be eligible for ROCs after 2013.

-


Scottish Government tightens rules on Biomass power.

Posted on DateSeptember 15, 2012 by AuthorAlly.

the Scottish Government conducted a consultation into the way biomass subsidies for low carbon energy operate - and after doing some research, and listening to a lots of consultation responses, including our own, Fergus Ewing announced yesteday in parliament his Government's conclusions.

Here's what he said about biomass:

"On biomass generation, we asked for views on whether to restrict or remove support for large-scale wood-fuelled electricity-only and combined heat and power stations. A significant majority responded in favour of such restrictions, although others argued that biomass generation has an important role to play in meeting Scotland’s electricity and heat targets.

"I accept that role, but I also believe that our concerns over competition for the finite supply of wood and our concerns about the strategic value of biomass heat over electricity merit the introduction of a new control.

"I am therefore proposing that wood-fuelled stations with a total installed capacity that is greater than 10MW and that are not good quality combined heat and power stations will not be eligible for ROCs after 2013. That will not apply to stations that commission after April 2013, but which received consent or planning permission before our consultation was published.

"Our vision for biomass is clear: it is for small and sustainable stations that are close to available local supplies and operate as efficiently as possible."

-

http://www.greenerle
ith.org/greener-leit
h-news/2012/9/15/sco
ttish-government-tig
htens-rules-on-bioma
ss-power.html
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Helius is heading for bankruptcy.. wind/solar power is cheaper than pollution generating timber/grass incinerators. Oxfam, Unicef and Save the Children are in talks with David Cameron to end to biomass/biofuel subsidies. - Calculating the true cost of electricity. Date 13.09.2012. Taking into account health and environmental damage, wind and solar power from new plants in Europe is actually cheaper than energy from coal and nuclear power plants, according to a new report. Wind and solar power costs the least of current energy sources. The report points out that electricity produced from new coal plants costs twice as much as wind, and about the same as solar power. GBG says by 2020, the combination of rising energy costs and innovation in the energy sector will make wind and solar power the most economical way to generate power. - http://www.dw.de/dw/ article/0,,16235063, 00.html - According to TV presenter Robert Llewellyn.. by 2020 one solar home could be generating 16,000kWh of energy and only using 4,000-5,000kWh a year. - see YouTube Video.. http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=Ac0cPOZMT Tk[/p][/quote]Helius is heading for bankruptcy.. Today, the EU is applying the brakes to biomass/biofuels subsidies to stop land grabbing in developing countries. Oxfam & Friends of the Earth says the EU needs to go further.. biomass/biofuels producers are appalled. - Commission wants to limit use of conventional biofuels. By Marie-Martine Buckens | Friday 14 September 2012. - These effects can be classed into two types: economic and social – by aggravating the soaring prices of food and by being part of the extension of land grabbing, in particular in developing countries; and climate-related in the case where biofuels are cultivated on lands which have been previously deforested or which shelter a wide biodiversity. - In its draft, the Commission aims to propose limiting, after 2020, subsidies to biofuels that allow substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. With this in mind, the Commission proposes attributing a scale of ‘climate values’ to biofuels: it would be double for second-generation biofuels, compared to current biofuels, and four times more for third-generation biofuels. NGOs delighted, producers appalled. Robbie Blake, of the NGO Friends of the Earth, welcomes the conclusions the Commission has drawn, but says it needs to go further still. He says biofuels made from food crops must be withdrawn, rather than just capped at 5%. Oxfam agrees, and says that all the plan will achieve is to put a brake on the increase of food products. - http://www.europolit ics.info/europolitic s/commission-wants-t o-limit-use-of-conve ntional-biofuels-art 342921-46.html[/p][/quote]Helius is heading for bankruptcy.. The EU to end all subsidies for crop biomass/biofuels, saving Taxpayers over €17 billion a year in the process. - Friends of the Earth say.. "Biofuels are wreaking havoc on tight food markets and our forests, increasing hunger and accelerating climate change, what we need at this time of food crisis is to stop burning them altogether." - EU proposal would limit use of crop-based biofuels. published 11 September 20124. The European Union plans to impose a limit on the use of crop-based biofuels over fears they are less climate-friendly than initially thought and compete with food production, according to draft EU legislation. The new rules, which will need the approval of EU governments and lawmakers, represent a major shift in Europe's much-criticised biofuel policy and a tacit admission by policymakers that the EU's 2020 biofuel target was flawed from the outset. The plans also include a promise to end all public subsidies for crop-based biofuels after the current legislation expires in 2020, effectively ensuring the decline of a European sector now estimated to be worth €17 billion a year. - http://www.euractiv. com/climate-environm ent/eu-legislation-l imit-use-crop-ba-new s-514714[/p][/quote]Helius would not get planning permission in Scotland.. no Combined Heat and Power, not close to local Biomass supplies. Helius's Southampton pollution generating timber/grass incinerator lacks Combined Heat and Power (CHP), Helius to source timber/grass materials from Canada, South Africa, South America and Australia. - Summary.. Scotlands vision for biomass is clear: it is for small and sustainable stations that are close to available local supplies and operate as efficiently as possible, 10MW and that are not good quality combined heat and power(CHP) stations will not be eligible for ROCs after 2013. - Scottish Government tightens rules on Biomass power. Posted on DateSeptember 15, 2012 by AuthorAlly. the Scottish Government conducted a consultation into the way biomass subsidies for low carbon energy operate - and after doing some research, and listening to a lots of consultation responses, including our own, Fergus Ewing announced yesteday in parliament his Government's conclusions. Here's what he said about biomass: "On biomass generation, we asked for views on whether to restrict or remove support for large-scale wood-fuelled electricity-only and combined heat and power stations. A significant majority responded in favour of such restrictions, although others argued that biomass generation has an important role to play in meeting Scotland’s electricity and heat targets. "I accept that role, but I also believe that our concerns over competition for the finite supply of wood and our concerns about the strategic value of biomass heat over electricity merit the introduction of a new control. "I am therefore proposing that wood-fuelled stations with a total installed capacity that is greater than 10MW and that are not good quality combined heat and power stations will not be eligible for ROCs after 2013. That will not apply to stations that commission after April 2013, but which received consent or planning permission before our consultation was published. "Our vision for biomass is clear: it is for small and sustainable stations that are close to available local supplies and operate as efficiently as possible." - http://www.greenerle ith.org/greener-leit h-news/2012/9/15/sco ttish-government-tig htens-rules-on-bioma ss-power.html Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

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

I agree