Biomass power station still on the cards for Southampton - but talks take place for one in Portsmouth

Andover Advertiser: Planned biomass power station in Southampton Planned biomass power station in Southampton

PLANS for a controversial power station in Southampton are still in place – but another one could be built just 20 miles away.

The Daily Echo can reveal initial discussions have taken place between the Ministry of Defence and the firm behind a planned giant biomass plant to build one at Portsmouth’s naval base.

An application to build a £300m plant at Southampton Docks was submitted by Helius Energy in 2011 – prompting protests from people living in communities nearby.

But it has emerged that Portsmouth City Council facilitated talks between the Navy and the energy firm in an attempt to help power two planned aircraft carriers after being approached by Southampton City Council.

The move was confirmed by Portsmouth City Council leader Cllr Gerald Vernon-Jackson, who told the Daily Echo that talks are currently stalled as the MoD makes its decision about shipbuilding in the city.

Meanwhile Paul Nichols, head of planning and sustainability at Southampton City Council, told delegates at a meeting to form a new docks forum that Helius Energy is still pursuing plans to build a power station in Southampton.

Now opposition councillors in both cities have expressed their surprise at the talks.

Cllr Vernon-Jackson said: “We have talked to Helius and put them in touch with the Royal Navy because the Navy in Portsmouth needs a new power station in the dockyard.

“If shipbuilding ceases there is a large building available for a power station – if it doesn’t they will have to build one.

“I don’t know if it will be instead of the one in Southampton or on top of it.

“If we don’t have a new power station in the dockyard, when the aircraft carriers come in and are plugged into the main supply, Portsmouth will go dark. We have to have a new power station or we will have to put extra pylons on Portsdown Hill.”

Cllr Jeremy Moulton, ward representative for Freemantle, brought up the issue at the dock forum meeting after letters were sent to residents in Millbrook by Cllr David Furnell claiming that Portsmouth City Council is “very keen” to take the power plant “off our hands”.

But Cllr Asa Thorpe, pictured below, ward representative for Millbrook, told the meeting: “Our previous leader Richard Williams was told there were no viable alternatives for Helius from a number of other people when it came to the siting of this biomass plant.

“One of the things he did as part of our ongoing bid to make friends in Portsmouth was to suggest they would need to be looking at some industry when things start to change in terms of the maintenance of ships.

“Gerald Vernon-Jackson was very interested in what we had to say and we suggested that Helius make contact with the MoD and with Portsmouth City Council and suggest that, as we didn’t want it and Portsmouth did, then it might be worthwhile having that conversation.

“As I understand it, the last conversation I had about it weeks and months ago is that Portsmouth were still in negotiations with both the MoD and Helius as to the siting or otherwise of a power plant.

“What it would mean for us was that it wasn’t taken off the table at that point as Helius might want to site two power plants in the south.”

Cllr Moulton told the Daily Echo that the city’s Conservative Party was unaware of discussions between Portsmouth City Council, Helius and the MoD.

He said: “The last we heard is they (Helius) were planning to submit a Southampton scheme in the summer.

“I personally wrote to them a few weeks ago for an update and they were adamant that they were pressing ahead in Southampton. We need the truth to come out.”

The news of a potential power station in Portsmouth was also met with dismay from Cllr Donna Jones, leader of the city’s Conservative group.

She said: “I am very concerned these discussions have been going on behind closed doors for a new power station.

“It will have a huge impact on the local Portsmouth area.

“You need community engagement and my main concern is I knew nothing about it.”

A spokesperson for Helius said: “Several alternative sites for the proposed scheme have been suggested through the pre-application consultation. Helius Energy has sought to investigate all available sites and will report on these investigations within the environmental statement that will accompany the application for development consent.”

A spokesman for the MoD said: “MoD is working with Portsmouth City Council to scope the full range of options for meeting our future power requirements. No decisions have yet been taken.”

Comments (26)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:38am Fri 12 Jul 13

FoysCornerBoy says...

Fair play to former Southampton City Council leader, Richard Williams. His work behind the scenes with Portsmouth City leader, Gerald Vernon-Jackson, demonstrate that there is an alternative site for a biomass plant. This drives a coach and horses through the claim by Helius that Southampton docks was the only viable site in the Solent area.

I'm surprised at the negative attitude being displayed by some of the City's conservative councillors. Maybe it's because - a bit like with the sulphur plant - the biomass scheme was introduced when they were in control of the council and was initially welcomed by them with open arms.
Fair play to former Southampton City Council leader, Richard Williams. His work behind the scenes with Portsmouth City leader, Gerald Vernon-Jackson, demonstrate that there is an alternative site for a biomass plant. This drives a coach and horses through the claim by Helius that Southampton docks was the only viable site in the Solent area. I'm surprised at the negative attitude being displayed by some of the City's conservative councillors. Maybe it's because - a bit like with the sulphur plant - the biomass scheme was introduced when they were in control of the council and was initially welcomed by them with open arms. FoysCornerBoy
  • Score: 0

8:24am Fri 12 Jul 13

phil maccavity says...

FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Fair play to former Southampton City Council leader, Richard Williams. His work behind the scenes with Portsmouth City leader, Gerald Vernon-Jackson, demonstrate that there is an alternative site for a biomass plant. This drives a coach and horses through the claim by Helius that Southampton docks was the only viable site in the Solent area.

I'm surprised at the negative attitude being displayed by some of the City's conservative councillors. Maybe it's because - a bit like with the sulphur plant - the biomass scheme was introduced when they were in control of the council and was initially welcomed by them with open arms.
According to the article the proposed Biomass Plant in Portsmouth is specifically to power up the new Aircraft carriers which, we understand, require an awful lot of juice to run on whilst in port.
It seems astonishing that it appears no one gave much thought to the port power requirements of these two big carriers before building commenced
btw discussions to provide an alternative site for the Soton Biomass plant (in Portsmouth) started last autumn
[quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: Fair play to former Southampton City Council leader, Richard Williams. His work behind the scenes with Portsmouth City leader, Gerald Vernon-Jackson, demonstrate that there is an alternative site for a biomass plant. This drives a coach and horses through the claim by Helius that Southampton docks was the only viable site in the Solent area. I'm surprised at the negative attitude being displayed by some of the City's conservative councillors. Maybe it's because - a bit like with the sulphur plant - the biomass scheme was introduced when they were in control of the council and was initially welcomed by them with open arms.[/p][/quote]According to the article the proposed Biomass Plant in Portsmouth is specifically to power up the new Aircraft carriers which, we understand, require an awful lot of juice to run on whilst in port. It seems astonishing that it appears no one gave much thought to the port power requirements of these two big carriers before building commenced btw discussions to provide an alternative site for the Soton Biomass plant (in Portsmouth) started last autumn phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

9:38am Fri 12 Jul 13

Linesman says...

phil maccavity wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Fair play to former Southampton City Council leader, Richard Williams. His work behind the scenes with Portsmouth City leader, Gerald Vernon-Jackson, demonstrate that there is an alternative site for a biomass plant. This drives a coach and horses through the claim by Helius that Southampton docks was the only viable site in the Solent area.

I'm surprised at the negative attitude being displayed by some of the City's conservative councillors. Maybe it's because - a bit like with the sulphur plant - the biomass scheme was introduced when they were in control of the council and was initially welcomed by them with open arms.
According to the article the proposed Biomass Plant in Portsmouth is specifically to power up the new Aircraft carriers which, we understand, require an awful lot of juice to run on whilst in port.
It seems astonishing that it appears no one gave much thought to the port power requirements of these two big carriers before building commenced
btw discussions to provide an alternative site for the Soton Biomass plant (in Portsmouth) started last autumn
This may come as a surprise, but sometimes the carriers will go to sea.

They will not be dragging a very long extension lead behind them, and the biomass plant will not 'damp down' on their departure, but will divert power to the National Grid.

With regard discussions regarding the provision of power for the carriers. It was considered before the building commenced, has been on-going since then. The method of how to provide the power, and location were the decisions up for discussion.

In Portsmouth, it would appear that the LibDems on the council were being very secretive about the situation, and the biomass possibility has only just come to light. I guess that it will provide some interesting, friendly discussions in council.
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: Fair play to former Southampton City Council leader, Richard Williams. His work behind the scenes with Portsmouth City leader, Gerald Vernon-Jackson, demonstrate that there is an alternative site for a biomass plant. This drives a coach and horses through the claim by Helius that Southampton docks was the only viable site in the Solent area. I'm surprised at the negative attitude being displayed by some of the City's conservative councillors. Maybe it's because - a bit like with the sulphur plant - the biomass scheme was introduced when they were in control of the council and was initially welcomed by them with open arms.[/p][/quote]According to the article the proposed Biomass Plant in Portsmouth is specifically to power up the new Aircraft carriers which, we understand, require an awful lot of juice to run on whilst in port. It seems astonishing that it appears no one gave much thought to the port power requirements of these two big carriers before building commenced btw discussions to provide an alternative site for the Soton Biomass plant (in Portsmouth) started last autumn[/p][/quote]This may come as a surprise, but sometimes the carriers will go to sea. They will not be dragging a very long extension lead behind them, and the biomass plant will not 'damp down' on their departure, but will divert power to the National Grid. With regard discussions regarding the provision of power for the carriers. It was considered before the building commenced, has been on-going since then. The method of how to provide the power, and location were the decisions up for discussion. In Portsmouth, it would appear that the LibDems on the council were being very secretive about the situation, and the biomass possibility has only just come to light. I guess that it will provide some interesting, friendly discussions in council. Linesman
  • Score: 0

10:03am Fri 12 Jul 13

loosehead says...

Quick all throw your hands in the air & cheer!
So our council has talked Pompey council into taking jobs & income to the port from Southampton & that's something to cheer about?
Quick container & Cruise ships cause pollution would you like that trade as well?
I can't see how anyone can be happy with jobs being lost?
Portsmouth councils have always seen the bigger picture compared to our Labour councils & are you now going to tell me our Bio Mass & the jobs it will create is still going to happen?
Quick all throw your hands in the air & cheer! So our council has talked Pompey council into taking jobs & income to the port from Southampton & that's something to cheer about? Quick container & Cruise ships cause pollution would you like that trade as well? I can't see how anyone can be happy with jobs being lost? Portsmouth councils have always seen the bigger picture compared to our Labour councils & are you now going to tell me our Bio Mass & the jobs it will create is still going to happen? loosehead
  • Score: 0

11:44am Fri 12 Jul 13

Lone Ranger. says...

loosehead wrote:
Quick all throw your hands in the air & cheer!
So our council has talked Pompey council into taking jobs & income to the port from Southampton & that's something to cheer about?
Quick container & Cruise ships cause pollution would you like that trade as well?
I can't see how anyone can be happy with jobs being lost?
Portsmouth councils have always seen the bigger picture compared to our Labour councils & are you now going to tell me our Bio Mass & the jobs it will create is still going to happen?
I suggest you try reading the article again ....... Your rant is totally inaccurate ...... as usual
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Quick all throw your hands in the air & cheer! So our council has talked Pompey council into taking jobs & income to the port from Southampton & that's something to cheer about? Quick container & Cruise ships cause pollution would you like that trade as well? I can't see how anyone can be happy with jobs being lost? Portsmouth councils have always seen the bigger picture compared to our Labour councils & are you now going to tell me our Bio Mass & the jobs it will create is still going to happen?[/p][/quote]I suggest you try reading the article again ....... Your rant is totally inaccurate ...... as usual Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

1:52pm Fri 12 Jul 13

phil maccavity says...

Linesman wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
FoysCornerBoy wrote:
Fair play to former Southampton City Council leader, Richard Williams. His work behind the scenes with Portsmouth City leader, Gerald Vernon-Jackson, demonstrate that there is an alternative site for a biomass plant. This drives a coach and horses through the claim by Helius that Southampton docks was the only viable site in the Solent area.

I'm surprised at the negative attitude being displayed by some of the City's conservative councillors. Maybe it's because - a bit like with the sulphur plant - the biomass scheme was introduced when they were in control of the council and was initially welcomed by them with open arms.
According to the article the proposed Biomass Plant in Portsmouth is specifically to power up the new Aircraft carriers which, we understand, require an awful lot of juice to run on whilst in port.
It seems astonishing that it appears no one gave much thought to the port power requirements of these two big carriers before building commenced
btw discussions to provide an alternative site for the Soton Biomass plant (in Portsmouth) started last autumn
This may come as a surprise, but sometimes the carriers will go to sea.

They will not be dragging a very long extension lead behind them, and the biomass plant will not 'damp down' on their departure, but will divert power to the National Grid.

With regard discussions regarding the provision of power for the carriers. It was considered before the building commenced, has been on-going since then. The method of how to provide the power, and location were the decisions up for discussion.

In Portsmouth, it would appear that the LibDems on the council were being very secretive about the situation, and the biomass possibility has only just come to light. I guess that it will provide some interesting, friendly discussions in council.
I guess you know more about this than I.
It is accepted that when any vessel is at sea they will have to generate their own power.
However whilst talking recently to someone who is involved in the construction of these ships, I understood that when the carriers are in port they will not be able to generate their own power due to emission restrictions.
They would have to 'cold iron' (is that the right phrase?) ie take power from the nearest power source eg thro the National Grid.
At certain times (presumably when getting ready to sail) the power demands would be equivalent of up to 60% of the current (sic) power available in Portsmouth so urgent consideration has to be given to providing a dedicated power station close to the ship.
With hindsight, bearing all this in mind, I should have asked how the Navy will deal with the problem in foreign ports
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FoysCornerBoy[/bold] wrote: Fair play to former Southampton City Council leader, Richard Williams. His work behind the scenes with Portsmouth City leader, Gerald Vernon-Jackson, demonstrate that there is an alternative site for a biomass plant. This drives a coach and horses through the claim by Helius that Southampton docks was the only viable site in the Solent area. I'm surprised at the negative attitude being displayed by some of the City's conservative councillors. Maybe it's because - a bit like with the sulphur plant - the biomass scheme was introduced when they were in control of the council and was initially welcomed by them with open arms.[/p][/quote]According to the article the proposed Biomass Plant in Portsmouth is specifically to power up the new Aircraft carriers which, we understand, require an awful lot of juice to run on whilst in port. It seems astonishing that it appears no one gave much thought to the port power requirements of these two big carriers before building commenced btw discussions to provide an alternative site for the Soton Biomass plant (in Portsmouth) started last autumn[/p][/quote]This may come as a surprise, but sometimes the carriers will go to sea. They will not be dragging a very long extension lead behind them, and the biomass plant will not 'damp down' on their departure, but will divert power to the National Grid. With regard discussions regarding the provision of power for the carriers. It was considered before the building commenced, has been on-going since then. The method of how to provide the power, and location were the decisions up for discussion. In Portsmouth, it would appear that the LibDems on the council were being very secretive about the situation, and the biomass possibility has only just come to light. I guess that it will provide some interesting, friendly discussions in council.[/p][/quote]I guess you know more about this than I. It is accepted that when any vessel is at sea they will have to generate their own power. However whilst talking recently to someone who is involved in the construction of these ships, I understood that when the carriers are in port they will not be able to generate their own power due to emission restrictions. They would have to 'cold iron' (is that the right phrase?) ie take power from the nearest power source eg thro the National Grid. At certain times (presumably when getting ready to sail) the power demands would be equivalent of up to 60% of the current (sic) power available in Portsmouth so urgent consideration has to be given to providing a dedicated power station close to the ship. With hindsight, bearing all this in mind, I should have asked how the Navy will deal with the problem in foreign ports phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

2:33pm Fri 12 Jul 13

Dan Soton says...

From day one.. Its all about company with bankrupt ideas pumping its Shares.



Helius will Say/Do anything to prompt its Shares.. nothing eco friendly (absolutely/proved) about Helius's land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans.




TAKEN FROM ECHO ARCHIVE, REPLY TO ANDY LOCKS HEATH 15TH MAY 2012



Andy Locks Heath said.. The (Helius) location in a port is ideal for initial import of fuel stock and road and rail links for future domestic supplies.



I said... Helius would say we have to fully utilize this location before a competitor puts a toe in, we'll push for a 300% expansion and LOOKING FORWARD WE'LL TARGET POMPEY DOCKS.


-

ECHO ARCHIVE


http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/news/9706278.
New_biomass_plans_a_
_greenwash_/
From day one.. Its all about company with bankrupt ideas pumping its Shares. Helius will Say/Do anything to prompt its Shares.. nothing eco friendly (absolutely/proved) about Helius's land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans. TAKEN FROM ECHO ARCHIVE, REPLY TO ANDY LOCKS HEATH 15TH MAY 2012 Andy Locks Heath said.. The (Helius) location in a port is ideal for initial import of fuel stock and road and rail links for future domestic supplies. I said... Helius would say we have to fully utilize this location before a competitor puts a toe in, we'll push for a 300% expansion and LOOKING FORWARD WE'LL TARGET POMPEY DOCKS. - ECHO ARCHIVE http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/news/9706278. New_biomass_plans_a_ _greenwash_/ Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

2:37pm Fri 12 Jul 13

Dan Soton says...

From day one.. Its all about a company with bankrupt ideas pumping its Shares.



Helius will Say/Do anything to prompt its Shares.. nothing eco friendly (absolutely/proved) about Helius's land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans.




TAKEN FROM ECHO ARCHIVE, REPLY TO ANDY LOCKS HEATH 15TH MAY 2012



Andy Locks Heath said.. The (Helius) location in a port is ideal for initial import of fuel stock and road and rail links for future domestic supplies.



I said... Helius would say we have to fully utilize this location before a competitor puts a toe in, we'll push for a 300% expansion and LOOKING FORWARD WE'LL TARGET POMPEY DOCKS.


-

ECHO ARCHIVE


http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/news/9706278.
New_biomass_plans_a_
_greenwash_/
From day one.. Its all about a company with bankrupt ideas pumping its Shares. Helius will Say/Do anything to prompt its Shares.. nothing eco friendly (absolutely/proved) about Helius's land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans. TAKEN FROM ECHO ARCHIVE, REPLY TO ANDY LOCKS HEATH 15TH MAY 2012 Andy Locks Heath said.. The (Helius) location in a port is ideal for initial import of fuel stock and road and rail links for future domestic supplies. I said... Helius would say we have to fully utilize this location before a competitor puts a toe in, we'll push for a 300% expansion and LOOKING FORWARD WE'LL TARGET POMPEY DOCKS. - ECHO ARCHIVE http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/news/9706278. New_biomass_plans_a_ _greenwash_/ Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

4:12pm Fri 12 Jul 13

loosehead says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Quick all throw your hands in the air & cheer!
So our council has talked Pompey council into taking jobs & income to the port from Southampton & that's something to cheer about?
Quick container & Cruise ships cause pollution would you like that trade as well?
I can't see how anyone can be happy with jobs being lost?
Portsmouth councils have always seen the bigger picture compared to our Labour councils & are you now going to tell me our Bio Mass & the jobs it will create is still going to happen?
I suggest you try reading the article again ....... Your rant is totally inaccurate ...... as usual
Actually I did & I read people making out to have suggested other sites for the Bio Mass generator & those same people were in talks with Pompey council but I've listened to the local news since I wrote my post & the Echo seems to be wrong & so do most of the people interviewed.
The TV local news stated that the Navy had approached Helius not the local council but the ruling party was in favour of more jobs & more income into the City.
I also heard the local Tory councillors were opposed to it!
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Quick all throw your hands in the air & cheer! So our council has talked Pompey council into taking jobs & income to the port from Southampton & that's something to cheer about? Quick container & Cruise ships cause pollution would you like that trade as well? I can't see how anyone can be happy with jobs being lost? Portsmouth councils have always seen the bigger picture compared to our Labour councils & are you now going to tell me our Bio Mass & the jobs it will create is still going to happen?[/p][/quote]I suggest you try reading the article again ....... Your rant is totally inaccurate ...... as usual[/p][/quote]Actually I did & I read people making out to have suggested other sites for the Bio Mass generator & those same people were in talks with Pompey council but I've listened to the local news since I wrote my post & the Echo seems to be wrong & so do most of the people interviewed. The TV local news stated that the Navy had approached Helius not the local council but the ruling party was in favour of more jobs & more income into the City. I also heard the local Tory councillors were opposed to it! loosehead
  • Score: 0

5:34pm Fri 12 Jul 13

skin2000 says...

loosehead wrote:
Quick all throw your hands in the air & cheer!
So our council has talked Pompey council into taking jobs & income to the port from Southampton & that's something to cheer about?
Quick container & Cruise ships cause pollution would you like that trade as well?
I can't see how anyone can be happy with jobs being lost?
Portsmouth councils have always seen the bigger picture compared to our Labour councils & are you now going to tell me our Bio Mass & the jobs it will create is still going to happen?
Loose, it's a bit too soon to throw up our arms to cheer, the article states that there might be two Biomass Plants instead of the original one. Sounds twice as bad to me.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Quick all throw your hands in the air & cheer! So our council has talked Pompey council into taking jobs & income to the port from Southampton & that's something to cheer about? Quick container & Cruise ships cause pollution would you like that trade as well? I can't see how anyone can be happy with jobs being lost? Portsmouth councils have always seen the bigger picture compared to our Labour councils & are you now going to tell me our Bio Mass & the jobs it will create is still going to happen?[/p][/quote]Loose, it's a bit too soon to throw up our arms to cheer, the article states that there might be two Biomass Plants instead of the original one. Sounds twice as bad to me. skin2000
  • Score: 0

6:45pm Fri 12 Jul 13

MisterGrimsdale says...

There's nothing wrong with a biomass plant - we need to be able to produce electricity on cold winter nights or old people and poor people are going to die. Where is the power going to come from? All these idiots like Dan getting hysterical about burning a bit of waste wood to produce something useful, I bet he drives his car round without thinking about what comes out of the back - Then he goes home to his gas fired central heating (but the boiler's white so it must be clean energy!) -and I bet there are some "greens" on here who have even got woodburners in their living rooms - and they get paranoid about a wood burning power station for Gods sake.
There's nothing wrong with a biomass plant - we need to be able to produce electricity on cold winter nights or old people and poor people are going to die. Where is the power going to come from? All these idiots like Dan getting hysterical about burning a bit of waste wood to produce something useful, I bet he drives his car round without thinking about what comes out of the back - Then he goes home to his gas fired central heating (but the boiler's white so it must be clean energy!) -and I bet there are some "greens" on here who have even got woodburners in their living rooms - and they get paranoid about a wood burning power station for Gods sake. MisterGrimsdale
  • Score: 0

9:12pm Fri 12 Jul 13

Lone Ranger. says...

loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Quick all throw your hands in the air & cheer!
So our council has talked Pompey council into taking jobs & income to the port from Southampton & that's something to cheer about?
Quick container & Cruise ships cause pollution would you like that trade as well?
I can't see how anyone can be happy with jobs being lost?
Portsmouth councils have always seen the bigger picture compared to our Labour councils & are you now going to tell me our Bio Mass & the jobs it will create is still going to happen?
I suggest you try reading the article again ....... Your rant is totally inaccurate ...... as usual
Actually I did & I read people making out to have suggested other sites for the Bio Mass generator & those same people were in talks with Pompey council but I've listened to the local news since I wrote my post & the Echo seems to be wrong & so do most of the people interviewed.
The TV local news stated that the Navy had approached Helius not the local council but the ruling party was in favour of more jobs & more income into the City.
I also heard the local Tory councillors were opposed to it!
I understand that the Tories didnt like it because they were not told about it by V Jackson
.
Ring any bells
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Quick all throw your hands in the air & cheer! So our council has talked Pompey council into taking jobs & income to the port from Southampton & that's something to cheer about? Quick container & Cruise ships cause pollution would you like that trade as well? I can't see how anyone can be happy with jobs being lost? Portsmouth councils have always seen the bigger picture compared to our Labour councils & are you now going to tell me our Bio Mass & the jobs it will create is still going to happen?[/p][/quote]I suggest you try reading the article again ....... Your rant is totally inaccurate ...... as usual[/p][/quote]Actually I did & I read people making out to have suggested other sites for the Bio Mass generator & those same people were in talks with Pompey council but I've listened to the local news since I wrote my post & the Echo seems to be wrong & so do most of the people interviewed. The TV local news stated that the Navy had approached Helius not the local council but the ruling party was in favour of more jobs & more income into the City. I also heard the local Tory councillors were opposed to it![/p][/quote]I understand that the Tories didnt like it because they were not told about it by V Jackson . Ring any bells Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

11:52am Sat 13 Jul 13

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
From day one.. Its all about a company with bankrupt ideas pumping its Shares.



Helius will Say/Do anything to prompt its Shares.. nothing eco friendly (absolutely/proved) about Helius's land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans.




TAKEN FROM ECHO ARCHIVE, REPLY TO ANDY LOCKS HEATH 15TH MAY 2012



Andy Locks Heath said.. The (Helius) location in a port is ideal for initial import of fuel stock and road and rail links for future domestic supplies.



I said... Helius would say we have to fully utilize this location before a competitor puts a toe in, we'll push for a 300% expansion and LOOKING FORWARD WE'LL TARGET POMPEY DOCKS.


-

ECHO ARCHIVE


http://www.dailyecho

.co.uk/news/9706278.

New_biomass_plans_a_

_greenwash_/
Portsmouth/Southampt
on Biomass schemes could cost Taxpayers £600m plus subsidies for operating costs.



If it all works out for Helius...we're giving millions ££££ to Helius to borrow £600m from are bankrupt Banks... knowing all the time the Government may cut the subsidies or stop them altogether.




RWE NPOWER CLOSES TILBURY BIOMASS POWER STATION

The blow to the UK's renewables industry was welcome news to some green campaigners who argue biomass is unsustainable

Fiona Harvey and Natalie Starkey

The Guardian, Friday 5 July 2013 13.11 BST

RWE npower is halting operations at its Tilbury biomass power station, with the likely loss of 220 jobs, in a blow to Britain's renewable power industry.
But some green campaigners welcomed the closure, which will take effect from the end of October, as they argue biomass use on a large scale is environmentally unsustainable.
The German electricity generator blamed a lack of investment capacity and the difficulty in converting the plant – the world's biggest biomass power station, with a planned capacity of 750MW – to use wood, waste oil and other organic materials in place of coal.

BIOMASS INVESTORS HAVE ALSO BEEN RATTLED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S PLANNED CHANGES IN SUBSIDIES FOR BIOMASS AND OTHER RENEWABLE FORMS OF ENERGY. DRAX, BRITAIN'S BIGGEST COAL-FIRED POWER STATION, LAST YEAR SHELVED PLANS FOR TWO NEW BIOMASS POWER STATIONS.

The closure has reopened debate over the future of biomass power generation in Britain.

The government supports biomass, as a low-carbon form of power generation compared with fossil fuels – the trees and plants used as fuel take up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow, so if they are regrown under environmentally sound conditions, burning them results in a net carbon saving as it displaces coal and gas.

However, that is not the whole story, according to many green campaigners. They point to problems with sourcing sufficient quantities of biomass, much of which has to be imported, and say that without strict regulations, growing trees and crops for biomass can lead to deforestation in developing countries. There are also concerns about the effects of the soot that comes from burning the organic fuel.


http://www.guardian.
co.uk/environment/20
13/jul/05/rwe-npower
-tilbury-biomass-pow
er-station




YOU'RE OK WITH THAT MISTERGRIMSDALE ?
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: From day one.. Its all about a company with bankrupt ideas pumping its Shares. Helius will Say/Do anything to prompt its Shares.. nothing eco friendly (absolutely/proved) about Helius's land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans. TAKEN FROM ECHO ARCHIVE, REPLY TO ANDY LOCKS HEATH 15TH MAY 2012 Andy Locks Heath said.. The (Helius) location in a port is ideal for initial import of fuel stock and road and rail links for future domestic supplies. I said... Helius would say we have to fully utilize this location before a competitor puts a toe in, we'll push for a 300% expansion and LOOKING FORWARD WE'LL TARGET POMPEY DOCKS. - ECHO ARCHIVE http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/news/9706278. New_biomass_plans_a_ _greenwash_/[/p][/quote]Portsmouth/Southampt on Biomass schemes could cost Taxpayers £600m plus subsidies for operating costs. If it all works out for Helius...we're giving millions ££££ to Helius to borrow £600m from are bankrupt Banks... knowing all the time the Government may cut the subsidies or stop them altogether. RWE NPOWER CLOSES TILBURY BIOMASS POWER STATION The blow to the UK's renewables industry was welcome news to some green campaigners who argue biomass is unsustainable Fiona Harvey and Natalie Starkey The Guardian, Friday 5 July 2013 13.11 BST RWE npower is halting operations at its Tilbury biomass power station, with the likely loss of 220 jobs, in a blow to Britain's renewable power industry. But some green campaigners welcomed the closure, which will take effect from the end of October, as they argue biomass use on a large scale is environmentally unsustainable. The German electricity generator blamed a lack of investment capacity and the difficulty in converting the plant – the world's biggest biomass power station, with a planned capacity of 750MW – to use wood, waste oil and other organic materials in place of coal. BIOMASS INVESTORS HAVE ALSO BEEN RATTLED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S PLANNED CHANGES IN SUBSIDIES FOR BIOMASS AND OTHER RENEWABLE FORMS OF ENERGY. DRAX, BRITAIN'S BIGGEST COAL-FIRED POWER STATION, LAST YEAR SHELVED PLANS FOR TWO NEW BIOMASS POWER STATIONS. The closure has reopened debate over the future of biomass power generation in Britain. The government supports biomass, as a low-carbon form of power generation compared with fossil fuels – the trees and plants used as fuel take up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow, so if they are regrown under environmentally sound conditions, burning them results in a net carbon saving as it displaces coal and gas. However, that is not the whole story, according to many green campaigners. They point to problems with sourcing sufficient quantities of biomass, much of which has to be imported, and say that without strict regulations, growing trees and crops for biomass can lead to deforestation in developing countries. There are also concerns about the effects of the soot that comes from burning the organic fuel. http://www.guardian. co.uk/environment/20 13/jul/05/rwe-npower -tilbury-biomass-pow er-station YOU'RE OK WITH THAT MISTERGRIMSDALE ? Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

12:14pm Sat 13 Jul 13

skin2000 says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
From day one.. Its all about a company with bankrupt ideas pumping its Shares.



Helius will Say/Do anything to prompt its Shares.. nothing eco friendly (absolutely/proved) about Helius's land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans.




TAKEN FROM ECHO ARCHIVE, REPLY TO ANDY LOCKS HEATH 15TH MAY 2012



Andy Locks Heath said.. The (Helius) location in a port is ideal for initial import of fuel stock and road and rail links for future domestic supplies.



I said... Helius would say we have to fully utilize this location before a competitor puts a toe in, we'll push for a 300% expansion and LOOKING FORWARD WE'LL TARGET POMPEY DOCKS.


-

ECHO ARCHIVE


http://www.dailyecho


.co.uk/news/9706278.


New_biomass_plans_a_


_greenwash_/Portsmouth/Southampt

on Biomass schemes could cost Taxpayers £600m plus subsidies for operating costs.



If it all works out for Helius...we're giving millions ££££ to Helius to borrow £600m from are bankrupt Banks... knowing all the time the Government may cut the subsidies or stop them altogether.




RWE NPOWER CLOSES TILBURY BIOMASS POWER STATION

The blow to the UK's renewables industry was welcome news to some green campaigners who argue biomass is unsustainable

Fiona Harvey and Natalie Starkey

The Guardian, Friday 5 JulyDan this could be good news for those of us opposing the Freemantle plant, I think Helius might be having trouble raising funds from the banks for building this site. The closure of Tilbury will make this only harder.
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: From day one.. Its all about a company with bankrupt ideas pumping its Shares. Helius will Say/Do anything to prompt its Shares.. nothing eco friendly (absolutely/proved) about Helius's land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans. TAKEN FROM ECHO ARCHIVE, REPLY TO ANDY LOCKS HEATH 15TH MAY 2012 Andy Locks Heath said.. The (Helius) location in a port is ideal for initial import of fuel stock and road and rail links for future domestic supplies. I said... Helius would say we have to fully utilize this location before a competitor puts a toe in, we'll push for a 300% expansion and LOOKING FORWARD WE'LL TARGET POMPEY DOCKS. - ECHO ARCHIVE http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/news/9706278. New_biomass_plans_a_ _greenwash_/[/p][/quote]Portsmouth/Southampt on Biomass schemes could cost Taxpayers £600m plus subsidies for operating costs. If it all works out for Helius...we're giving millions ££££ to Helius to borrow £600m from are bankrupt Banks... knowing all the time the Government may cut the subsidies or stop them altogether. RWE NPOWER CLOSES TILBURY BIOMASS POWER STATION The blow to the UK's renewables industry was welcome news to some green campaigners who argue biomass is unsustainable Fiona Harvey and Natalie Starkey The Guardian, Friday 5 JulyDan this could be good news for those of us opposing the Freemantle plant, I think Helius might be having trouble raising funds from the banks for building this site. The closure of Tilbury will make this only harder. skin2000
  • Score: 0

1:38pm Sat 13 Jul 13

loosehead says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Quick all throw your hands in the air & cheer!
So our council has talked Pompey council into taking jobs & income to the port from Southampton & that's something to cheer about?
Quick container & Cruise ships cause pollution would you like that trade as well?
I can't see how anyone can be happy with jobs being lost?
Portsmouth councils have always seen the bigger picture compared to our Labour councils & are you now going to tell me our Bio Mass & the jobs it will create is still going to happen?
I suggest you try reading the article again ....... Your rant is totally inaccurate ...... as usual
Actually I did & I read people making out to have suggested other sites for the Bio Mass generator & those same people were in talks with Pompey council but I've listened to the local news since I wrote my post & the Echo seems to be wrong & so do most of the people interviewed.
The TV local news stated that the Navy had approached Helius not the local council but the ruling party was in favour of more jobs & more income into the City.
I also heard the local Tory councillors were opposed to it!
I understand that the Tories didnt like it because they were not told about it by V Jackson
.
Ring any bells
Lone if memory serves me well weren't they looking at alternative ports to moor these aircraft carriers as Portsmouth was to shallow & they couldn't dredge the channel deeper or wider?
[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: Quick all throw your hands in the air & cheer! So our council has talked Pompey council into taking jobs & income to the port from Southampton & that's something to cheer about? Quick container & Cruise ships cause pollution would you like that trade as well? I can't see how anyone can be happy with jobs being lost? Portsmouth councils have always seen the bigger picture compared to our Labour councils & are you now going to tell me our Bio Mass & the jobs it will create is still going to happen?[/p][/quote]I suggest you try reading the article again ....... Your rant is totally inaccurate ...... as usual[/p][/quote]Actually I did & I read people making out to have suggested other sites for the Bio Mass generator & those same people were in talks with Pompey council but I've listened to the local news since I wrote my post & the Echo seems to be wrong & so do most of the people interviewed. The TV local news stated that the Navy had approached Helius not the local council but the ruling party was in favour of more jobs & more income into the City. I also heard the local Tory councillors were opposed to it![/p][/quote]I understand that the Tories didnt like it because they were not told about it by V Jackson . Ring any bells[/p][/quote]Lone if memory serves me well weren't they looking at alternative ports to moor these aircraft carriers as Portsmouth was to shallow & they couldn't dredge the channel deeper or wider? loosehead
  • Score: 0

10:53pm Sat 13 Jul 13

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
From day one.. Its all about a company with bankrupt ideas pumping its Shares.



Helius will Say/Do anything to prompt its Shares.. nothing eco friendly (absolutely/proved) about Helius's land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans.




TAKEN FROM ECHO ARCHIVE, REPLY TO ANDY LOCKS HEATH 15TH MAY 2012



Andy Locks Heath said.. The (Helius) location in a port is ideal for initial import of fuel stock and road and rail links for future domestic supplies.



I said... Helius would say we have to fully utilize this location before a competitor puts a toe in, we'll push for a 300% expansion and LOOKING FORWARD WE'LL TARGET POMPEY DOCKS.


-

ECHO ARCHIVE


http://www.dailyecho


.co.uk/news/9706278.


New_biomass_plans_a_


_greenwash_/
Portsmouth/Southampt

on Biomass schemes could cost Taxpayers £600m plus subsidies for operating costs.



If it all works out for Helius...we're giving millions ££££ to Helius to borrow £600m from are bankrupt Banks... knowing all the time the Government may cut the subsidies or stop them altogether.




RWE NPOWER CLOSES TILBURY BIOMASS POWER STATION

The blow to the UK's renewables industry was welcome news to some green campaigners who argue biomass is unsustainable

Fiona Harvey and Natalie Starkey

The Guardian, Friday 5 July 2013 13.11 BST

RWE npower is halting operations at its Tilbury biomass power station, with the likely loss of 220 jobs, in a blow to Britain's renewable power industry.
But some green campaigners welcomed the closure, which will take effect from the end of October, as they argue biomass use on a large scale is environmentally unsustainable.
The German electricity generator blamed a lack of investment capacity and the difficulty in converting the plant – the world's biggest biomass power station, with a planned capacity of 750MW – to use wood, waste oil and other organic materials in place of coal.

BIOMASS INVESTORS HAVE ALSO BEEN RATTLED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S PLANNED CHANGES IN SUBSIDIES FOR BIOMASS AND OTHER RENEWABLE FORMS OF ENERGY. DRAX, BRITAIN'S BIGGEST COAL-FIRED POWER STATION, LAST YEAR SHELVED PLANS FOR TWO NEW BIOMASS POWER STATIONS.

The closure has reopened debate over the future of biomass power generation in Britain.

The government supports biomass, as a low-carbon form of power generation compared with fossil fuels – the trees and plants used as fuel take up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow, so if they are regrown under environmentally sound conditions, burning them results in a net carbon saving as it displaces coal and gas.

However, that is not the whole story, according to many green campaigners. They point to problems with sourcing sufficient quantities of biomass, much of which has to be imported, and say that without strict regulations, growing trees and crops for biomass can lead to deforestation in developing countries. There are also concerns about the effects of the soot that comes from burning the organic fuel.


http://www.guardian.

co.uk/environment/20

13/jul/05/rwe-npower

-tilbury-biomass-pow

er-station




YOU'RE OK WITH THAT MISTERGRIMSDALE ?
Helius Director Alastair Salvesen has a fortune of £1.3 billion, up £460 million from last year



Alastair Salvesen is also a major shareholder owning 25% of Helius..


Alastair Salvesen wants anyone who turns a light on in Southampton to subsidise his land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans.



YOU'RE OK WITH THAT MISTERGRIMSDALE ?
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: From day one.. Its all about a company with bankrupt ideas pumping its Shares. Helius will Say/Do anything to prompt its Shares.. nothing eco friendly (absolutely/proved) about Helius's land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans. TAKEN FROM ECHO ARCHIVE, REPLY TO ANDY LOCKS HEATH 15TH MAY 2012 Andy Locks Heath said.. The (Helius) location in a port is ideal for initial import of fuel stock and road and rail links for future domestic supplies. I said... Helius would say we have to fully utilize this location before a competitor puts a toe in, we'll push for a 300% expansion and LOOKING FORWARD WE'LL TARGET POMPEY DOCKS. - ECHO ARCHIVE http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/news/9706278. New_biomass_plans_a_ _greenwash_/[/p][/quote]Portsmouth/Southampt on Biomass schemes could cost Taxpayers £600m plus subsidies for operating costs. If it all works out for Helius...we're giving millions ££££ to Helius to borrow £600m from are bankrupt Banks... knowing all the time the Government may cut the subsidies or stop them altogether. RWE NPOWER CLOSES TILBURY BIOMASS POWER STATION The blow to the UK's renewables industry was welcome news to some green campaigners who argue biomass is unsustainable Fiona Harvey and Natalie Starkey The Guardian, Friday 5 July 2013 13.11 BST RWE npower is halting operations at its Tilbury biomass power station, with the likely loss of 220 jobs, in a blow to Britain's renewable power industry. But some green campaigners welcomed the closure, which will take effect from the end of October, as they argue biomass use on a large scale is environmentally unsustainable. The German electricity generator blamed a lack of investment capacity and the difficulty in converting the plant – the world's biggest biomass power station, with a planned capacity of 750MW – to use wood, waste oil and other organic materials in place of coal. BIOMASS INVESTORS HAVE ALSO BEEN RATTLED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S PLANNED CHANGES IN SUBSIDIES FOR BIOMASS AND OTHER RENEWABLE FORMS OF ENERGY. DRAX, BRITAIN'S BIGGEST COAL-FIRED POWER STATION, LAST YEAR SHELVED PLANS FOR TWO NEW BIOMASS POWER STATIONS. The closure has reopened debate over the future of biomass power generation in Britain. The government supports biomass, as a low-carbon form of power generation compared with fossil fuels – the trees and plants used as fuel take up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow, so if they are regrown under environmentally sound conditions, burning them results in a net carbon saving as it displaces coal and gas. However, that is not the whole story, according to many green campaigners. They point to problems with sourcing sufficient quantities of biomass, much of which has to be imported, and say that without strict regulations, growing trees and crops for biomass can lead to deforestation in developing countries. There are also concerns about the effects of the soot that comes from burning the organic fuel. http://www.guardian. co.uk/environment/20 13/jul/05/rwe-npower -tilbury-biomass-pow er-station YOU'RE OK WITH THAT MISTERGRIMSDALE ?[/p][/quote]Helius Director Alastair Salvesen has a fortune of £1.3 billion, up £460 million from last year Alastair Salvesen is also a major shareholder owning 25% of Helius.. Alastair Salvesen wants anyone who turns a light on in Southampton to subsidise his land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans. YOU'RE OK WITH THAT MISTERGRIMSDALE ? Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

11:46pm Sat 13 Jul 13

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
From day one.. Its all about a company with bankrupt ideas pumping its Shares.



Helius will Say/Do anything to prompt its Shares.. nothing eco friendly (absolutely/proved) about Helius's land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans.




TAKEN FROM ECHO ARCHIVE, REPLY TO ANDY LOCKS HEATH 15TH MAY 2012



Andy Locks Heath said.. The (Helius) location in a port is ideal for initial import of fuel stock and road and rail links for future domestic supplies.



I said... Helius would say we have to fully utilize this location before a competitor puts a toe in, we'll push for a 300% expansion and LOOKING FORWARD WE'LL TARGET POMPEY DOCKS.


-

ECHO ARCHIVE


http://www.dailyecho



.co.uk/news/9706278.



New_biomass_plans_a_



_greenwash_/
Portsmouth/Southampt


on Biomass schemes could cost Taxpayers £600m plus subsidies for operating costs.



If it all works out for Helius...we're giving millions ££££ to Helius to borrow £600m from are bankrupt Banks... knowing all the time the Government may cut the subsidies or stop them altogether.




RWE NPOWER CLOSES TILBURY BIOMASS POWER STATION

The blow to the UK's renewables industry was welcome news to some green campaigners who argue biomass is unsustainable

Fiona Harvey and Natalie Starkey

The Guardian, Friday 5 July 2013 13.11 BST

RWE npower is halting operations at its Tilbury biomass power station, with the likely loss of 220 jobs, in a blow to Britain's renewable power industry.
But some green campaigners welcomed the closure, which will take effect from the end of October, as they argue biomass use on a large scale is environmentally unsustainable.
The German electricity generator blamed a lack of investment capacity and the difficulty in converting the plant – the world's biggest biomass power station, with a planned capacity of 750MW – to use wood, waste oil and other organic materials in place of coal.

BIOMASS INVESTORS HAVE ALSO BEEN RATTLED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S PLANNED CHANGES IN SUBSIDIES FOR BIOMASS AND OTHER RENEWABLE FORMS OF ENERGY. DRAX, BRITAIN'S BIGGEST COAL-FIRED POWER STATION, LAST YEAR SHELVED PLANS FOR TWO NEW BIOMASS POWER STATIONS.

The closure has reopened debate over the future of biomass power generation in Britain.

The government supports biomass, as a low-carbon form of power generation compared with fossil fuels – the trees and plants used as fuel take up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow, so if they are regrown under environmentally sound conditions, burning them results in a net carbon saving as it displaces coal and gas.

However, that is not the whole story, according to many green campaigners. They point to problems with sourcing sufficient quantities of biomass, much of which has to be imported, and say that without strict regulations, growing trees and crops for biomass can lead to deforestation in developing countries. There are also concerns about the effects of the soot that comes from burning the organic fuel.


http://www.guardian.


co.uk/environment/20


13/jul/05/rwe-npower


-tilbury-biomass-pow


er-station




YOU'RE OK WITH THAT MISTERGRIMSDALE ?
Helius Director Alastair Salvesen has a fortune of £1.3 billion, up £460 million from last year



Alastair Salvesen is also a major shareholder owning 25% of Helius..


Alastair Salvesen wants anyone who turns a light on in Southampton to subsidise his land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans.



YOU'RE OK WITH THAT MISTERGRIMSDALE ?
Skin2000 says.. I think Helius might be having trouble raising funds from the banks


Some of Helius's Directors and major shareholders are in the Super Rich Class..


I'm afraid subsidies have turned the Wood Biomass Industry into a honey pot for the Super Rich.. UK Banks will find it hard to turn Helius down..


Pulling the plug on subsidies will be the only thing that will stop Helius building three or four Wood/Grass incinerators in Southampton.




Ten years from now the headlines could read..


SOUTHAMPTON THE UKs LITTLE BEIJING..


ALL POLLUTION NONE OF THE WEALTH..
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: From day one.. Its all about a company with bankrupt ideas pumping its Shares. Helius will Say/Do anything to prompt its Shares.. nothing eco friendly (absolutely/proved) about Helius's land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans. TAKEN FROM ECHO ARCHIVE, REPLY TO ANDY LOCKS HEATH 15TH MAY 2012 Andy Locks Heath said.. The (Helius) location in a port is ideal for initial import of fuel stock and road and rail links for future domestic supplies. I said... Helius would say we have to fully utilize this location before a competitor puts a toe in, we'll push for a 300% expansion and LOOKING FORWARD WE'LL TARGET POMPEY DOCKS. - ECHO ARCHIVE http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/news/9706278. New_biomass_plans_a_ _greenwash_/[/p][/quote]Portsmouth/Southampt on Biomass schemes could cost Taxpayers £600m plus subsidies for operating costs. If it all works out for Helius...we're giving millions ££££ to Helius to borrow £600m from are bankrupt Banks... knowing all the time the Government may cut the subsidies or stop them altogether. RWE NPOWER CLOSES TILBURY BIOMASS POWER STATION The blow to the UK's renewables industry was welcome news to some green campaigners who argue biomass is unsustainable Fiona Harvey and Natalie Starkey The Guardian, Friday 5 July 2013 13.11 BST RWE npower is halting operations at its Tilbury biomass power station, with the likely loss of 220 jobs, in a blow to Britain's renewable power industry. But some green campaigners welcomed the closure, which will take effect from the end of October, as they argue biomass use on a large scale is environmentally unsustainable. The German electricity generator blamed a lack of investment capacity and the difficulty in converting the plant – the world's biggest biomass power station, with a planned capacity of 750MW – to use wood, waste oil and other organic materials in place of coal. BIOMASS INVESTORS HAVE ALSO BEEN RATTLED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S PLANNED CHANGES IN SUBSIDIES FOR BIOMASS AND OTHER RENEWABLE FORMS OF ENERGY. DRAX, BRITAIN'S BIGGEST COAL-FIRED POWER STATION, LAST YEAR SHELVED PLANS FOR TWO NEW BIOMASS POWER STATIONS. The closure has reopened debate over the future of biomass power generation in Britain. The government supports biomass, as a low-carbon form of power generation compared with fossil fuels – the trees and plants used as fuel take up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow, so if they are regrown under environmentally sound conditions, burning them results in a net carbon saving as it displaces coal and gas. However, that is not the whole story, according to many green campaigners. They point to problems with sourcing sufficient quantities of biomass, much of which has to be imported, and say that without strict regulations, growing trees and crops for biomass can lead to deforestation in developing countries. There are also concerns about the effects of the soot that comes from burning the organic fuel. http://www.guardian. co.uk/environment/20 13/jul/05/rwe-npower -tilbury-biomass-pow er-station YOU'RE OK WITH THAT MISTERGRIMSDALE ?[/p][/quote]Helius Director Alastair Salvesen has a fortune of £1.3 billion, up £460 million from last year Alastair Salvesen is also a major shareholder owning 25% of Helius.. Alastair Salvesen wants anyone who turns a light on in Southampton to subsidise his land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans. YOU'RE OK WITH THAT MISTERGRIMSDALE ?[/p][/quote]Skin2000 says.. I think Helius might be having trouble raising funds from the banks Some of Helius's Directors and major shareholders are in the Super Rich Class.. I'm afraid subsidies have turned the Wood Biomass Industry into a honey pot for the Super Rich.. UK Banks will find it hard to turn Helius down.. Pulling the plug on subsidies will be the only thing that will stop Helius building three or four Wood/Grass incinerators in Southampton. Ten years from now the headlines could read.. SOUTHAMPTON THE UKs LITTLE BEIJING.. ALL POLLUTION NONE OF THE WEALTH.. Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

7:19am Sun 14 Jul 13

loosehead says...

so lets destroy this debate?
so lets destroy this debate? loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:53am Sun 14 Jul 13

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
From day one.. Its all about a company with bankrupt ideas pumping its Shares.



Helius will Say/Do anything to prompt its Shares.. nothing eco friendly (absolutely/proved) about Helius's land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans.




TAKEN FROM ECHO ARCHIVE, REPLY TO ANDY LOCKS HEATH 15TH MAY 2012



Andy Locks Heath said.. The (Helius) location in a port is ideal for initial import of fuel stock and road and rail links for future domestic supplies.



I said... Helius would say we have to fully utilize this location before a competitor puts a toe in, we'll push for a 300% expansion and LOOKING FORWARD WE'LL TARGET POMPEY DOCKS.


-

ECHO ARCHIVE


http://www.dailyecho




.co.uk/news/9706278.




New_biomass_plans_a_




_greenwash_/
Portsmouth/Southampt



on Biomass schemes could cost Taxpayers £600m plus subsidies for operating costs.



If it all works out for Helius...we're giving millions ££££ to Helius to borrow £600m from are bankrupt Banks... knowing all the time the Government may cut the subsidies or stop them altogether.




RWE NPOWER CLOSES TILBURY BIOMASS POWER STATION

The blow to the UK's renewables industry was welcome news to some green campaigners who argue biomass is unsustainable

Fiona Harvey and Natalie Starkey

The Guardian, Friday 5 July 2013 13.11 BST

RWE npower is halting operations at its Tilbury biomass power station, with the likely loss of 220 jobs, in a blow to Britain's renewable power industry.
But some green campaigners welcomed the closure, which will take effect from the end of October, as they argue biomass use on a large scale is environmentally unsustainable.
The German electricity generator blamed a lack of investment capacity and the difficulty in converting the plant – the world's biggest biomass power station, with a planned capacity of 750MW – to use wood, waste oil and other organic materials in place of coal.

BIOMASS INVESTORS HAVE ALSO BEEN RATTLED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S PLANNED CHANGES IN SUBSIDIES FOR BIOMASS AND OTHER RENEWABLE FORMS OF ENERGY. DRAX, BRITAIN'S BIGGEST COAL-FIRED POWER STATION, LAST YEAR SHELVED PLANS FOR TWO NEW BIOMASS POWER STATIONS.

The closure has reopened debate over the future of biomass power generation in Britain.

The government supports biomass, as a low-carbon form of power generation compared with fossil fuels – the trees and plants used as fuel take up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow, so if they are regrown under environmentally sound conditions, burning them results in a net carbon saving as it displaces coal and gas.

However, that is not the whole story, according to many green campaigners. They point to problems with sourcing sufficient quantities of biomass, much of which has to be imported, and say that without strict regulations, growing trees and crops for biomass can lead to deforestation in developing countries. There are also concerns about the effects of the soot that comes from burning the organic fuel.


http://www.guardian.



co.uk/environment/20



13/jul/05/rwe-npower



-tilbury-biomass-pow



er-station




YOU'RE OK WITH THAT MISTERGRIMSDALE ?
Helius Director Alastair Salvesen has a fortune of £1.3 billion, up £460 million from last year



Alastair Salvesen is also a major shareholder owning 25% of Helius..


Alastair Salvesen wants anyone who turns a light on in Southampton to subsidise his land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans.



YOU'RE OK WITH THAT MISTERGRIMSDALE ?
Skin2000 says.. I think Helius might be having trouble raising funds from the banks


Some of Helius's Directors and major shareholders are in the Super Rich Class..


I'm afraid subsidies have turned the Wood Biomass Industry into a honey pot for the Super Rich.. UK Banks will find it hard to turn Helius down..


Pulling the plug on subsidies will be the only thing that will stop Helius building three or four Wood/Grass incinerators in Southampton.




Ten years from now the headlines could read..


SOUTHAMPTON THE UKs LITTLE BEIJING..


ALL POLLUTION NONE OF THE WEALTH..
US Federal Court Confirms..




Summary



The science is clear Wood Biomass burning accelerates global warming..

"Burning trees to generate electricity is dangerous polluting, contributing to a host of respiratory and cardiac problems and should to be limited to protect people and the environment

Biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that burn fossil fuels—even coal







FEDERAL COURT FOLLOWS SCIENCE IN STRIKING DOWN EPA'S BIOMASS EMISSIONS LOOPHOLE

WASHINGTON (July 12, 2013)

– A key federal court ruling today confirmed that Clean Air Act limits on carbon dioxide pollution apply to industrial facilities, including tree-burning power plants that burn biomass. The court vacated an exemption the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had carved out for "biogenic carbon dioxide."

The decision by a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 11-1101) found that EPA had improperly exempted all sources of biogenic CO2 from otherwise applicable permitting requirements.

"THE SCIENCE IS CLEAR THAT NOT ALL BIOMASS BURNING IS GOOD FOR THE PLANET AND TODAY'S RULING RIGHTLY AFFIRMS SCIENCE as the guide for how EPA must now move forward on biomass energy production," said Niel Lawrence, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "This decision will ultimately benefit the climate, as well as Americans who want to breathe easier and protect the forests that they love. It will also ensure that our investments in clean energy go to sources that are actually clean."

"Today's ruling upholds EPA's authority to regulate pollution that drives climate change. The Court's decision is grounded in an understanding that THE SCIENCE SHOWS THAT BIOMASS FUELS, INCLUDING TREE-BURNING, CAN MAKE CLIMATE DISRUPTION WORSE," said Ann Weeks, Legal Director of the Clean Air Task Force, who argued the case for Petitioners and appeared on behalf of the Conservation Law Foundation and the Natural Resource Council of Maine. "The Court clearly noted that the atmosphere can't tell the difference between fossil fuel carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide emitted by burning trees."

"BURNING TREES TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY IS DANGEROUS, POLLUTING AND OUGHT TO BE LIMITED TO PROTECT PEOPLE AND THE ENVIRONMENT," SAID KEVIN BUNDY, A SENIOR ATTORNEY WITH THE CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY'S CLIMATE LAW INSTITUTE. "THIS IMPORTANT DECISION WILL REDUCE RESPIRATORY AILMENTS, PROTECT FORESTS AND HELP ENSURE A HEALTHIER, MORE LIVABLE CLIMATE."

"The Court's decision is particularly important for the Southeast. Now we have an opportunity for a more sensible, science-based policy, one that avoids clear-cutting the region's wildlife-rich forests for energy while intensifying climate change impacts," said Frank Rambo, head of the Clean Energy and Air Program for the Southern Environmental Law Center, which is representing Dogwood Alliance, Georgia ForestWatch, South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, and Wild Virginia in the case.

Emissions from power plants and other industrial facilities that burn biomass can accelerate global warming and contribute to a host of respiratory and cardiac problems. BIOMASS-FUELED POWER PLANTS EMIT SIGNIFICANTLY MORE CO2 PER KILOWATT PRODUCED THAN POWER PLANTS THAT BURN FOSSIL FUELS—EVEN COAL—and it can take decades before that excess CO2 is "re-sequestered" by subsequent plant growth. Under the Clean Air Act, facilities that are required to control their CO2 emissions must also control any "significant" emissions of other regulated pollutants, so the Court's decision also means that communities near these plants will also benefit from reductions in pollution that causes asthma and other health problems.


The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is an international nonprofit environmental organization with more than 1.4 million members and online activists. Since 1970, our lawyers, scientists, and other environmental specialists have worked to protect the world's natural resources, public health, and the environment. NRDC has offices in New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Livingston, Montana, and Beijing. Visit us at www.nrdc.org and follow us on Twitter @NRDC.

The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 500,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.

The Clean Air Task Force works to help safeguard against the worst impacts of climate change by catalyzing the rapid global development and deployment of low carbon energy and other climate-protecting technologies through research and analysis, public advocacy leadership, and partnership with the private sector.

The Southern Environmental Law Center is a regional nonprofit using the power of the law to protect the health and environment of the Southeast (Virginia, Tennessee, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama). Founded in 1986, SELC's team of more than 50 legal and policy experts represent more than 100 partner groups on issues of climate change and energy, air and water quality, forests, the coast and wetlands, transportation, and land use.

Dogwood Alliance is increasing protection for millions of acres of Southern forests by transforming the way corporations, landowners and communities value them for their climate, wildlife and water benefits. Dogwood Alliance has revolutionized the environmental practices of some of the world's largest corporations. For more information on the organization please visit, www.dogwoodalliance.
org.

Coastal Conservation League is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of South Carolina and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that works to protect the natural environment and communities of the South Carolina coastal plain.

Conservation Law Foundation is a not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that uses law, science, policy, and the business market to find pragmatic, innovative solutions to New England's toughest environmental problems.

Georgia ForestWatch is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of Georgia and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that works to promote healthy forests and watersheds in national forest lands in Georgia.

Natural Resources Council of Maine, a not-for-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maine, is a membership organization dedicated to preserving the quality of the air, water, forest and other natural resources of the State of Maine, for the benefit of its people and its environment.

Wild Virginia is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of Virginia and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Wild Virginia works to preserve wild forest ecosystems in Virginia's National Forests.
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: From day one.. Its all about a company with bankrupt ideas pumping its Shares. Helius will Say/Do anything to prompt its Shares.. nothing eco friendly (absolutely/proved) about Helius's land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans. TAKEN FROM ECHO ARCHIVE, REPLY TO ANDY LOCKS HEATH 15TH MAY 2012 Andy Locks Heath said.. The (Helius) location in a port is ideal for initial import of fuel stock and road and rail links for future domestic supplies. I said... Helius would say we have to fully utilize this location before a competitor puts a toe in, we'll push for a 300% expansion and LOOKING FORWARD WE'LL TARGET POMPEY DOCKS. - ECHO ARCHIVE http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/news/9706278. New_biomass_plans_a_ _greenwash_/[/p][/quote]Portsmouth/Southampt on Biomass schemes could cost Taxpayers £600m plus subsidies for operating costs. If it all works out for Helius...we're giving millions ££££ to Helius to borrow £600m from are bankrupt Banks... knowing all the time the Government may cut the subsidies or stop them altogether. RWE NPOWER CLOSES TILBURY BIOMASS POWER STATION The blow to the UK's renewables industry was welcome news to some green campaigners who argue biomass is unsustainable Fiona Harvey and Natalie Starkey The Guardian, Friday 5 July 2013 13.11 BST RWE npower is halting operations at its Tilbury biomass power station, with the likely loss of 220 jobs, in a blow to Britain's renewable power industry. But some green campaigners welcomed the closure, which will take effect from the end of October, as they argue biomass use on a large scale is environmentally unsustainable. The German electricity generator blamed a lack of investment capacity and the difficulty in converting the plant – the world's biggest biomass power station, with a planned capacity of 750MW – to use wood, waste oil and other organic materials in place of coal. BIOMASS INVESTORS HAVE ALSO BEEN RATTLED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S PLANNED CHANGES IN SUBSIDIES FOR BIOMASS AND OTHER RENEWABLE FORMS OF ENERGY. DRAX, BRITAIN'S BIGGEST COAL-FIRED POWER STATION, LAST YEAR SHELVED PLANS FOR TWO NEW BIOMASS POWER STATIONS. The closure has reopened debate over the future of biomass power generation in Britain. The government supports biomass, as a low-carbon form of power generation compared with fossil fuels – the trees and plants used as fuel take up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow, so if they are regrown under environmentally sound conditions, burning them results in a net carbon saving as it displaces coal and gas. However, that is not the whole story, according to many green campaigners. They point to problems with sourcing sufficient quantities of biomass, much of which has to be imported, and say that without strict regulations, growing trees and crops for biomass can lead to deforestation in developing countries. There are also concerns about the effects of the soot that comes from burning the organic fuel. http://www.guardian. co.uk/environment/20 13/jul/05/rwe-npower -tilbury-biomass-pow er-station YOU'RE OK WITH THAT MISTERGRIMSDALE ?[/p][/quote]Helius Director Alastair Salvesen has a fortune of £1.3 billion, up £460 million from last year Alastair Salvesen is also a major shareholder owning 25% of Helius.. Alastair Salvesen wants anyone who turns a light on in Southampton to subsidise his land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans. YOU'RE OK WITH THAT MISTERGRIMSDALE ?[/p][/quote]Skin2000 says.. I think Helius might be having trouble raising funds from the banks Some of Helius's Directors and major shareholders are in the Super Rich Class.. I'm afraid subsidies have turned the Wood Biomass Industry into a honey pot for the Super Rich.. UK Banks will find it hard to turn Helius down.. Pulling the plug on subsidies will be the only thing that will stop Helius building three or four Wood/Grass incinerators in Southampton. Ten years from now the headlines could read.. SOUTHAMPTON THE UKs LITTLE BEIJING.. ALL POLLUTION NONE OF THE WEALTH..[/p][/quote]US Federal Court Confirms.. Summary The science is clear Wood Biomass burning accelerates global warming.. "Burning trees to generate electricity is dangerous polluting, contributing to a host of respiratory and cardiac problems and should to be limited to protect people and the environment Biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that burn fossil fuels—even coal FEDERAL COURT FOLLOWS SCIENCE IN STRIKING DOWN EPA'S BIOMASS EMISSIONS LOOPHOLE WASHINGTON (July 12, 2013) – A key federal court ruling today confirmed that Clean Air Act limits on carbon dioxide pollution apply to industrial facilities, including tree-burning power plants that burn biomass. The court vacated an exemption the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had carved out for "biogenic carbon dioxide." The decision by a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 11-1101) found that EPA had improperly exempted all sources of biogenic CO2 from otherwise applicable permitting requirements. "THE SCIENCE IS CLEAR THAT NOT ALL BIOMASS BURNING IS GOOD FOR THE PLANET AND TODAY'S RULING RIGHTLY AFFIRMS SCIENCE as the guide for how EPA must now move forward on biomass energy production," said Niel Lawrence, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "This decision will ultimately benefit the climate, as well as Americans who want to breathe easier and protect the forests that they love. It will also ensure that our investments in clean energy go to sources that are actually clean." "Today's ruling upholds EPA's authority to regulate pollution that drives climate change. The Court's decision is grounded in an understanding that THE SCIENCE SHOWS THAT BIOMASS FUELS, INCLUDING TREE-BURNING, CAN MAKE CLIMATE DISRUPTION WORSE," said Ann Weeks, Legal Director of the Clean Air Task Force, who argued the case for Petitioners and appeared on behalf of the Conservation Law Foundation and the Natural Resource Council of Maine. "The Court clearly noted that the atmosphere can't tell the difference between fossil fuel carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide emitted by burning trees." "BURNING TREES TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY IS DANGEROUS, POLLUTING AND OUGHT TO BE LIMITED TO PROTECT PEOPLE AND THE ENVIRONMENT," SAID KEVIN BUNDY, A SENIOR ATTORNEY WITH THE CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY'S CLIMATE LAW INSTITUTE. "THIS IMPORTANT DECISION WILL REDUCE RESPIRATORY AILMENTS, PROTECT FORESTS AND HELP ENSURE A HEALTHIER, MORE LIVABLE CLIMATE." "The Court's decision is particularly important for the Southeast. Now we have an opportunity for a more sensible, science-based policy, one that avoids clear-cutting the region's wildlife-rich forests for energy while intensifying climate change impacts," said Frank Rambo, head of the Clean Energy and Air Program for the Southern Environmental Law Center, which is representing Dogwood Alliance, Georgia ForestWatch, South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, and Wild Virginia in the case. Emissions from power plants and other industrial facilities that burn biomass can accelerate global warming and contribute to a host of respiratory and cardiac problems. BIOMASS-FUELED POWER PLANTS EMIT SIGNIFICANTLY MORE CO2 PER KILOWATT PRODUCED THAN POWER PLANTS THAT BURN FOSSIL FUELS—EVEN COAL—and it can take decades before that excess CO2 is "re-sequestered" by subsequent plant growth. Under the Clean Air Act, facilities that are required to control their CO2 emissions must also control any "significant" emissions of other regulated pollutants, so the Court's decision also means that communities near these plants will also benefit from reductions in pollution that causes asthma and other health problems. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is an international nonprofit environmental organization with more than 1.4 million members and online activists. Since 1970, our lawyers, scientists, and other environmental specialists have worked to protect the world's natural resources, public health, and the environment. NRDC has offices in New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Livingston, Montana, and Beijing. Visit us at www.nrdc.org and follow us on Twitter @NRDC. The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 500,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places. The Clean Air Task Force works to help safeguard against the worst impacts of climate change by catalyzing the rapid global development and deployment of low carbon energy and other climate-protecting technologies through research and analysis, public advocacy leadership, and partnership with the private sector. The Southern Environmental Law Center is a regional nonprofit using the power of the law to protect the health and environment of the Southeast (Virginia, Tennessee, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama). Founded in 1986, SELC's team of more than 50 legal and policy experts represent more than 100 partner groups on issues of climate change and energy, air and water quality, forests, the coast and wetlands, transportation, and land use. Dogwood Alliance is increasing protection for millions of acres of Southern forests by transforming the way corporations, landowners and communities value them for their climate, wildlife and water benefits. Dogwood Alliance has revolutionized the environmental practices of some of the world's largest corporations. For more information on the organization please visit, www.dogwoodalliance. org. Coastal Conservation League is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of South Carolina and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that works to protect the natural environment and communities of the South Carolina coastal plain. Conservation Law Foundation is a not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that uses law, science, policy, and the business market to find pragmatic, innovative solutions to New England's toughest environmental problems. Georgia ForestWatch is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of Georgia and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that works to promote healthy forests and watersheds in national forest lands in Georgia. Natural Resources Council of Maine, a not-for-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maine, is a membership organization dedicated to preserving the quality of the air, water, forest and other natural resources of the State of Maine, for the benefit of its people and its environment. Wild Virginia is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of Virginia and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Wild Virginia works to preserve wild forest ecosystems in Virginia's National Forests. Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

12:57pm Sun 14 Jul 13

Dan Soton says...

US Federal Court ruling could put the brakes on subsidies for Wood Biomass in the UK.




Re: US Federal Court Confirms.. Biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that burn fossil fuels—even coal





GREEN MADNESS: DO BRITISH MINISTERS KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING?

Date: 01/05/13.

The Drax plant in Yorkshire, England is one of the biggest coal-fired power plants in the world with an almost 1,000 foot-tall flue chimney, 6 boilers, and 12 very large cooling towers. It consumes 36,000 tons of coal each day, providing 7 percent of the country's electricity. Starting next month, the plant will be converted to burn millions of tons of wood chips a year, costing £700 million ($1.085 billion).

Most of the wood chips will travel 3,000 miles across the Atlantic Ocean, coming from trees downed in the United States. Drax is building 2 plants in the United States that will turn the wood from trees into chips that can be transported by ship to Yorkshire and then hauled to the power station by railway trucks. In order to prevent spontaneous combustion, the wood chips must be stored in domes where the humidity is controlled before they can be pulverized into powder. (Wood is 1,000 times more prone to spontaneous combustion than coal.)

Despite the fact that coal is the least-expensive source of electricity generation in England, THE OWNERS OF THE DRAX PLANT REALIZED THAT A RECENTLY INSTITUTED CARBON TAX ON FOSSIL FUELS WOULD PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS IF THEY CONTINUED TO BURN COAL EVENTUALLY MAKING THEIR ELECTRICITY BECOME TWICE AS EXPENSIVE. The political incumbents in Britain decided last year to give any coal-fired power station that switched to 'biomass' the almost 100 percent 'renewable subsidy' that owners of onshore wind farms get.

A British Carbon Tax and an EU Mandate.

A new carbon tax introduced in Britain on April 1 is applied to every ton of carbon dioxide produced during electricity production. WHILE THE TAX IS STARTING OUT LOW, IT WILL INCREASE EACH YEAR, MAKING THE COST OF GENERATING ELECTRICITY FROM COAL DOUBLE WITHIN 20 YEARS, AT WHICH POINT IT WILL NO LONGER BE ECONOMICAL FOR DRAX TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY FROM COAL. Along with the carbon tax, the British government will also be subsidizing electricity produced from its list of 'carbon neutral' power sources that will further increase consumer electricity bills.

-

http://www.thegwpf.o
rg/green-madness-bri
tish-ministers-doing
/






Ten years from now the headlines could read..


SOUTHAMPTON THE UKs LITTLE BEIJING..


ALL POLLUTION NONE OF THE WEALTH..
US Federal Court ruling could put the brakes on subsidies for Wood Biomass in the UK. Re: US Federal Court Confirms.. Biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that burn fossil fuels—even coal GREEN MADNESS: DO BRITISH MINISTERS KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING? Date: 01/05/13. The Drax plant in Yorkshire, England is one of the biggest coal-fired power plants in the world with an almost 1,000 foot-tall flue chimney, 6 boilers, and 12 very large cooling towers. It consumes 36,000 tons of coal each day, providing 7 percent of the country's electricity. Starting next month, the plant will be converted to burn millions of tons of wood chips a year, costing £700 million ($1.085 billion). Most of the wood chips will travel 3,000 miles across the Atlantic Ocean, coming from trees downed in the United States. Drax is building 2 plants in the United States that will turn the wood from trees into chips that can be transported by ship to Yorkshire and then hauled to the power station by railway trucks. In order to prevent spontaneous combustion, the wood chips must be stored in domes where the humidity is controlled before they can be pulverized into powder. (Wood is 1,000 times more prone to spontaneous combustion than coal.) Despite the fact that coal is the least-expensive source of electricity generation in England, THE OWNERS OF THE DRAX PLANT REALIZED THAT A RECENTLY INSTITUTED CARBON TAX ON FOSSIL FUELS WOULD PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS IF THEY CONTINUED TO BURN COAL EVENTUALLY MAKING THEIR ELECTRICITY BECOME TWICE AS EXPENSIVE. The political incumbents in Britain decided last year to give any coal-fired power station that switched to 'biomass' the almost 100 percent 'renewable subsidy' that owners of onshore wind farms get. A British Carbon Tax and an EU Mandate. A new carbon tax introduced in Britain on April 1 is applied to every ton of carbon dioxide produced during electricity production. WHILE THE TAX IS STARTING OUT LOW, IT WILL INCREASE EACH YEAR, MAKING THE COST OF GENERATING ELECTRICITY FROM COAL DOUBLE WITHIN 20 YEARS, AT WHICH POINT IT WILL NO LONGER BE ECONOMICAL FOR DRAX TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY FROM COAL. Along with the carbon tax, the British government will also be subsidizing electricity produced from its list of 'carbon neutral' power sources that will further increase consumer electricity bills. - http://www.thegwpf.o rg/green-madness-bri tish-ministers-doing / Ten years from now the headlines could read.. SOUTHAMPTON THE UKs LITTLE BEIJING.. ALL POLLUTION NONE OF THE WEALTH.. Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

12:58pm Sun 14 Jul 13

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
From day one.. Its all about a company with bankrupt ideas pumping its Shares.



Helius will Say/Do anything to prompt its Shares.. nothing eco friendly (absolutely/proved) about Helius's land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans.




TAKEN FROM ECHO ARCHIVE, REPLY TO ANDY LOCKS HEATH 15TH MAY 2012



Andy Locks Heath said.. The (Helius) location in a port is ideal for initial import of fuel stock and road and rail links for future domestic supplies.



I said... Helius would say we have to fully utilize this location before a competitor puts a toe in, we'll push for a 300% expansion and LOOKING FORWARD WE'LL TARGET POMPEY DOCKS.


-

ECHO ARCHIVE


http://www.dailyecho





.co.uk/news/9706278.





New_biomass_plans_a_





_greenwash_/
Portsmouth/Southampt




on Biomass schemes could cost Taxpayers £600m plus subsidies for operating costs.



If it all works out for Helius...we're giving millions ££££ to Helius to borrow £600m from are bankrupt Banks... knowing all the time the Government may cut the subsidies or stop them altogether.




RWE NPOWER CLOSES TILBURY BIOMASS POWER STATION

The blow to the UK's renewables industry was welcome news to some green campaigners who argue biomass is unsustainable

Fiona Harvey and Natalie Starkey

The Guardian, Friday 5 July 2013 13.11 BST

RWE npower is halting operations at its Tilbury biomass power station, with the likely loss of 220 jobs, in a blow to Britain's renewable power industry.
But some green campaigners welcomed the closure, which will take effect from the end of October, as they argue biomass use on a large scale is environmentally unsustainable.
The German electricity generator blamed a lack of investment capacity and the difficulty in converting the plant – the world's biggest biomass power station, with a planned capacity of 750MW – to use wood, waste oil and other organic materials in place of coal.

BIOMASS INVESTORS HAVE ALSO BEEN RATTLED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S PLANNED CHANGES IN SUBSIDIES FOR BIOMASS AND OTHER RENEWABLE FORMS OF ENERGY. DRAX, BRITAIN'S BIGGEST COAL-FIRED POWER STATION, LAST YEAR SHELVED PLANS FOR TWO NEW BIOMASS POWER STATIONS.

The closure has reopened debate over the future of biomass power generation in Britain.

The government supports biomass, as a low-carbon form of power generation compared with fossil fuels – the trees and plants used as fuel take up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow, so if they are regrown under environmentally sound conditions, burning them results in a net carbon saving as it displaces coal and gas.

However, that is not the whole story, according to many green campaigners. They point to problems with sourcing sufficient quantities of biomass, much of which has to be imported, and say that without strict regulations, growing trees and crops for biomass can lead to deforestation in developing countries. There are also concerns about the effects of the soot that comes from burning the organic fuel.


http://www.guardian.




co.uk/environment/20




13/jul/05/rwe-npower




-tilbury-biomass-pow




er-station




YOU'RE OK WITH THAT MISTERGRIMSDALE ?
Helius Director Alastair Salvesen has a fortune of £1.3 billion, up £460 million from last year



Alastair Salvesen is also a major shareholder owning 25% of Helius..


Alastair Salvesen wants anyone who turns a light on in Southampton to subsidise his land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans.



YOU'RE OK WITH THAT MISTERGRIMSDALE ?
Skin2000 says.. I think Helius might be having trouble raising funds from the banks


Some of Helius's Directors and major shareholders are in the Super Rich Class..


I'm afraid subsidies have turned the Wood Biomass Industry into a honey pot for the Super Rich.. UK Banks will find it hard to turn Helius down..


Pulling the plug on subsidies will be the only thing that will stop Helius building three or four Wood/Grass incinerators in Southampton.




Ten years from now the headlines could read..


SOUTHAMPTON THE UKs LITTLE BEIJING..


ALL POLLUTION NONE OF THE WEALTH..
US Federal Court Confirms..




Summary



The science is clear Wood Biomass burning accelerates global warming..

"Burning trees to generate electricity is dangerous polluting, contributing to a host of respiratory and cardiac problems and should to be limited to protect people and the environment

Biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that burn fossil fuels—even coal







FEDERAL COURT FOLLOWS SCIENCE IN STRIKING DOWN EPA'S BIOMASS EMISSIONS LOOPHOLE

WASHINGTON (July 12, 2013)

– A key federal court ruling today confirmed that Clean Air Act limits on carbon dioxide pollution apply to industrial facilities, including tree-burning power plants that burn biomass. The court vacated an exemption the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had carved out for "biogenic carbon dioxide."

The decision by a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 11-1101) found that EPA had improperly exempted all sources of biogenic CO2 from otherwise applicable permitting requirements.

"THE SCIENCE IS CLEAR THAT NOT ALL BIOMASS BURNING IS GOOD FOR THE PLANET AND TODAY'S RULING RIGHTLY AFFIRMS SCIENCE as the guide for how EPA must now move forward on biomass energy production," said Niel Lawrence, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "This decision will ultimately benefit the climate, as well as Americans who want to breathe easier and protect the forests that they love. It will also ensure that our investments in clean energy go to sources that are actually clean."

"Today's ruling upholds EPA's authority to regulate pollution that drives climate change. The Court's decision is grounded in an understanding that THE SCIENCE SHOWS THAT BIOMASS FUELS, INCLUDING TREE-BURNING, CAN MAKE CLIMATE DISRUPTION WORSE," said Ann Weeks, Legal Director of the Clean Air Task Force, who argued the case for Petitioners and appeared on behalf of the Conservation Law Foundation and the Natural Resource Council of Maine. "The Court clearly noted that the atmosphere can't tell the difference between fossil fuel carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide emitted by burning trees."

"BURNING TREES TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY IS DANGEROUS, POLLUTING AND OUGHT TO BE LIMITED TO PROTECT PEOPLE AND THE ENVIRONMENT," SAID KEVIN BUNDY, A SENIOR ATTORNEY WITH THE CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY'S CLIMATE LAW INSTITUTE. "THIS IMPORTANT DECISION WILL REDUCE RESPIRATORY AILMENTS, PROTECT FORESTS AND HELP ENSURE A HEALTHIER, MORE LIVABLE CLIMATE."

"The Court's decision is particularly important for the Southeast. Now we have an opportunity for a more sensible, science-based policy, one that avoids clear-cutting the region's wildlife-rich forests for energy while intensifying climate change impacts," said Frank Rambo, head of the Clean Energy and Air Program for the Southern Environmental Law Center, which is representing Dogwood Alliance, Georgia ForestWatch, South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, and Wild Virginia in the case.

Emissions from power plants and other industrial facilities that burn biomass can accelerate global warming and contribute to a host of respiratory and cardiac problems. BIOMASS-FUELED POWER PLANTS EMIT SIGNIFICANTLY MORE CO2 PER KILOWATT PRODUCED THAN POWER PLANTS THAT BURN FOSSIL FUELS—EVEN COAL—and it can take decades before that excess CO2 is "re-sequestered" by subsequent plant growth. Under the Clean Air Act, facilities that are required to control their CO2 emissions must also control any "significant" emissions of other regulated pollutants, so the Court's decision also means that communities near these plants will also benefit from reductions in pollution that causes asthma and other health problems.


The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is an international nonprofit environmental organization with more than 1.4 million members and online activists. Since 1970, our lawyers, scientists, and other environmental specialists have worked to protect the world's natural resources, public health, and the environment. NRDC has offices in New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Livingston, Montana, and Beijing. Visit us at www.nrdc.org and follow us on Twitter @NRDC.

The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 500,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.

The Clean Air Task Force works to help safeguard against the worst impacts of climate change by catalyzing the rapid global development and deployment of low carbon energy and other climate-protecting technologies through research and analysis, public advocacy leadership, and partnership with the private sector.

The Southern Environmental Law Center is a regional nonprofit using the power of the law to protect the health and environment of the Southeast (Virginia, Tennessee, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama). Founded in 1986, SELC's team of more than 50 legal and policy experts represent more than 100 partner groups on issues of climate change and energy, air and water quality, forests, the coast and wetlands, transportation, and land use.

Dogwood Alliance is increasing protection for millions of acres of Southern forests by transforming the way corporations, landowners and communities value them for their climate, wildlife and water benefits. Dogwood Alliance has revolutionized the environmental practices of some of the world's largest corporations. For more information on the organization please visit, www.dogwoodalliance.

org.

Coastal Conservation League is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of South Carolina and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that works to protect the natural environment and communities of the South Carolina coastal plain.

Conservation Law Foundation is a not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that uses law, science, policy, and the business market to find pragmatic, innovative solutions to New England's toughest environmental problems.

Georgia ForestWatch is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of Georgia and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that works to promote healthy forests and watersheds in national forest lands in Georgia.

Natural Resources Council of Maine, a not-for-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maine, is a membership organization dedicated to preserving the quality of the air, water, forest and other natural resources of the State of Maine, for the benefit of its people and its environment.

Wild Virginia is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of Virginia and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Wild Virginia works to preserve wild forest ecosystems in Virginia's National Forests.
US Federal Court ruling could put the brakes on subsidies for Wood Biomass in the UK.




Re: US Federal Court Confirms.. Biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that burn fossil fuels—even coal





GREEN MADNESS: DO BRITISH MINISTERS KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING?

Date: 01/05/13.

The Drax plant in Yorkshire, England is one of the biggest coal-fired power plants in the world with an almost 1,000 foot-tall flue chimney, 6 boilers, and 12 very large cooling towers. It consumes 36,000 tons of coal each day, providing 7 percent of the country's electricity. Starting next month, the plant will be converted to burn millions of tons of wood chips a year, costing £700 million ($1.085 billion).

Most of the wood chips will travel 3,000 miles across the Atlantic Ocean, coming from trees downed in the United States. Drax is building 2 plants in the United States that will turn the wood from trees into chips that can be transported by ship to Yorkshire and then hauled to the power station by railway trucks. In order to prevent spontaneous combustion, the wood chips must be stored in domes where the humidity is controlled before they can be pulverized into powder. (Wood is 1,000 times more prone to spontaneous combustion than coal.)

Despite the fact that coal is the least-expensive source of electricity generation in England, THE OWNERS OF THE DRAX PLANT REALIZED THAT A RECENTLY INSTITUTED CARBON TAX ON FOSSIL FUELS WOULD PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS IF THEY CONTINUED TO BURN COAL EVENTUALLY MAKING THEIR ELECTRICITY BECOME TWICE AS EXPENSIVE. The political incumbents in Britain decided last year to give any coal-fired power station that switched to 'biomass' the almost 100 percent 'renewable subsidy' that owners of onshore wind farms get.

A British Carbon Tax and an EU Mandate.

A new carbon tax introduced in Britain on April 1 is applied to every ton of carbon dioxide produced during electricity production. WHILE THE TAX IS STARTING OUT LOW, IT WILL INCREASE EACH YEAR, MAKING THE COST OF GENERATING ELECTRICITY FROM COAL DOUBLE WITHIN 20 YEARS, AT WHICH POINT IT WILL NO LONGER BE ECONOMICAL FOR DRAX TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY FROM COAL. Along with the carbon tax, the British government will also be subsidizing electricity produced from its list of 'carbon neutral' power sources that will further increase consumer electricity bills.

-

http://www.thegwpf.o
rg/green-madness-bri
tish-ministers-doing
/






Ten years from now the headlines could read..


SOUTHAMPTON THE UKs LITTLE BEIJING..


ALL POLLUTION NONE OF THE WEALTH..
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: From day one.. Its all about a company with bankrupt ideas pumping its Shares. Helius will Say/Do anything to prompt its Shares.. nothing eco friendly (absolutely/proved) about Helius's land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans. TAKEN FROM ECHO ARCHIVE, REPLY TO ANDY LOCKS HEATH 15TH MAY 2012 Andy Locks Heath said.. The (Helius) location in a port is ideal for initial import of fuel stock and road and rail links for future domestic supplies. I said... Helius would say we have to fully utilize this location before a competitor puts a toe in, we'll push for a 300% expansion and LOOKING FORWARD WE'LL TARGET POMPEY DOCKS. - ECHO ARCHIVE http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/news/9706278. New_biomass_plans_a_ _greenwash_/[/p][/quote]Portsmouth/Southampt on Biomass schemes could cost Taxpayers £600m plus subsidies for operating costs. If it all works out for Helius...we're giving millions ££££ to Helius to borrow £600m from are bankrupt Banks... knowing all the time the Government may cut the subsidies or stop them altogether. RWE NPOWER CLOSES TILBURY BIOMASS POWER STATION The blow to the UK's renewables industry was welcome news to some green campaigners who argue biomass is unsustainable Fiona Harvey and Natalie Starkey The Guardian, Friday 5 July 2013 13.11 BST RWE npower is halting operations at its Tilbury biomass power station, with the likely loss of 220 jobs, in a blow to Britain's renewable power industry. But some green campaigners welcomed the closure, which will take effect from the end of October, as they argue biomass use on a large scale is environmentally unsustainable. The German electricity generator blamed a lack of investment capacity and the difficulty in converting the plant – the world's biggest biomass power station, with a planned capacity of 750MW – to use wood, waste oil and other organic materials in place of coal. BIOMASS INVESTORS HAVE ALSO BEEN RATTLED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S PLANNED CHANGES IN SUBSIDIES FOR BIOMASS AND OTHER RENEWABLE FORMS OF ENERGY. DRAX, BRITAIN'S BIGGEST COAL-FIRED POWER STATION, LAST YEAR SHELVED PLANS FOR TWO NEW BIOMASS POWER STATIONS. The closure has reopened debate over the future of biomass power generation in Britain. The government supports biomass, as a low-carbon form of power generation compared with fossil fuels – the trees and plants used as fuel take up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow, so if they are regrown under environmentally sound conditions, burning them results in a net carbon saving as it displaces coal and gas. However, that is not the whole story, according to many green campaigners. They point to problems with sourcing sufficient quantities of biomass, much of which has to be imported, and say that without strict regulations, growing trees and crops for biomass can lead to deforestation in developing countries. There are also concerns about the effects of the soot that comes from burning the organic fuel. http://www.guardian. co.uk/environment/20 13/jul/05/rwe-npower -tilbury-biomass-pow er-station YOU'RE OK WITH THAT MISTERGRIMSDALE ?[/p][/quote]Helius Director Alastair Salvesen has a fortune of £1.3 billion, up £460 million from last year Alastair Salvesen is also a major shareholder owning 25% of Helius.. Alastair Salvesen wants anyone who turns a light on in Southampton to subsidise his land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans. YOU'RE OK WITH THAT MISTERGRIMSDALE ?[/p][/quote]Skin2000 says.. I think Helius might be having trouble raising funds from the banks Some of Helius's Directors and major shareholders are in the Super Rich Class.. I'm afraid subsidies have turned the Wood Biomass Industry into a honey pot for the Super Rich.. UK Banks will find it hard to turn Helius down.. Pulling the plug on subsidies will be the only thing that will stop Helius building three or four Wood/Grass incinerators in Southampton. Ten years from now the headlines could read.. SOUTHAMPTON THE UKs LITTLE BEIJING.. ALL POLLUTION NONE OF THE WEALTH..[/p][/quote]US Federal Court Confirms.. Summary The science is clear Wood Biomass burning accelerates global warming.. "Burning trees to generate electricity is dangerous polluting, contributing to a host of respiratory and cardiac problems and should to be limited to protect people and the environment Biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that burn fossil fuels—even coal FEDERAL COURT FOLLOWS SCIENCE IN STRIKING DOWN EPA'S BIOMASS EMISSIONS LOOPHOLE WASHINGTON (July 12, 2013) – A key federal court ruling today confirmed that Clean Air Act limits on carbon dioxide pollution apply to industrial facilities, including tree-burning power plants that burn biomass. The court vacated an exemption the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had carved out for "biogenic carbon dioxide." The decision by a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 11-1101) found that EPA had improperly exempted all sources of biogenic CO2 from otherwise applicable permitting requirements. "THE SCIENCE IS CLEAR THAT NOT ALL BIOMASS BURNING IS GOOD FOR THE PLANET AND TODAY'S RULING RIGHTLY AFFIRMS SCIENCE as the guide for how EPA must now move forward on biomass energy production," said Niel Lawrence, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "This decision will ultimately benefit the climate, as well as Americans who want to breathe easier and protect the forests that they love. It will also ensure that our investments in clean energy go to sources that are actually clean." "Today's ruling upholds EPA's authority to regulate pollution that drives climate change. The Court's decision is grounded in an understanding that THE SCIENCE SHOWS THAT BIOMASS FUELS, INCLUDING TREE-BURNING, CAN MAKE CLIMATE DISRUPTION WORSE," said Ann Weeks, Legal Director of the Clean Air Task Force, who argued the case for Petitioners and appeared on behalf of the Conservation Law Foundation and the Natural Resource Council of Maine. "The Court clearly noted that the atmosphere can't tell the difference between fossil fuel carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide emitted by burning trees." "BURNING TREES TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY IS DANGEROUS, POLLUTING AND OUGHT TO BE LIMITED TO PROTECT PEOPLE AND THE ENVIRONMENT," SAID KEVIN BUNDY, A SENIOR ATTORNEY WITH THE CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY'S CLIMATE LAW INSTITUTE. "THIS IMPORTANT DECISION WILL REDUCE RESPIRATORY AILMENTS, PROTECT FORESTS AND HELP ENSURE A HEALTHIER, MORE LIVABLE CLIMATE." "The Court's decision is particularly important for the Southeast. Now we have an opportunity for a more sensible, science-based policy, one that avoids clear-cutting the region's wildlife-rich forests for energy while intensifying climate change impacts," said Frank Rambo, head of the Clean Energy and Air Program for the Southern Environmental Law Center, which is representing Dogwood Alliance, Georgia ForestWatch, South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, and Wild Virginia in the case. Emissions from power plants and other industrial facilities that burn biomass can accelerate global warming and contribute to a host of respiratory and cardiac problems. BIOMASS-FUELED POWER PLANTS EMIT SIGNIFICANTLY MORE CO2 PER KILOWATT PRODUCED THAN POWER PLANTS THAT BURN FOSSIL FUELS—EVEN COAL—and it can take decades before that excess CO2 is "re-sequestered" by subsequent plant growth. Under the Clean Air Act, facilities that are required to control their CO2 emissions must also control any "significant" emissions of other regulated pollutants, so the Court's decision also means that communities near these plants will also benefit from reductions in pollution that causes asthma and other health problems. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is an international nonprofit environmental organization with more than 1.4 million members and online activists. Since 1970, our lawyers, scientists, and other environmental specialists have worked to protect the world's natural resources, public health, and the environment. NRDC has offices in New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Livingston, Montana, and Beijing. Visit us at www.nrdc.org and follow us on Twitter @NRDC. The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 500,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places. The Clean Air Task Force works to help safeguard against the worst impacts of climate change by catalyzing the rapid global development and deployment of low carbon energy and other climate-protecting technologies through research and analysis, public advocacy leadership, and partnership with the private sector. The Southern Environmental Law Center is a regional nonprofit using the power of the law to protect the health and environment of the Southeast (Virginia, Tennessee, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama). Founded in 1986, SELC's team of more than 50 legal and policy experts represent more than 100 partner groups on issues of climate change and energy, air and water quality, forests, the coast and wetlands, transportation, and land use. Dogwood Alliance is increasing protection for millions of acres of Southern forests by transforming the way corporations, landowners and communities value them for their climate, wildlife and water benefits. Dogwood Alliance has revolutionized the environmental practices of some of the world's largest corporations. For more information on the organization please visit, www.dogwoodalliance. org. Coastal Conservation League is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of South Carolina and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that works to protect the natural environment and communities of the South Carolina coastal plain. Conservation Law Foundation is a not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that uses law, science, policy, and the business market to find pragmatic, innovative solutions to New England's toughest environmental problems. Georgia ForestWatch is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of Georgia and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that works to promote healthy forests and watersheds in national forest lands in Georgia. Natural Resources Council of Maine, a not-for-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maine, is a membership organization dedicated to preserving the quality of the air, water, forest and other natural resources of the State of Maine, for the benefit of its people and its environment. Wild Virginia is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of Virginia and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Wild Virginia works to preserve wild forest ecosystems in Virginia's National Forests.[/p][/quote]US Federal Court ruling could put the brakes on subsidies for Wood Biomass in the UK. Re: US Federal Court Confirms.. Biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that burn fossil fuels—even coal GREEN MADNESS: DO BRITISH MINISTERS KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING? Date: 01/05/13. The Drax plant in Yorkshire, England is one of the biggest coal-fired power plants in the world with an almost 1,000 foot-tall flue chimney, 6 boilers, and 12 very large cooling towers. It consumes 36,000 tons of coal each day, providing 7 percent of the country's electricity. Starting next month, the plant will be converted to burn millions of tons of wood chips a year, costing £700 million ($1.085 billion). Most of the wood chips will travel 3,000 miles across the Atlantic Ocean, coming from trees downed in the United States. Drax is building 2 plants in the United States that will turn the wood from trees into chips that can be transported by ship to Yorkshire and then hauled to the power station by railway trucks. In order to prevent spontaneous combustion, the wood chips must be stored in domes where the humidity is controlled before they can be pulverized into powder. (Wood is 1,000 times more prone to spontaneous combustion than coal.) Despite the fact that coal is the least-expensive source of electricity generation in England, THE OWNERS OF THE DRAX PLANT REALIZED THAT A RECENTLY INSTITUTED CARBON TAX ON FOSSIL FUELS WOULD PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS IF THEY CONTINUED TO BURN COAL EVENTUALLY MAKING THEIR ELECTRICITY BECOME TWICE AS EXPENSIVE. The political incumbents in Britain decided last year to give any coal-fired power station that switched to 'biomass' the almost 100 percent 'renewable subsidy' that owners of onshore wind farms get. A British Carbon Tax and an EU Mandate. A new carbon tax introduced in Britain on April 1 is applied to every ton of carbon dioxide produced during electricity production. WHILE THE TAX IS STARTING OUT LOW, IT WILL INCREASE EACH YEAR, MAKING THE COST OF GENERATING ELECTRICITY FROM COAL DOUBLE WITHIN 20 YEARS, AT WHICH POINT IT WILL NO LONGER BE ECONOMICAL FOR DRAX TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY FROM COAL. Along with the carbon tax, the British government will also be subsidizing electricity produced from its list of 'carbon neutral' power sources that will further increase consumer electricity bills. - http://www.thegwpf.o rg/green-madness-bri tish-ministers-doing / Ten years from now the headlines could read.. SOUTHAMPTON THE UKs LITTLE BEIJING.. ALL POLLUTION NONE OF THE WEALTH.. Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

2:42pm Tue 16 Jul 13

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
From day one.. Its all about a company with bankrupt ideas pumping its Shares.



Helius will Say/Do anything to prompt its Shares.. nothing eco friendly (absolutely/proved) about Helius's land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans.




TAKEN FROM ECHO ARCHIVE, REPLY TO ANDY LOCKS HEATH 15TH MAY 2012



Andy Locks Heath said.. The (Helius) location in a port is ideal for initial import of fuel stock and road and rail links for future domestic supplies.



I said... Helius would say we have to fully utilize this location before a competitor puts a toe in, we'll push for a 300% expansion and LOOKING FORWARD WE'LL TARGET POMPEY DOCKS.


-

ECHO ARCHIVE


http://www.dailyecho






.co.uk/news/9706278.






New_biomass_plans_a_






_greenwash_/
Portsmouth/Southampt





on Biomass schemes could cost Taxpayers £600m plus subsidies for operating costs.



If it all works out for Helius...we're giving millions ££££ to Helius to borrow £600m from are bankrupt Banks... knowing all the time the Government may cut the subsidies or stop them altogether.




RWE NPOWER CLOSES TILBURY BIOMASS POWER STATION

The blow to the UK's renewables industry was welcome news to some green campaigners who argue biomass is unsustainable

Fiona Harvey and Natalie Starkey

The Guardian, Friday 5 July 2013 13.11 BST

RWE npower is halting operations at its Tilbury biomass power station, with the likely loss of 220 jobs, in a blow to Britain's renewable power industry.
But some green campaigners welcomed the closure, which will take effect from the end of October, as they argue biomass use on a large scale is environmentally unsustainable.
The German electricity generator blamed a lack of investment capacity and the difficulty in converting the plant – the world's biggest biomass power station, with a planned capacity of 750MW – to use wood, waste oil and other organic materials in place of coal.

BIOMASS INVESTORS HAVE ALSO BEEN RATTLED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S PLANNED CHANGES IN SUBSIDIES FOR BIOMASS AND OTHER RENEWABLE FORMS OF ENERGY. DRAX, BRITAIN'S BIGGEST COAL-FIRED POWER STATION, LAST YEAR SHELVED PLANS FOR TWO NEW BIOMASS POWER STATIONS.

The closure has reopened debate over the future of biomass power generation in Britain.

The government supports biomass, as a low-carbon form of power generation compared with fossil fuels – the trees and plants used as fuel take up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow, so if they are regrown under environmentally sound conditions, burning them results in a net carbon saving as it displaces coal and gas.

However, that is not the whole story, according to many green campaigners. They point to problems with sourcing sufficient quantities of biomass, much of which has to be imported, and say that without strict regulations, growing trees and crops for biomass can lead to deforestation in developing countries. There are also concerns about the effects of the soot that comes from burning the organic fuel.


http://www.guardian.





co.uk/environment/20





13/jul/05/rwe-npower





-tilbury-biomass-pow





er-station




YOU'RE OK WITH THAT MISTERGRIMSDALE ?
Helius Director Alastair Salvesen has a fortune of £1.3 billion, up £460 million from last year



Alastair Salvesen is also a major shareholder owning 25% of Helius..


Alastair Salvesen wants anyone who turns a light on in Southampton to subsidise his land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans.



YOU'RE OK WITH THAT MISTERGRIMSDALE ?
Skin2000 says.. I think Helius might be having trouble raising funds from the banks


Some of Helius's Directors and major shareholders are in the Super Rich Class..


I'm afraid subsidies have turned the Wood Biomass Industry into a honey pot for the Super Rich.. UK Banks will find it hard to turn Helius down..


Pulling the plug on subsidies will be the only thing that will stop Helius building three or four Wood/Grass incinerators in Southampton.




Ten years from now the headlines could read..


SOUTHAMPTON THE UKs LITTLE BEIJING..


ALL POLLUTION NONE OF THE WEALTH..
US Federal Court Confirms..




Summary



The science is clear Wood Biomass burning accelerates global warming..

"Burning trees to generate electricity is dangerous polluting, contributing to a host of respiratory and cardiac problems and should to be limited to protect people and the environment

Biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that burn fossil fuels—even coal







FEDERAL COURT FOLLOWS SCIENCE IN STRIKING DOWN EPA'S BIOMASS EMISSIONS LOOPHOLE

WASHINGTON (July 12, 2013)

– A key federal court ruling today confirmed that Clean Air Act limits on carbon dioxide pollution apply to industrial facilities, including tree-burning power plants that burn biomass. The court vacated an exemption the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had carved out for "biogenic carbon dioxide."

The decision by a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 11-1101) found that EPA had improperly exempted all sources of biogenic CO2 from otherwise applicable permitting requirements.

"THE SCIENCE IS CLEAR THAT NOT ALL BIOMASS BURNING IS GOOD FOR THE PLANET AND TODAY'S RULING RIGHTLY AFFIRMS SCIENCE as the guide for how EPA must now move forward on biomass energy production," said Niel Lawrence, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "This decision will ultimately benefit the climate, as well as Americans who want to breathe easier and protect the forests that they love. It will also ensure that our investments in clean energy go to sources that are actually clean."

"Today's ruling upholds EPA's authority to regulate pollution that drives climate change. The Court's decision is grounded in an understanding that THE SCIENCE SHOWS THAT BIOMASS FUELS, INCLUDING TREE-BURNING, CAN MAKE CLIMATE DISRUPTION WORSE," said Ann Weeks, Legal Director of the Clean Air Task Force, who argued the case for Petitioners and appeared on behalf of the Conservation Law Foundation and the Natural Resource Council of Maine. "The Court clearly noted that the atmosphere can't tell the difference between fossil fuel carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide emitted by burning trees."

"BURNING TREES TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY IS DANGEROUS, POLLUTING AND OUGHT TO BE LIMITED TO PROTECT PEOPLE AND THE ENVIRONMENT," SAID KEVIN BUNDY, A SENIOR ATTORNEY WITH THE CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY'S CLIMATE LAW INSTITUTE. "THIS IMPORTANT DECISION WILL REDUCE RESPIRATORY AILMENTS, PROTECT FORESTS AND HELP ENSURE A HEALTHIER, MORE LIVABLE CLIMATE."

"The Court's decision is particularly important for the Southeast. Now we have an opportunity for a more sensible, science-based policy, one that avoids clear-cutting the region's wildlife-rich forests for energy while intensifying climate change impacts," said Frank Rambo, head of the Clean Energy and Air Program for the Southern Environmental Law Center, which is representing Dogwood Alliance, Georgia ForestWatch, South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, and Wild Virginia in the case.

Emissions from power plants and other industrial facilities that burn biomass can accelerate global warming and contribute to a host of respiratory and cardiac problems. BIOMASS-FUELED POWER PLANTS EMIT SIGNIFICANTLY MORE CO2 PER KILOWATT PRODUCED THAN POWER PLANTS THAT BURN FOSSIL FUELS—EVEN COAL—and it can take decades before that excess CO2 is "re-sequestered" by subsequent plant growth. Under the Clean Air Act, facilities that are required to control their CO2 emissions must also control any "significant" emissions of other regulated pollutants, so the Court's decision also means that communities near these plants will also benefit from reductions in pollution that causes asthma and other health problems.


The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is an international nonprofit environmental organization with more than 1.4 million members and online activists. Since 1970, our lawyers, scientists, and other environmental specialists have worked to protect the world's natural resources, public health, and the environment. NRDC has offices in New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Livingston, Montana, and Beijing. Visit us at www.nrdc.org and follow us on Twitter @NRDC.

The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 500,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.

The Clean Air Task Force works to help safeguard against the worst impacts of climate change by catalyzing the rapid global development and deployment of low carbon energy and other climate-protecting technologies through research and analysis, public advocacy leadership, and partnership with the private sector.

The Southern Environmental Law Center is a regional nonprofit using the power of the law to protect the health and environment of the Southeast (Virginia, Tennessee, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama). Founded in 1986, SELC's team of more than 50 legal and policy experts represent more than 100 partner groups on issues of climate change and energy, air and water quality, forests, the coast and wetlands, transportation, and land use.

Dogwood Alliance is increasing protection for millions of acres of Southern forests by transforming the way corporations, landowners and communities value them for their climate, wildlife and water benefits. Dogwood Alliance has revolutionized the environmental practices of some of the world's largest corporations. For more information on the organization please visit, www.dogwoodalliance.


org.

Coastal Conservation League is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of South Carolina and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that works to protect the natural environment and communities of the South Carolina coastal plain.

Conservation Law Foundation is a not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that uses law, science, policy, and the business market to find pragmatic, innovative solutions to New England's toughest environmental problems.

Georgia ForestWatch is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of Georgia and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that works to promote healthy forests and watersheds in national forest lands in Georgia.

Natural Resources Council of Maine, a not-for-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maine, is a membership organization dedicated to preserving the quality of the air, water, forest and other natural resources of the State of Maine, for the benefit of its people and its environment.

Wild Virginia is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of Virginia and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Wild Virginia works to preserve wild forest ecosystems in Virginia's National Forests.
US Federal Court ruling could put the brakes on subsidies for Wood Biomass in the UK.




Re: US Federal Court Confirms.. Biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that burn fossil fuels—even coal





GREEN MADNESS: DO BRITISH MINISTERS KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING?

Date: 01/05/13.

The Drax plant in Yorkshire, England is one of the biggest coal-fired power plants in the world with an almost 1,000 foot-tall flue chimney, 6 boilers, and 12 very large cooling towers. It consumes 36,000 tons of coal each day, providing 7 percent of the country's electricity. Starting next month, the plant will be converted to burn millions of tons of wood chips a year, costing £700 million ($1.085 billion).

Most of the wood chips will travel 3,000 miles across the Atlantic Ocean, coming from trees downed in the United States. Drax is building 2 plants in the United States that will turn the wood from trees into chips that can be transported by ship to Yorkshire and then hauled to the power station by railway trucks. In order to prevent spontaneous combustion, the wood chips must be stored in domes where the humidity is controlled before they can be pulverized into powder. (Wood is 1,000 times more prone to spontaneous combustion than coal.)

Despite the fact that coal is the least-expensive source of electricity generation in England, THE OWNERS OF THE DRAX PLANT REALIZED THAT A RECENTLY INSTITUTED CARBON TAX ON FOSSIL FUELS WOULD PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS IF THEY CONTINUED TO BURN COAL EVENTUALLY MAKING THEIR ELECTRICITY BECOME TWICE AS EXPENSIVE. The political incumbents in Britain decided last year to give any coal-fired power station that switched to 'biomass' the almost 100 percent 'renewable subsidy' that owners of onshore wind farms get.

A British Carbon Tax and an EU Mandate.

A new carbon tax introduced in Britain on April 1 is applied to every ton of carbon dioxide produced during electricity production. WHILE THE TAX IS STARTING OUT LOW, IT WILL INCREASE EACH YEAR, MAKING THE COST OF GENERATING ELECTRICITY FROM COAL DOUBLE WITHIN 20 YEARS, AT WHICH POINT IT WILL NO LONGER BE ECONOMICAL FOR DRAX TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY FROM COAL. Along with the carbon tax, the British government will also be subsidizing electricity produced from its list of 'carbon neutral' power sources that will further increase consumer electricity bills.

-

http://www.thegwpf.o

rg/green-madness-bri

tish-ministers-doing

/






Ten years from now the headlines could read..


SOUTHAMPTON THE UKs LITTLE BEIJING..


ALL POLLUTION NONE OF THE WEALTH..
Has all the good work of the 1956 Clean Air Act been wasted?



Re: US Federal Court ruling..

Burning trees to generate electricity is dangerous polluting, contributing to a host of respiratory and cardiac problems and should to be limited to protect people and the environment

Biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that burn fossil fuels—EVEN COAL.



http://www.nrdc.org/
media/2013/130712.as
p



Yet Helius's plans to build two land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass Biomass POWER PLANTs within a miles radius of Southampton and Portsmouth Centre


Has all the good work of the 1956 Clean Air Act been wasted, the Act included measures to relocate polluting POWER PLANTs away from Cities. .?
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: From day one.. Its all about a company with bankrupt ideas pumping its Shares. Helius will Say/Do anything to prompt its Shares.. nothing eco friendly (absolutely/proved) about Helius's land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans. TAKEN FROM ECHO ARCHIVE, REPLY TO ANDY LOCKS HEATH 15TH MAY 2012 Andy Locks Heath said.. The (Helius) location in a port is ideal for initial import of fuel stock and road and rail links for future domestic supplies. I said... Helius would say we have to fully utilize this location before a competitor puts a toe in, we'll push for a 300% expansion and LOOKING FORWARD WE'LL TARGET POMPEY DOCKS. - ECHO ARCHIVE http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/news/9706278. New_biomass_plans_a_ _greenwash_/[/p][/quote]Portsmouth/Southampt on Biomass schemes could cost Taxpayers £600m plus subsidies for operating costs. If it all works out for Helius...we're giving millions ££££ to Helius to borrow £600m from are bankrupt Banks... knowing all the time the Government may cut the subsidies or stop them altogether. RWE NPOWER CLOSES TILBURY BIOMASS POWER STATION The blow to the UK's renewables industry was welcome news to some green campaigners who argue biomass is unsustainable Fiona Harvey and Natalie Starkey The Guardian, Friday 5 July 2013 13.11 BST RWE npower is halting operations at its Tilbury biomass power station, with the likely loss of 220 jobs, in a blow to Britain's renewable power industry. But some green campaigners welcomed the closure, which will take effect from the end of October, as they argue biomass use on a large scale is environmentally unsustainable. The German electricity generator blamed a lack of investment capacity and the difficulty in converting the plant – the world's biggest biomass power station, with a planned capacity of 750MW – to use wood, waste oil and other organic materials in place of coal. BIOMASS INVESTORS HAVE ALSO BEEN RATTLED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S PLANNED CHANGES IN SUBSIDIES FOR BIOMASS AND OTHER RENEWABLE FORMS OF ENERGY. DRAX, BRITAIN'S BIGGEST COAL-FIRED POWER STATION, LAST YEAR SHELVED PLANS FOR TWO NEW BIOMASS POWER STATIONS. The closure has reopened debate over the future of biomass power generation in Britain. The government supports biomass, as a low-carbon form of power generation compared with fossil fuels – the trees and plants used as fuel take up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow, so if they are regrown under environmentally sound conditions, burning them results in a net carbon saving as it displaces coal and gas. However, that is not the whole story, according to many green campaigners. They point to problems with sourcing sufficient quantities of biomass, much of which has to be imported, and say that without strict regulations, growing trees and crops for biomass can lead to deforestation in developing countries. There are also concerns about the effects of the soot that comes from burning the organic fuel. http://www.guardian. co.uk/environment/20 13/jul/05/rwe-npower -tilbury-biomass-pow er-station YOU'RE OK WITH THAT MISTERGRIMSDALE ?[/p][/quote]Helius Director Alastair Salvesen has a fortune of £1.3 billion, up £460 million from last year Alastair Salvesen is also a major shareholder owning 25% of Helius.. Alastair Salvesen wants anyone who turns a light on in Southampton to subsidise his land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans. YOU'RE OK WITH THAT MISTERGRIMSDALE ?[/p][/quote]Skin2000 says.. I think Helius might be having trouble raising funds from the banks Some of Helius's Directors and major shareholders are in the Super Rich Class.. I'm afraid subsidies have turned the Wood Biomass Industry into a honey pot for the Super Rich.. UK Banks will find it hard to turn Helius down.. Pulling the plug on subsidies will be the only thing that will stop Helius building three or four Wood/Grass incinerators in Southampton. Ten years from now the headlines could read.. SOUTHAMPTON THE UKs LITTLE BEIJING.. ALL POLLUTION NONE OF THE WEALTH..[/p][/quote]US Federal Court Confirms.. Summary The science is clear Wood Biomass burning accelerates global warming.. "Burning trees to generate electricity is dangerous polluting, contributing to a host of respiratory and cardiac problems and should to be limited to protect people and the environment Biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that burn fossil fuels—even coal FEDERAL COURT FOLLOWS SCIENCE IN STRIKING DOWN EPA'S BIOMASS EMISSIONS LOOPHOLE WASHINGTON (July 12, 2013) – A key federal court ruling today confirmed that Clean Air Act limits on carbon dioxide pollution apply to industrial facilities, including tree-burning power plants that burn biomass. The court vacated an exemption the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had carved out for "biogenic carbon dioxide." The decision by a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 11-1101) found that EPA had improperly exempted all sources of biogenic CO2 from otherwise applicable permitting requirements. "THE SCIENCE IS CLEAR THAT NOT ALL BIOMASS BURNING IS GOOD FOR THE PLANET AND TODAY'S RULING RIGHTLY AFFIRMS SCIENCE as the guide for how EPA must now move forward on biomass energy production," said Niel Lawrence, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "This decision will ultimately benefit the climate, as well as Americans who want to breathe easier and protect the forests that they love. It will also ensure that our investments in clean energy go to sources that are actually clean." "Today's ruling upholds EPA's authority to regulate pollution that drives climate change. The Court's decision is grounded in an understanding that THE SCIENCE SHOWS THAT BIOMASS FUELS, INCLUDING TREE-BURNING, CAN MAKE CLIMATE DISRUPTION WORSE," said Ann Weeks, Legal Director of the Clean Air Task Force, who argued the case for Petitioners and appeared on behalf of the Conservation Law Foundation and the Natural Resource Council of Maine. "The Court clearly noted that the atmosphere can't tell the difference between fossil fuel carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide emitted by burning trees." "BURNING TREES TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY IS DANGEROUS, POLLUTING AND OUGHT TO BE LIMITED TO PROTECT PEOPLE AND THE ENVIRONMENT," SAID KEVIN BUNDY, A SENIOR ATTORNEY WITH THE CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY'S CLIMATE LAW INSTITUTE. "THIS IMPORTANT DECISION WILL REDUCE RESPIRATORY AILMENTS, PROTECT FORESTS AND HELP ENSURE A HEALTHIER, MORE LIVABLE CLIMATE." "The Court's decision is particularly important for the Southeast. Now we have an opportunity for a more sensible, science-based policy, one that avoids clear-cutting the region's wildlife-rich forests for energy while intensifying climate change impacts," said Frank Rambo, head of the Clean Energy and Air Program for the Southern Environmental Law Center, which is representing Dogwood Alliance, Georgia ForestWatch, South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, and Wild Virginia in the case. Emissions from power plants and other industrial facilities that burn biomass can accelerate global warming and contribute to a host of respiratory and cardiac problems. BIOMASS-FUELED POWER PLANTS EMIT SIGNIFICANTLY MORE CO2 PER KILOWATT PRODUCED THAN POWER PLANTS THAT BURN FOSSIL FUELS—EVEN COAL—and it can take decades before that excess CO2 is "re-sequestered" by subsequent plant growth. Under the Clean Air Act, facilities that are required to control their CO2 emissions must also control any "significant" emissions of other regulated pollutants, so the Court's decision also means that communities near these plants will also benefit from reductions in pollution that causes asthma and other health problems. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is an international nonprofit environmental organization with more than 1.4 million members and online activists. Since 1970, our lawyers, scientists, and other environmental specialists have worked to protect the world's natural resources, public health, and the environment. NRDC has offices in New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Livingston, Montana, and Beijing. Visit us at www.nrdc.org and follow us on Twitter @NRDC. The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 500,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places. The Clean Air Task Force works to help safeguard against the worst impacts of climate change by catalyzing the rapid global development and deployment of low carbon energy and other climate-protecting technologies through research and analysis, public advocacy leadership, and partnership with the private sector. The Southern Environmental Law Center is a regional nonprofit using the power of the law to protect the health and environment of the Southeast (Virginia, Tennessee, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama). Founded in 1986, SELC's team of more than 50 legal and policy experts represent more than 100 partner groups on issues of climate change and energy, air and water quality, forests, the coast and wetlands, transportation, and land use. Dogwood Alliance is increasing protection for millions of acres of Southern forests by transforming the way corporations, landowners and communities value them for their climate, wildlife and water benefits. Dogwood Alliance has revolutionized the environmental practices of some of the world's largest corporations. For more information on the organization please visit, www.dogwoodalliance. org. Coastal Conservation League is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of South Carolina and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that works to protect the natural environment and communities of the South Carolina coastal plain. Conservation Law Foundation is a not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that uses law, science, policy, and the business market to find pragmatic, innovative solutions to New England's toughest environmental problems. Georgia ForestWatch is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of Georgia and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that works to promote healthy forests and watersheds in national forest lands in Georgia. Natural Resources Council of Maine, a not-for-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maine, is a membership organization dedicated to preserving the quality of the air, water, forest and other natural resources of the State of Maine, for the benefit of its people and its environment. Wild Virginia is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of Virginia and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Wild Virginia works to preserve wild forest ecosystems in Virginia's National Forests.[/p][/quote]US Federal Court ruling could put the brakes on subsidies for Wood Biomass in the UK. Re: US Federal Court Confirms.. Biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that burn fossil fuels—even coal GREEN MADNESS: DO BRITISH MINISTERS KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING? Date: 01/05/13. The Drax plant in Yorkshire, England is one of the biggest coal-fired power plants in the world with an almost 1,000 foot-tall flue chimney, 6 boilers, and 12 very large cooling towers. It consumes 36,000 tons of coal each day, providing 7 percent of the country's electricity. Starting next month, the plant will be converted to burn millions of tons of wood chips a year, costing £700 million ($1.085 billion). Most of the wood chips will travel 3,000 miles across the Atlantic Ocean, coming from trees downed in the United States. Drax is building 2 plants in the United States that will turn the wood from trees into chips that can be transported by ship to Yorkshire and then hauled to the power station by railway trucks. In order to prevent spontaneous combustion, the wood chips must be stored in domes where the humidity is controlled before they can be pulverized into powder. (Wood is 1,000 times more prone to spontaneous combustion than coal.) Despite the fact that coal is the least-expensive source of electricity generation in England, THE OWNERS OF THE DRAX PLANT REALIZED THAT A RECENTLY INSTITUTED CARBON TAX ON FOSSIL FUELS WOULD PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS IF THEY CONTINUED TO BURN COAL EVENTUALLY MAKING THEIR ELECTRICITY BECOME TWICE AS EXPENSIVE. The political incumbents in Britain decided last year to give any coal-fired power station that switched to 'biomass' the almost 100 percent 'renewable subsidy' that owners of onshore wind farms get. A British Carbon Tax and an EU Mandate. A new carbon tax introduced in Britain on April 1 is applied to every ton of carbon dioxide produced during electricity production. WHILE THE TAX IS STARTING OUT LOW, IT WILL INCREASE EACH YEAR, MAKING THE COST OF GENERATING ELECTRICITY FROM COAL DOUBLE WITHIN 20 YEARS, AT WHICH POINT IT WILL NO LONGER BE ECONOMICAL FOR DRAX TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY FROM COAL. Along with the carbon tax, the British government will also be subsidizing electricity produced from its list of 'carbon neutral' power sources that will further increase consumer electricity bills. - http://www.thegwpf.o rg/green-madness-bri tish-ministers-doing / Ten years from now the headlines could read.. SOUTHAMPTON THE UKs LITTLE BEIJING.. ALL POLLUTION NONE OF THE WEALTH..[/p][/quote]Has all the good work of the 1956 Clean Air Act been wasted? Re: US Federal Court ruling.. Burning trees to generate electricity is dangerous polluting, contributing to a host of respiratory and cardiac problems and should to be limited to protect people and the environment Biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that burn fossil fuels—EVEN COAL. http://www.nrdc.org/ media/2013/130712.as p Yet Helius's plans to build two land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass Biomass POWER PLANTs within a miles radius of Southampton and Portsmouth Centre Has all the good work of the 1956 Clean Air Act been wasted, the Act included measures to relocate polluting POWER PLANTs away from Cities. .? Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

7:16am Wed 17 Jul 13

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
From day one.. Its all about a company with bankrupt ideas pumping its Shares.



Helius will Say/Do anything to prompt its Shares.. nothing eco friendly (absolutely/proved) about Helius's land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans.




TAKEN FROM ECHO ARCHIVE, REPLY TO ANDY LOCKS HEATH 15TH MAY 2012



Andy Locks Heath said.. The (Helius) location in a port is ideal for initial import of fuel stock and road and rail links for future domestic supplies.



I said... Helius would say we have to fully utilize this location before a competitor puts a toe in, we'll push for a 300% expansion and LOOKING FORWARD WE'LL TARGET POMPEY DOCKS.


-

ECHO ARCHIVE


http://www.dailyecho







.co.uk/news/9706278.







New_biomass_plans_a_







_greenwash_/
Portsmouth/Southampt






on Biomass schemes could cost Taxpayers £600m plus subsidies for operating costs.



If it all works out for Helius...we're giving millions ££££ to Helius to borrow £600m from are bankrupt Banks... knowing all the time the Government may cut the subsidies or stop them altogether.




RWE NPOWER CLOSES TILBURY BIOMASS POWER STATION

The blow to the UK's renewables industry was welcome news to some green campaigners who argue biomass is unsustainable

Fiona Harvey and Natalie Starkey

The Guardian, Friday 5 July 2013 13.11 BST

RWE npower is halting operations at its Tilbury biomass power station, with the likely loss of 220 jobs, in a blow to Britain's renewable power industry.
But some green campaigners welcomed the closure, which will take effect from the end of October, as they argue biomass use on a large scale is environmentally unsustainable.
The German electricity generator blamed a lack of investment capacity and the difficulty in converting the plant – the world's biggest biomass power station, with a planned capacity of 750MW – to use wood, waste oil and other organic materials in place of coal.

BIOMASS INVESTORS HAVE ALSO BEEN RATTLED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S PLANNED CHANGES IN SUBSIDIES FOR BIOMASS AND OTHER RENEWABLE FORMS OF ENERGY. DRAX, BRITAIN'S BIGGEST COAL-FIRED POWER STATION, LAST YEAR SHELVED PLANS FOR TWO NEW BIOMASS POWER STATIONS.

The closure has reopened debate over the future of biomass power generation in Britain.

The government supports biomass, as a low-carbon form of power generation compared with fossil fuels – the trees and plants used as fuel take up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow, so if they are regrown under environmentally sound conditions, burning them results in a net carbon saving as it displaces coal and gas.

However, that is not the whole story, according to many green campaigners. They point to problems with sourcing sufficient quantities of biomass, much of which has to be imported, and say that without strict regulations, growing trees and crops for biomass can lead to deforestation in developing countries. There are also concerns about the effects of the soot that comes from burning the organic fuel.


http://www.guardian.






co.uk/environment/20






13/jul/05/rwe-npower






-tilbury-biomass-pow






er-station




YOU'RE OK WITH THAT MISTERGRIMSDALE ?
Helius Director Alastair Salvesen has a fortune of £1.3 billion, up £460 million from last year



Alastair Salvesen is also a major shareholder owning 25% of Helius..


Alastair Salvesen wants anyone who turns a light on in Southampton to subsidise his land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans.



YOU'RE OK WITH THAT MISTERGRIMSDALE ?
Skin2000 says.. I think Helius might be having trouble raising funds from the banks


Some of Helius's Directors and major shareholders are in the Super Rich Class..


I'm afraid subsidies have turned the Wood Biomass Industry into a honey pot for the Super Rich.. UK Banks will find it hard to turn Helius down..


Pulling the plug on subsidies will be the only thing that will stop Helius building three or four Wood/Grass incinerators in Southampton.




Ten years from now the headlines could read..


SOUTHAMPTON THE UKs LITTLE BEIJING..


ALL POLLUTION NONE OF THE WEALTH..
US Federal Court Confirms..




Summary



The science is clear Wood Biomass burning accelerates global warming..

"Burning trees to generate electricity is dangerous polluting, contributing to a host of respiratory and cardiac problems and should to be limited to protect people and the environment

Biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that burn fossil fuels—even coal







FEDERAL COURT FOLLOWS SCIENCE IN STRIKING DOWN EPA'S BIOMASS EMISSIONS LOOPHOLE

WASHINGTON (July 12, 2013)

– A key federal court ruling today confirmed that Clean Air Act limits on carbon dioxide pollution apply to industrial facilities, including tree-burning power plants that burn biomass. The court vacated an exemption the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had carved out for "biogenic carbon dioxide."

The decision by a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 11-1101) found that EPA had improperly exempted all sources of biogenic CO2 from otherwise applicable permitting requirements.

"THE SCIENCE IS CLEAR THAT NOT ALL BIOMASS BURNING IS GOOD FOR THE PLANET AND TODAY'S RULING RIGHTLY AFFIRMS SCIENCE as the guide for how EPA must now move forward on biomass energy production," said Niel Lawrence, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "This decision will ultimately benefit the climate, as well as Americans who want to breathe easier and protect the forests that they love. It will also ensure that our investments in clean energy go to sources that are actually clean."

"Today's ruling upholds EPA's authority to regulate pollution that drives climate change. The Court's decision is grounded in an understanding that THE SCIENCE SHOWS THAT BIOMASS FUELS, INCLUDING TREE-BURNING, CAN MAKE CLIMATE DISRUPTION WORSE," said Ann Weeks, Legal Director of the Clean Air Task Force, who argued the case for Petitioners and appeared on behalf of the Conservation Law Foundation and the Natural Resource Council of Maine. "The Court clearly noted that the atmosphere can't tell the difference between fossil fuel carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide emitted by burning trees."

"BURNING TREES TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY IS DANGEROUS, POLLUTING AND OUGHT TO BE LIMITED TO PROTECT PEOPLE AND THE ENVIRONMENT," SAID KEVIN BUNDY, A SENIOR ATTORNEY WITH THE CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY'S CLIMATE LAW INSTITUTE. "THIS IMPORTANT DECISION WILL REDUCE RESPIRATORY AILMENTS, PROTECT FORESTS AND HELP ENSURE A HEALTHIER, MORE LIVABLE CLIMATE."

"The Court's decision is particularly important for the Southeast. Now we have an opportunity for a more sensible, science-based policy, one that avoids clear-cutting the region's wildlife-rich forests for energy while intensifying climate change impacts," said Frank Rambo, head of the Clean Energy and Air Program for the Southern Environmental Law Center, which is representing Dogwood Alliance, Georgia ForestWatch, South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, and Wild Virginia in the case.

Emissions from power plants and other industrial facilities that burn biomass can accelerate global warming and contribute to a host of respiratory and cardiac problems. BIOMASS-FUELED POWER PLANTS EMIT SIGNIFICANTLY MORE CO2 PER KILOWATT PRODUCED THAN POWER PLANTS THAT BURN FOSSIL FUELS—EVEN COAL—and it can take decades before that excess CO2 is "re-sequestered" by subsequent plant growth. Under the Clean Air Act, facilities that are required to control their CO2 emissions must also control any "significant" emissions of other regulated pollutants, so the Court's decision also means that communities near these plants will also benefit from reductions in pollution that causes asthma and other health problems.


The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is an international nonprofit environmental organization with more than 1.4 million members and online activists. Since 1970, our lawyers, scientists, and other environmental specialists have worked to protect the world's natural resources, public health, and the environment. NRDC has offices in New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Livingston, Montana, and Beijing. Visit us at www.nrdc.org and follow us on Twitter @NRDC.

The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 500,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.

The Clean Air Task Force works to help safeguard against the worst impacts of climate change by catalyzing the rapid global development and deployment of low carbon energy and other climate-protecting technologies through research and analysis, public advocacy leadership, and partnership with the private sector.

The Southern Environmental Law Center is a regional nonprofit using the power of the law to protect the health and environment of the Southeast (Virginia, Tennessee, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama). Founded in 1986, SELC's team of more than 50 legal and policy experts represent more than 100 partner groups on issues of climate change and energy, air and water quality, forests, the coast and wetlands, transportation, and land use.

Dogwood Alliance is increasing protection for millions of acres of Southern forests by transforming the way corporations, landowners and communities value them for their climate, wildlife and water benefits. Dogwood Alliance has revolutionized the environmental practices of some of the world's largest corporations. For more information on the organization please visit, www.dogwoodalliance.



org.

Coastal Conservation League is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of South Carolina and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that works to protect the natural environment and communities of the South Carolina coastal plain.

Conservation Law Foundation is a not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that uses law, science, policy, and the business market to find pragmatic, innovative solutions to New England's toughest environmental problems.

Georgia ForestWatch is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of Georgia and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that works to promote healthy forests and watersheds in national forest lands in Georgia.

Natural Resources Council of Maine, a not-for-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maine, is a membership organization dedicated to preserving the quality of the air, water, forest and other natural resources of the State of Maine, for the benefit of its people and its environment.

Wild Virginia is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of Virginia and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Wild Virginia works to preserve wild forest ecosystems in Virginia's National Forests.
US Federal Court ruling could put the brakes on subsidies for Wood Biomass in the UK.




Re: US Federal Court Confirms.. Biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that burn fossil fuels—even coal





GREEN MADNESS: DO BRITISH MINISTERS KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING?

Date: 01/05/13.

The Drax plant in Yorkshire, England is one of the biggest coal-fired power plants in the world with an almost 1,000 foot-tall flue chimney, 6 boilers, and 12 very large cooling towers. It consumes 36,000 tons of coal each day, providing 7 percent of the country's electricity. Starting next month, the plant will be converted to burn millions of tons of wood chips a year, costing £700 million ($1.085 billion).

Most of the wood chips will travel 3,000 miles across the Atlantic Ocean, coming from trees downed in the United States. Drax is building 2 plants in the United States that will turn the wood from trees into chips that can be transported by ship to Yorkshire and then hauled to the power station by railway trucks. In order to prevent spontaneous combustion, the wood chips must be stored in domes where the humidity is controlled before they can be pulverized into powder. (Wood is 1,000 times more prone to spontaneous combustion than coal.)

Despite the fact that coal is the least-expensive source of electricity generation in England, THE OWNERS OF THE DRAX PLANT REALIZED THAT A RECENTLY INSTITUTED CARBON TAX ON FOSSIL FUELS WOULD PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS IF THEY CONTINUED TO BURN COAL EVENTUALLY MAKING THEIR ELECTRICITY BECOME TWICE AS EXPENSIVE. The political incumbents in Britain decided last year to give any coal-fired power station that switched to 'biomass' the almost 100 percent 'renewable subsidy' that owners of onshore wind farms get.

A British Carbon Tax and an EU Mandate.

A new carbon tax introduced in Britain on April 1 is applied to every ton of carbon dioxide produced during electricity production. WHILE THE TAX IS STARTING OUT LOW, IT WILL INCREASE EACH YEAR, MAKING THE COST OF GENERATING ELECTRICITY FROM COAL DOUBLE WITHIN 20 YEARS, AT WHICH POINT IT WILL NO LONGER BE ECONOMICAL FOR DRAX TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY FROM COAL. Along with the carbon tax, the British government will also be subsidizing electricity produced from its list of 'carbon neutral' power sources that will further increase consumer electricity bills.

-

http://www.thegwpf.o


rg/green-madness-bri


tish-ministers-doing


/






Ten years from now the headlines could read..


SOUTHAMPTON THE UKs LITTLE BEIJING..


ALL POLLUTION NONE OF THE WEALTH..
Has all the good work of the 1956 Clean Air Act been wasted?



Re: US Federal Court ruling..

Burning trees to generate electricity is dangerous polluting, contributing to a host of respiratory and cardiac problems and should to be limited to protect people and the environment

Biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that burn fossil fuels—EVEN COAL.



http://www.nrdc.org/

media/2013/130712.as

p



Yet Helius's plans to build two land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass Biomass POWER PLANTs within a miles radius of Southampton and Portsmouth Centre


Has all the good work of the 1956 Clean Air Act been wasted, the Act included measures to relocate polluting POWER PLANTs away from Cities. .?
"MAKING ELECTRICITY FROM BIOMASS BASED ON IMPORTED WOOD IS NOT A LONG-TERM ANSWER TO OUR ENERGY NEEDS





ED DAVEY: BIOMASS FUEL SUBSIDIES TO BE CAPPED

16 July 2013 Last updated at 20:19

By Roger Harrabin Environment analyst, BBC News
Pile of logs Burning wood is not a long term answer to the UK's energy needs, said Energy

The government is turning away from its controversial policy of subsidising UK power stations to generate electricity from burning wood.

It is proposing that subsidies for bespoke biomass burning plants should be capped at 400 MW.

And by 2027, it will end subsidies for biomass burning in existing power stations.

Environmentalists are relieved, but say the policy should never have been approved in the first place.

The UK's biggest power station, Drax in Yorkshire, which has been converting half its boilers from coal to wood. Most of this wood it burns is imported, particularly from the US.

Ed Davey, the Energy Secretary, told the BBC that biomass was a temporary solution to meet climate change targets while renewable energy systems were being developed.

"MAKING ELECTRICITY FROM BIOMASS BASED ON IMPORTED WOOD IS NOT A LONG-TERM ANSWER TO OUR ENERGY NEEDS – I AM QUITE CLEAR ABOUT THAT," HE SAID.

http://www.bbc.co.uk
/news/business-23334
466
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: From day one.. Its all about a company with bankrupt ideas pumping its Shares. Helius will Say/Do anything to prompt its Shares.. nothing eco friendly (absolutely/proved) about Helius's land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans. TAKEN FROM ECHO ARCHIVE, REPLY TO ANDY LOCKS HEATH 15TH MAY 2012 Andy Locks Heath said.. The (Helius) location in a port is ideal for initial import of fuel stock and road and rail links for future domestic supplies. I said... Helius would say we have to fully utilize this location before a competitor puts a toe in, we'll push for a 300% expansion and LOOKING FORWARD WE'LL TARGET POMPEY DOCKS. - ECHO ARCHIVE http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/news/9706278. New_biomass_plans_a_ _greenwash_/[/p][/quote]Portsmouth/Southampt on Biomass schemes could cost Taxpayers £600m plus subsidies for operating costs. If it all works out for Helius...we're giving millions ££££ to Helius to borrow £600m from are bankrupt Banks... knowing all the time the Government may cut the subsidies or stop them altogether. RWE NPOWER CLOSES TILBURY BIOMASS POWER STATION The blow to the UK's renewables industry was welcome news to some green campaigners who argue biomass is unsustainable Fiona Harvey and Natalie Starkey The Guardian, Friday 5 July 2013 13.11 BST RWE npower is halting operations at its Tilbury biomass power station, with the likely loss of 220 jobs, in a blow to Britain's renewable power industry. But some green campaigners welcomed the closure, which will take effect from the end of October, as they argue biomass use on a large scale is environmentally unsustainable. The German electricity generator blamed a lack of investment capacity and the difficulty in converting the plant – the world's biggest biomass power station, with a planned capacity of 750MW – to use wood, waste oil and other organic materials in place of coal. BIOMASS INVESTORS HAVE ALSO BEEN RATTLED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S PLANNED CHANGES IN SUBSIDIES FOR BIOMASS AND OTHER RENEWABLE FORMS OF ENERGY. DRAX, BRITAIN'S BIGGEST COAL-FIRED POWER STATION, LAST YEAR SHELVED PLANS FOR TWO NEW BIOMASS POWER STATIONS. The closure has reopened debate over the future of biomass power generation in Britain. The government supports biomass, as a low-carbon form of power generation compared with fossil fuels – the trees and plants used as fuel take up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow, so if they are regrown under environmentally sound conditions, burning them results in a net carbon saving as it displaces coal and gas. However, that is not the whole story, according to many green campaigners. They point to problems with sourcing sufficient quantities of biomass, much of which has to be imported, and say that without strict regulations, growing trees and crops for biomass can lead to deforestation in developing countries. There are also concerns about the effects of the soot that comes from burning the organic fuel. http://www.guardian. co.uk/environment/20 13/jul/05/rwe-npower -tilbury-biomass-pow er-station YOU'RE OK WITH THAT MISTERGRIMSDALE ?[/p][/quote]Helius Director Alastair Salvesen has a fortune of £1.3 billion, up £460 million from last year Alastair Salvesen is also a major shareholder owning 25% of Helius.. Alastair Salvesen wants anyone who turns a light on in Southampton to subsidise his land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans. YOU'RE OK WITH THAT MISTERGRIMSDALE ?[/p][/quote]Skin2000 says.. I think Helius might be having trouble raising funds from the banks Some of Helius's Directors and major shareholders are in the Super Rich Class.. I'm afraid subsidies have turned the Wood Biomass Industry into a honey pot for the Super Rich.. UK Banks will find it hard to turn Helius down.. Pulling the plug on subsidies will be the only thing that will stop Helius building three or four Wood/Grass incinerators in Southampton. Ten years from now the headlines could read.. SOUTHAMPTON THE UKs LITTLE BEIJING.. ALL POLLUTION NONE OF THE WEALTH..[/p][/quote]US Federal Court Confirms.. Summary The science is clear Wood Biomass burning accelerates global warming.. "Burning trees to generate electricity is dangerous polluting, contributing to a host of respiratory and cardiac problems and should to be limited to protect people and the environment Biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that burn fossil fuels—even coal FEDERAL COURT FOLLOWS SCIENCE IN STRIKING DOWN EPA'S BIOMASS EMISSIONS LOOPHOLE WASHINGTON (July 12, 2013) – A key federal court ruling today confirmed that Clean Air Act limits on carbon dioxide pollution apply to industrial facilities, including tree-burning power plants that burn biomass. The court vacated an exemption the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had carved out for "biogenic carbon dioxide." The decision by a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 11-1101) found that EPA had improperly exempted all sources of biogenic CO2 from otherwise applicable permitting requirements. "THE SCIENCE IS CLEAR THAT NOT ALL BIOMASS BURNING IS GOOD FOR THE PLANET AND TODAY'S RULING RIGHTLY AFFIRMS SCIENCE as the guide for how EPA must now move forward on biomass energy production," said Niel Lawrence, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "This decision will ultimately benefit the climate, as well as Americans who want to breathe easier and protect the forests that they love. It will also ensure that our investments in clean energy go to sources that are actually clean." "Today's ruling upholds EPA's authority to regulate pollution that drives climate change. The Court's decision is grounded in an understanding that THE SCIENCE SHOWS THAT BIOMASS FUELS, INCLUDING TREE-BURNING, CAN MAKE CLIMATE DISRUPTION WORSE," said Ann Weeks, Legal Director of the Clean Air Task Force, who argued the case for Petitioners and appeared on behalf of the Conservation Law Foundation and the Natural Resource Council of Maine. "The Court clearly noted that the atmosphere can't tell the difference between fossil fuel carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide emitted by burning trees." "BURNING TREES TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY IS DANGEROUS, POLLUTING AND OUGHT TO BE LIMITED TO PROTECT PEOPLE AND THE ENVIRONMENT," SAID KEVIN BUNDY, A SENIOR ATTORNEY WITH THE CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY'S CLIMATE LAW INSTITUTE. "THIS IMPORTANT DECISION WILL REDUCE RESPIRATORY AILMENTS, PROTECT FORESTS AND HELP ENSURE A HEALTHIER, MORE LIVABLE CLIMATE." "The Court's decision is particularly important for the Southeast. Now we have an opportunity for a more sensible, science-based policy, one that avoids clear-cutting the region's wildlife-rich forests for energy while intensifying climate change impacts," said Frank Rambo, head of the Clean Energy and Air Program for the Southern Environmental Law Center, which is representing Dogwood Alliance, Georgia ForestWatch, South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, and Wild Virginia in the case. Emissions from power plants and other industrial facilities that burn biomass can accelerate global warming and contribute to a host of respiratory and cardiac problems. BIOMASS-FUELED POWER PLANTS EMIT SIGNIFICANTLY MORE CO2 PER KILOWATT PRODUCED THAN POWER PLANTS THAT BURN FOSSIL FUELS—EVEN COAL—and it can take decades before that excess CO2 is "re-sequestered" by subsequent plant growth. Under the Clean Air Act, facilities that are required to control their CO2 emissions must also control any "significant" emissions of other regulated pollutants, so the Court's decision also means that communities near these plants will also benefit from reductions in pollution that causes asthma and other health problems. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is an international nonprofit environmental organization with more than 1.4 million members and online activists. Since 1970, our lawyers, scientists, and other environmental specialists have worked to protect the world's natural resources, public health, and the environment. NRDC has offices in New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Livingston, Montana, and Beijing. Visit us at www.nrdc.org and follow us on Twitter @NRDC. The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 500,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places. The Clean Air Task Force works to help safeguard against the worst impacts of climate change by catalyzing the rapid global development and deployment of low carbon energy and other climate-protecting technologies through research and analysis, public advocacy leadership, and partnership with the private sector. The Southern Environmental Law Center is a regional nonprofit using the power of the law to protect the health and environment of the Southeast (Virginia, Tennessee, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama). Founded in 1986, SELC's team of more than 50 legal and policy experts represent more than 100 partner groups on issues of climate change and energy, air and water quality, forests, the coast and wetlands, transportation, and land use. Dogwood Alliance is increasing protection for millions of acres of Southern forests by transforming the way corporations, landowners and communities value them for their climate, wildlife and water benefits. Dogwood Alliance has revolutionized the environmental practices of some of the world's largest corporations. For more information on the organization please visit, www.dogwoodalliance. org. Coastal Conservation League is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of South Carolina and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that works to protect the natural environment and communities of the South Carolina coastal plain. Conservation Law Foundation is a not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that uses law, science, policy, and the business market to find pragmatic, innovative solutions to New England's toughest environmental problems. Georgia ForestWatch is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of Georgia and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that works to promote healthy forests and watersheds in national forest lands in Georgia. Natural Resources Council of Maine, a not-for-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maine, is a membership organization dedicated to preserving the quality of the air, water, forest and other natural resources of the State of Maine, for the benefit of its people and its environment. Wild Virginia is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of Virginia and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Wild Virginia works to preserve wild forest ecosystems in Virginia's National Forests.[/p][/quote]US Federal Court ruling could put the brakes on subsidies for Wood Biomass in the UK. Re: US Federal Court Confirms.. Biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that burn fossil fuels—even coal GREEN MADNESS: DO BRITISH MINISTERS KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING? Date: 01/05/13. The Drax plant in Yorkshire, England is one of the biggest coal-fired power plants in the world with an almost 1,000 foot-tall flue chimney, 6 boilers, and 12 very large cooling towers. It consumes 36,000 tons of coal each day, providing 7 percent of the country's electricity. Starting next month, the plant will be converted to burn millions of tons of wood chips a year, costing £700 million ($1.085 billion). Most of the wood chips will travel 3,000 miles across the Atlantic Ocean, coming from trees downed in the United States. Drax is building 2 plants in the United States that will turn the wood from trees into chips that can be transported by ship to Yorkshire and then hauled to the power station by railway trucks. In order to prevent spontaneous combustion, the wood chips must be stored in domes where the humidity is controlled before they can be pulverized into powder. (Wood is 1,000 times more prone to spontaneous combustion than coal.) Despite the fact that coal is the least-expensive source of electricity generation in England, THE OWNERS OF THE DRAX PLANT REALIZED THAT A RECENTLY INSTITUTED CARBON TAX ON FOSSIL FUELS WOULD PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS IF THEY CONTINUED TO BURN COAL EVENTUALLY MAKING THEIR ELECTRICITY BECOME TWICE AS EXPENSIVE. The political incumbents in Britain decided last year to give any coal-fired power station that switched to 'biomass' the almost 100 percent 'renewable subsidy' that owners of onshore wind farms get. A British Carbon Tax and an EU Mandate. A new carbon tax introduced in Britain on April 1 is applied to every ton of carbon dioxide produced during electricity production. WHILE THE TAX IS STARTING OUT LOW, IT WILL INCREASE EACH YEAR, MAKING THE COST OF GENERATING ELECTRICITY FROM COAL DOUBLE WITHIN 20 YEARS, AT WHICH POINT IT WILL NO LONGER BE ECONOMICAL FOR DRAX TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY FROM COAL. Along with the carbon tax, the British government will also be subsidizing electricity produced from its list of 'carbon neutral' power sources that will further increase consumer electricity bills. - http://www.thegwpf.o rg/green-madness-bri tish-ministers-doing / Ten years from now the headlines could read.. SOUTHAMPTON THE UKs LITTLE BEIJING.. ALL POLLUTION NONE OF THE WEALTH..[/p][/quote]Has all the good work of the 1956 Clean Air Act been wasted? Re: US Federal Court ruling.. Burning trees to generate electricity is dangerous polluting, contributing to a host of respiratory and cardiac problems and should to be limited to protect people and the environment Biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that burn fossil fuels—EVEN COAL. http://www.nrdc.org/ media/2013/130712.as p Yet Helius's plans to build two land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass Biomass POWER PLANTs within a miles radius of Southampton and Portsmouth Centre Has all the good work of the 1956 Clean Air Act been wasted, the Act included measures to relocate polluting POWER PLANTs away from Cities. .?[/p][/quote]"MAKING ELECTRICITY FROM BIOMASS BASED ON IMPORTED WOOD IS NOT A LONG-TERM ANSWER TO OUR ENERGY NEEDS ED DAVEY: BIOMASS FUEL SUBSIDIES TO BE CAPPED 16 July 2013 Last updated at 20:19 By Roger Harrabin Environment analyst, BBC News Pile of logs Burning wood is not a long term answer to the UK's energy needs, said Energy The government is turning away from its controversial policy of subsidising UK power stations to generate electricity from burning wood. It is proposing that subsidies for bespoke biomass burning plants should be capped at 400 MW. And by 2027, it will end subsidies for biomass burning in existing power stations. Environmentalists are relieved, but say the policy should never have been approved in the first place. The UK's biggest power station, Drax in Yorkshire, which has been converting half its boilers from coal to wood. Most of this wood it burns is imported, particularly from the US. Ed Davey, the Energy Secretary, told the BBC that biomass was a temporary solution to meet climate change targets while renewable energy systems were being developed. "MAKING ELECTRICITY FROM BIOMASS BASED ON IMPORTED WOOD IS NOT A LONG-TERM ANSWER TO OUR ENERGY NEEDS – I AM QUITE CLEAR ABOUT THAT," HE SAID. http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/business-23334 466 Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

1:01pm Fri 19 Jul 13

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
From day one.. Its all about a company with bankrupt ideas pumping its Shares.



Helius will Say/Do anything to prompt its Shares.. nothing eco friendly (absolutely/proved) about Helius's land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans.




TAKEN FROM ECHO ARCHIVE, REPLY TO ANDY LOCKS HEATH 15TH MAY 2012



Andy Locks Heath said.. The (Helius) location in a port is ideal for initial import of fuel stock and road and rail links for future domestic supplies.



I said... Helius would say we have to fully utilize this location before a competitor puts a toe in, we'll push for a 300% expansion and LOOKING FORWARD WE'LL TARGET POMPEY DOCKS.


-

ECHO ARCHIVE


http://www.dailyecho








.co.uk/news/9706278.








New_biomass_plans_a_








_greenwash_/
Portsmouth/Southampt







on Biomass schemes could cost Taxpayers £600m plus subsidies for operating costs.



If it all works out for Helius...we're giving millions ££££ to Helius to borrow £600m from are bankrupt Banks... knowing all the time the Government may cut the subsidies or stop them altogether.




RWE NPOWER CLOSES TILBURY BIOMASS POWER STATION

The blow to the UK's renewables industry was welcome news to some green campaigners who argue biomass is unsustainable

Fiona Harvey and Natalie Starkey

The Guardian, Friday 5 July 2013 13.11 BST

RWE npower is halting operations at its Tilbury biomass power station, with the likely loss of 220 jobs, in a blow to Britain's renewable power industry.
But some green campaigners welcomed the closure, which will take effect from the end of October, as they argue biomass use on a large scale is environmentally unsustainable.
The German electricity generator blamed a lack of investment capacity and the difficulty in converting the plant – the world's biggest biomass power station, with a planned capacity of 750MW – to use wood, waste oil and other organic materials in place of coal.

BIOMASS INVESTORS HAVE ALSO BEEN RATTLED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S PLANNED CHANGES IN SUBSIDIES FOR BIOMASS AND OTHER RENEWABLE FORMS OF ENERGY. DRAX, BRITAIN'S BIGGEST COAL-FIRED POWER STATION, LAST YEAR SHELVED PLANS FOR TWO NEW BIOMASS POWER STATIONS.

The closure has reopened debate over the future of biomass power generation in Britain.

The government supports biomass, as a low-carbon form of power generation compared with fossil fuels – the trees and plants used as fuel take up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow, so if they are regrown under environmentally sound conditions, burning them results in a net carbon saving as it displaces coal and gas.

However, that is not the whole story, according to many green campaigners. They point to problems with sourcing sufficient quantities of biomass, much of which has to be imported, and say that without strict regulations, growing trees and crops for biomass can lead to deforestation in developing countries. There are also concerns about the effects of the soot that comes from burning the organic fuel.


http://www.guardian.







co.uk/environment/20







13/jul/05/rwe-npower







-tilbury-biomass-pow







er-station




YOU'RE OK WITH THAT MISTERGRIMSDALE ?
Helius Director Alastair Salvesen has a fortune of £1.3 billion, up £460 million from last year



Alastair Salvesen is also a major shareholder owning 25% of Helius..


Alastair Salvesen wants anyone who turns a light on in Southampton to subsidise his land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans.



YOU'RE OK WITH THAT MISTERGRIMSDALE ?
Skin2000 says.. I think Helius might be having trouble raising funds from the banks


Some of Helius's Directors and major shareholders are in the Super Rich Class..


I'm afraid subsidies have turned the Wood Biomass Industry into a honey pot for the Super Rich.. UK Banks will find it hard to turn Helius down..


Pulling the plug on subsidies will be the only thing that will stop Helius building three or four Wood/Grass incinerators in Southampton.




Ten years from now the headlines could read..


SOUTHAMPTON THE UKs LITTLE BEIJING..


ALL POLLUTION NONE OF THE WEALTH..
US Federal Court Confirms..




Summary



The science is clear Wood Biomass burning accelerates global warming..

"Burning trees to generate electricity is dangerous polluting, contributing to a host of respiratory and cardiac problems and should to be limited to protect people and the environment

Biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that burn fossil fuels—even coal







FEDERAL COURT FOLLOWS SCIENCE IN STRIKING DOWN EPA'S BIOMASS EMISSIONS LOOPHOLE

WASHINGTON (July 12, 2013)

– A key federal court ruling today confirmed that Clean Air Act limits on carbon dioxide pollution apply to industrial facilities, including tree-burning power plants that burn biomass. The court vacated an exemption the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had carved out for "biogenic carbon dioxide."

The decision by a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 11-1101) found that EPA had improperly exempted all sources of biogenic CO2 from otherwise applicable permitting requirements.

"THE SCIENCE IS CLEAR THAT NOT ALL BIOMASS BURNING IS GOOD FOR THE PLANET AND TODAY'S RULING RIGHTLY AFFIRMS SCIENCE as the guide for how EPA must now move forward on biomass energy production," said Niel Lawrence, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "This decision will ultimately benefit the climate, as well as Americans who want to breathe easier and protect the forests that they love. It will also ensure that our investments in clean energy go to sources that are actually clean."

"Today's ruling upholds EPA's authority to regulate pollution that drives climate change. The Court's decision is grounded in an understanding that THE SCIENCE SHOWS THAT BIOMASS FUELS, INCLUDING TREE-BURNING, CAN MAKE CLIMATE DISRUPTION WORSE," said Ann Weeks, Legal Director of the Clean Air Task Force, who argued the case for Petitioners and appeared on behalf of the Conservation Law Foundation and the Natural Resource Council of Maine. "The Court clearly noted that the atmosphere can't tell the difference between fossil fuel carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide emitted by burning trees."

"BURNING TREES TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY IS DANGEROUS, POLLUTING AND OUGHT TO BE LIMITED TO PROTECT PEOPLE AND THE ENVIRONMENT," SAID KEVIN BUNDY, A SENIOR ATTORNEY WITH THE CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY'S CLIMATE LAW INSTITUTE. "THIS IMPORTANT DECISION WILL REDUCE RESPIRATORY AILMENTS, PROTECT FORESTS AND HELP ENSURE A HEALTHIER, MORE LIVABLE CLIMATE."

"The Court's decision is particularly important for the Southeast. Now we have an opportunity for a more sensible, science-based policy, one that avoids clear-cutting the region's wildlife-rich forests for energy while intensifying climate change impacts," said Frank Rambo, head of the Clean Energy and Air Program for the Southern Environmental Law Center, which is representing Dogwood Alliance, Georgia ForestWatch, South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, and Wild Virginia in the case.

Emissions from power plants and other industrial facilities that burn biomass can accelerate global warming and contribute to a host of respiratory and cardiac problems. BIOMASS-FUELED POWER PLANTS EMIT SIGNIFICANTLY MORE CO2 PER KILOWATT PRODUCED THAN POWER PLANTS THAT BURN FOSSIL FUELS—EVEN COAL—and it can take decades before that excess CO2 is "re-sequestered" by subsequent plant growth. Under the Clean Air Act, facilities that are required to control their CO2 emissions must also control any "significant" emissions of other regulated pollutants, so the Court's decision also means that communities near these plants will also benefit from reductions in pollution that causes asthma and other health problems.


The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is an international nonprofit environmental organization with more than 1.4 million members and online activists. Since 1970, our lawyers, scientists, and other environmental specialists have worked to protect the world's natural resources, public health, and the environment. NRDC has offices in New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Livingston, Montana, and Beijing. Visit us at www.nrdc.org and follow us on Twitter @NRDC.

The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 500,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.

The Clean Air Task Force works to help safeguard against the worst impacts of climate change by catalyzing the rapid global development and deployment of low carbon energy and other climate-protecting technologies through research and analysis, public advocacy leadership, and partnership with the private sector.

The Southern Environmental Law Center is a regional nonprofit using the power of the law to protect the health and environment of the Southeast (Virginia, Tennessee, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama). Founded in 1986, SELC's team of more than 50 legal and policy experts represent more than 100 partner groups on issues of climate change and energy, air and water quality, forests, the coast and wetlands, transportation, and land use.

Dogwood Alliance is increasing protection for millions of acres of Southern forests by transforming the way corporations, landowners and communities value them for their climate, wildlife and water benefits. Dogwood Alliance has revolutionized the environmental practices of some of the world's largest corporations. For more information on the organization please visit, www.dogwoodalliance.




org.

Coastal Conservation League is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of South Carolina and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that works to protect the natural environment and communities of the South Carolina coastal plain.

Conservation Law Foundation is a not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that uses law, science, policy, and the business market to find pragmatic, innovative solutions to New England's toughest environmental problems.

Georgia ForestWatch is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of Georgia and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that works to promote healthy forests and watersheds in national forest lands in Georgia.

Natural Resources Council of Maine, a not-for-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maine, is a membership organization dedicated to preserving the quality of the air, water, forest and other natural resources of the State of Maine, for the benefit of its people and its environment.

Wild Virginia is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of Virginia and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Wild Virginia works to preserve wild forest ecosystems in Virginia's National Forests.
US Federal Court ruling could put the brakes on subsidies for Wood Biomass in the UK.




Re: US Federal Court Confirms.. Biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that burn fossil fuels—even coal





GREEN MADNESS: DO BRITISH MINISTERS KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING?

Date: 01/05/13.

The Drax plant in Yorkshire, England is one of the biggest coal-fired power plants in the world with an almost 1,000 foot-tall flue chimney, 6 boilers, and 12 very large cooling towers. It consumes 36,000 tons of coal each day, providing 7 percent of the country's electricity. Starting next month, the plant will be converted to burn millions of tons of wood chips a year, costing £700 million ($1.085 billion).

Most of the wood chips will travel 3,000 miles across the Atlantic Ocean, coming from trees downed in the United States. Drax is building 2 plants in the United States that will turn the wood from trees into chips that can be transported by ship to Yorkshire and then hauled to the power station by railway trucks. In order to prevent spontaneous combustion, the wood chips must be stored in domes where the humidity is controlled before they can be pulverized into powder. (Wood is 1,000 times more prone to spontaneous combustion than coal.)

Despite the fact that coal is the least-expensive source of electricity generation in England, THE OWNERS OF THE DRAX PLANT REALIZED THAT A RECENTLY INSTITUTED CARBON TAX ON FOSSIL FUELS WOULD PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS IF THEY CONTINUED TO BURN COAL EVENTUALLY MAKING THEIR ELECTRICITY BECOME TWICE AS EXPENSIVE. The political incumbents in Britain decided last year to give any coal-fired power station that switched to 'biomass' the almost 100 percent 'renewable subsidy' that owners of onshore wind farms get.

A British Carbon Tax and an EU Mandate.

A new carbon tax introduced in Britain on April 1 is applied to every ton of carbon dioxide produced during electricity production. WHILE THE TAX IS STARTING OUT LOW, IT WILL INCREASE EACH YEAR, MAKING THE COST OF GENERATING ELECTRICITY FROM COAL DOUBLE WITHIN 20 YEARS, AT WHICH POINT IT WILL NO LONGER BE ECONOMICAL FOR DRAX TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY FROM COAL. Along with the carbon tax, the British government will also be subsidizing electricity produced from its list of 'carbon neutral' power sources that will further increase consumer electricity bills.

-

http://www.thegwpf.o



rg/green-madness-bri



tish-ministers-doing



/






Ten years from now the headlines could read..


SOUTHAMPTON THE UKs LITTLE BEIJING..


ALL POLLUTION NONE OF THE WEALTH..
Has all the good work of the 1956 Clean Air Act been wasted?



Re: US Federal Court ruling..

Burning trees to generate electricity is dangerous polluting, contributing to a host of respiratory and cardiac problems and should to be limited to protect people and the environment

Biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that burn fossil fuels—EVEN COAL.



http://www.nrdc.org/


media/2013/130712.as


p



Yet Helius's plans to build two land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass Biomass POWER PLANTs within a miles radius of Southampton and Portsmouth Centre


Has all the good work of the 1956 Clean Air Act been wasted, the Act included measures to relocate polluting POWER PLANTs away from Cities. .?
"MAKING ELECTRICITY FROM BIOMASS BASED ON IMPORTED WOOD IS NOT A LONG-TERM ANSWER TO OUR ENERGY NEEDS





ED DAVEY: BIOMASS FUEL SUBSIDIES TO BE CAPPED

16 July 2013 Last updated at 20:19

By Roger Harrabin Environment analyst, BBC News
Pile of logs Burning wood is not a long term answer to the UK's energy needs, said Energy

The government is turning away from its controversial policy of subsidising UK power stations to generate electricity from burning wood.

It is proposing that subsidies for bespoke biomass burning plants should be capped at 400 MW.

And by 2027, it will end subsidies for biomass burning in existing power stations.

Environmentalists are relieved, but say the policy should never have been approved in the first place.

The UK's biggest power station, Drax in Yorkshire, which has been converting half its boilers from coal to wood. Most of this wood it burns is imported, particularly from the US.

Ed Davey, the Energy Secretary, told the BBC that biomass was a temporary solution to meet climate change targets while renewable energy systems were being developed.

"MAKING ELECTRICITY FROM BIOMASS BASED ON IMPORTED WOOD IS NOT A LONG-TERM ANSWER TO OUR ENERGY NEEDS – I AM QUITE CLEAR ABOUT THAT," HE SAID.

http://www.bbc.co.uk

/news/business-23334

466
Endgame no local CHP no subsidy.. no Helius

-


AFAIK: Helius is unlikely to implement CHP owing to the huge extra cost.. no local district heating infrastructure in place.


I'm still waiting for Southampton (vaguely promised) geothermal CHP plan to kick in, low cost district heating for all


IRONIC OR WHAT.. All of the electrical power from Southampton's geothermal CHP scheme (26 million kWh) is to be used by Associated British Ports via a private electrical connection to the port.

-

https://www.southamp
ton.gov.uk/s-environ
ment/energy/Geotherm
al/



-


BRITAIN TO LIMIT FUNDING FOR NEW POWER-ONLY BIOMASS PLANTS

By John McGarrity
LONDON | Thu Jul 18, 2013 7:16pm BST

(Reuters) - New standalone biomass power plants in Britain will not be eligible for some subsidies unless they generate heat at the same time, under new government proposals, meaning many new plants could be cancelled, an industry lobby said.

BRITAIN'S GOVERNMENT SAID ON WEDNESDAY IT AIMED TO DENY PUBLIC MONEY VIA GUARANTEED MINIMUM POWER PRICES TO DEDICATED BIOMASS PLANTS THAT DO NOT GENERATE BOTH HEAT AND ELECTRICITY.

"The lack of a strike price for new build biomass means support for this important technology has effectively come to an end, and we urge the Government to reconsider," said Gaynor Hartnell, chief executive with the Renewable Energy Association (REA).

She said that as heat output, known as combined heat and power (CHP) could not easily be built into projects that had already been approved, many would be scrapped:

"Developers cannot simply add CHP to these projects retrospectively, so they will most likely be cancelled.

" CHP is seen as much more efficient as the heat from power generation is used to warm homes and businesses.

Last week, RWE npower said it would close a newly converted 750-megawatt biomass plant at Tilbury by July 21 because of a forecast drop in UK power prices and lack of capital from the Germany-based parent RWE.

Last year Drax scrapped plans to build a new dedicated biomass plant on its site in North Yorkshire, citing the need for better government support.

-


http://uk.reuters.co
m/article/2013/07/18
/uk-britain-biomass-
subsidies-idUKBRE96H
14820130718
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: From day one.. Its all about a company with bankrupt ideas pumping its Shares. Helius will Say/Do anything to prompt its Shares.. nothing eco friendly (absolutely/proved) about Helius's land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans. TAKEN FROM ECHO ARCHIVE, REPLY TO ANDY LOCKS HEATH 15TH MAY 2012 Andy Locks Heath said.. The (Helius) location in a port is ideal for initial import of fuel stock and road and rail links for future domestic supplies. I said... Helius would say we have to fully utilize this location before a competitor puts a toe in, we'll push for a 300% expansion and LOOKING FORWARD WE'LL TARGET POMPEY DOCKS. - ECHO ARCHIVE http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/news/9706278. New_biomass_plans_a_ _greenwash_/[/p][/quote]Portsmouth/Southampt on Biomass schemes could cost Taxpayers £600m plus subsidies for operating costs. If it all works out for Helius...we're giving millions ££££ to Helius to borrow £600m from are bankrupt Banks... knowing all the time the Government may cut the subsidies or stop them altogether. RWE NPOWER CLOSES TILBURY BIOMASS POWER STATION The blow to the UK's renewables industry was welcome news to some green campaigners who argue biomass is unsustainable Fiona Harvey and Natalie Starkey The Guardian, Friday 5 July 2013 13.11 BST RWE npower is halting operations at its Tilbury biomass power station, with the likely loss of 220 jobs, in a blow to Britain's renewable power industry. But some green campaigners welcomed the closure, which will take effect from the end of October, as they argue biomass use on a large scale is environmentally unsustainable. The German electricity generator blamed a lack of investment capacity and the difficulty in converting the plant – the world's biggest biomass power station, with a planned capacity of 750MW – to use wood, waste oil and other organic materials in place of coal. BIOMASS INVESTORS HAVE ALSO BEEN RATTLED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S PLANNED CHANGES IN SUBSIDIES FOR BIOMASS AND OTHER RENEWABLE FORMS OF ENERGY. DRAX, BRITAIN'S BIGGEST COAL-FIRED POWER STATION, LAST YEAR SHELVED PLANS FOR TWO NEW BIOMASS POWER STATIONS. The closure has reopened debate over the future of biomass power generation in Britain. The government supports biomass, as a low-carbon form of power generation compared with fossil fuels – the trees and plants used as fuel take up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow, so if they are regrown under environmentally sound conditions, burning them results in a net carbon saving as it displaces coal and gas. However, that is not the whole story, according to many green campaigners. They point to problems with sourcing sufficient quantities of biomass, much of which has to be imported, and say that without strict regulations, growing trees and crops for biomass can lead to deforestation in developing countries. There are also concerns about the effects of the soot that comes from burning the organic fuel. http://www.guardian. co.uk/environment/20 13/jul/05/rwe-npower -tilbury-biomass-pow er-station YOU'RE OK WITH THAT MISTERGRIMSDALE ?[/p][/quote]Helius Director Alastair Salvesen has a fortune of £1.3 billion, up £460 million from last year Alastair Salvesen is also a major shareholder owning 25% of Helius.. Alastair Salvesen wants anyone who turns a light on in Southampton to subsidise his land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans. YOU'RE OK WITH THAT MISTERGRIMSDALE ?[/p][/quote]Skin2000 says.. I think Helius might be having trouble raising funds from the banks Some of Helius's Directors and major shareholders are in the Super Rich Class.. I'm afraid subsidies have turned the Wood Biomass Industry into a honey pot for the Super Rich.. UK Banks will find it hard to turn Helius down.. Pulling the plug on subsidies will be the only thing that will stop Helius building three or four Wood/Grass incinerators in Southampton. Ten years from now the headlines could read.. SOUTHAMPTON THE UKs LITTLE BEIJING.. ALL POLLUTION NONE OF THE WEALTH..[/p][/quote]US Federal Court Confirms.. Summary The science is clear Wood Biomass burning accelerates global warming.. "Burning trees to generate electricity is dangerous polluting, contributing to a host of respiratory and cardiac problems and should to be limited to protect people and the environment Biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that burn fossil fuels—even coal FEDERAL COURT FOLLOWS SCIENCE IN STRIKING DOWN EPA'S BIOMASS EMISSIONS LOOPHOLE WASHINGTON (July 12, 2013) – A key federal court ruling today confirmed that Clean Air Act limits on carbon dioxide pollution apply to industrial facilities, including tree-burning power plants that burn biomass. The court vacated an exemption the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had carved out for "biogenic carbon dioxide." The decision by a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 11-1101) found that EPA had improperly exempted all sources of biogenic CO2 from otherwise applicable permitting requirements. "THE SCIENCE IS CLEAR THAT NOT ALL BIOMASS BURNING IS GOOD FOR THE PLANET AND TODAY'S RULING RIGHTLY AFFIRMS SCIENCE as the guide for how EPA must now move forward on biomass energy production," said Niel Lawrence, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "This decision will ultimately benefit the climate, as well as Americans who want to breathe easier and protect the forests that they love. It will also ensure that our investments in clean energy go to sources that are actually clean." "Today's ruling upholds EPA's authority to regulate pollution that drives climate change. The Court's decision is grounded in an understanding that THE SCIENCE SHOWS THAT BIOMASS FUELS, INCLUDING TREE-BURNING, CAN MAKE CLIMATE DISRUPTION WORSE," said Ann Weeks, Legal Director of the Clean Air Task Force, who argued the case for Petitioners and appeared on behalf of the Conservation Law Foundation and the Natural Resource Council of Maine. "The Court clearly noted that the atmosphere can't tell the difference between fossil fuel carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide emitted by burning trees." "BURNING TREES TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY IS DANGEROUS, POLLUTING AND OUGHT TO BE LIMITED TO PROTECT PEOPLE AND THE ENVIRONMENT," SAID KEVIN BUNDY, A SENIOR ATTORNEY WITH THE CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY'S CLIMATE LAW INSTITUTE. "THIS IMPORTANT DECISION WILL REDUCE RESPIRATORY AILMENTS, PROTECT FORESTS AND HELP ENSURE A HEALTHIER, MORE LIVABLE CLIMATE." "The Court's decision is particularly important for the Southeast. Now we have an opportunity for a more sensible, science-based policy, one that avoids clear-cutting the region's wildlife-rich forests for energy while intensifying climate change impacts," said Frank Rambo, head of the Clean Energy and Air Program for the Southern Environmental Law Center, which is representing Dogwood Alliance, Georgia ForestWatch, South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, and Wild Virginia in the case. Emissions from power plants and other industrial facilities that burn biomass can accelerate global warming and contribute to a host of respiratory and cardiac problems. BIOMASS-FUELED POWER PLANTS EMIT SIGNIFICANTLY MORE CO2 PER KILOWATT PRODUCED THAN POWER PLANTS THAT BURN FOSSIL FUELS—EVEN COAL—and it can take decades before that excess CO2 is "re-sequestered" by subsequent plant growth. Under the Clean Air Act, facilities that are required to control their CO2 emissions must also control any "significant" emissions of other regulated pollutants, so the Court's decision also means that communities near these plants will also benefit from reductions in pollution that causes asthma and other health problems. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is an international nonprofit environmental organization with more than 1.4 million members and online activists. Since 1970, our lawyers, scientists, and other environmental specialists have worked to protect the world's natural resources, public health, and the environment. NRDC has offices in New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Livingston, Montana, and Beijing. Visit us at www.nrdc.org and follow us on Twitter @NRDC. The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 500,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places. The Clean Air Task Force works to help safeguard against the worst impacts of climate change by catalyzing the rapid global development and deployment of low carbon energy and other climate-protecting technologies through research and analysis, public advocacy leadership, and partnership with the private sector. The Southern Environmental Law Center is a regional nonprofit using the power of the law to protect the health and environment of the Southeast (Virginia, Tennessee, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama). Founded in 1986, SELC's team of more than 50 legal and policy experts represent more than 100 partner groups on issues of climate change and energy, air and water quality, forests, the coast and wetlands, transportation, and land use. Dogwood Alliance is increasing protection for millions of acres of Southern forests by transforming the way corporations, landowners and communities value them for their climate, wildlife and water benefits. Dogwood Alliance has revolutionized the environmental practices of some of the world's largest corporations. For more information on the organization please visit, www.dogwoodalliance. org. Coastal Conservation League is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of South Carolina and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that works to protect the natural environment and communities of the South Carolina coastal plain. Conservation Law Foundation is a not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that uses law, science, policy, and the business market to find pragmatic, innovative solutions to New England's toughest environmental problems. Georgia ForestWatch is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of Georgia and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that works to promote healthy forests and watersheds in national forest lands in Georgia. Natural Resources Council of Maine, a not-for-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maine, is a membership organization dedicated to preserving the quality of the air, water, forest and other natural resources of the State of Maine, for the benefit of its people and its environment. Wild Virginia is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of Virginia and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Wild Virginia works to preserve wild forest ecosystems in Virginia's National Forests.[/p][/quote]US Federal Court ruling could put the brakes on subsidies for Wood Biomass in the UK. Re: US Federal Court Confirms.. Biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that burn fossil fuels—even coal GREEN MADNESS: DO BRITISH MINISTERS KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING? Date: 01/05/13. The Drax plant in Yorkshire, England is one of the biggest coal-fired power plants in the world with an almost 1,000 foot-tall flue chimney, 6 boilers, and 12 very large cooling towers. It consumes 36,000 tons of coal each day, providing 7 percent of the country's electricity. Starting next month, the plant will be converted to burn millions of tons of wood chips a year, costing £700 million ($1.085 billion). Most of the wood chips will travel 3,000 miles across the Atlantic Ocean, coming from trees downed in the United States. Drax is building 2 plants in the United States that will turn the wood from trees into chips that can be transported by ship to Yorkshire and then hauled to the power station by railway trucks. In order to prevent spontaneous combustion, the wood chips must be stored in domes where the humidity is controlled before they can be pulverized into powder. (Wood is 1,000 times more prone to spontaneous combustion than coal.) Despite the fact that coal is the least-expensive source of electricity generation in England, THE OWNERS OF THE DRAX PLANT REALIZED THAT A RECENTLY INSTITUTED CARBON TAX ON FOSSIL FUELS WOULD PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS IF THEY CONTINUED TO BURN COAL EVENTUALLY MAKING THEIR ELECTRICITY BECOME TWICE AS EXPENSIVE. The political incumbents in Britain decided last year to give any coal-fired power station that switched to 'biomass' the almost 100 percent 'renewable subsidy' that owners of onshore wind farms get. A British Carbon Tax and an EU Mandate. A new carbon tax introduced in Britain on April 1 is applied to every ton of carbon dioxide produced during electricity production. WHILE THE TAX IS STARTING OUT LOW, IT WILL INCREASE EACH YEAR, MAKING THE COST OF GENERATING ELECTRICITY FROM COAL DOUBLE WITHIN 20 YEARS, AT WHICH POINT IT WILL NO LONGER BE ECONOMICAL FOR DRAX TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY FROM COAL. Along with the carbon tax, the British government will also be subsidizing electricity produced from its list of 'carbon neutral' power sources that will further increase consumer electricity bills. - http://www.thegwpf.o rg/green-madness-bri tish-ministers-doing / Ten years from now the headlines could read.. SOUTHAMPTON THE UKs LITTLE BEIJING.. ALL POLLUTION NONE OF THE WEALTH..[/p][/quote]Has all the good work of the 1956 Clean Air Act been wasted? Re: US Federal Court ruling.. Burning trees to generate electricity is dangerous polluting, contributing to a host of respiratory and cardiac problems and should to be limited to protect people and the environment Biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that burn fossil fuels—EVEN COAL. http://www.nrdc.org/ media/2013/130712.as p Yet Helius's plans to build two land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass Biomass POWER PLANTs within a miles radius of Southampton and Portsmouth Centre Has all the good work of the 1956 Clean Air Act been wasted, the Act included measures to relocate polluting POWER PLANTs away from Cities. .?[/p][/quote]"MAKING ELECTRICITY FROM BIOMASS BASED ON IMPORTED WOOD IS NOT A LONG-TERM ANSWER TO OUR ENERGY NEEDS ED DAVEY: BIOMASS FUEL SUBSIDIES TO BE CAPPED 16 July 2013 Last updated at 20:19 By Roger Harrabin Environment analyst, BBC News Pile of logs Burning wood is not a long term answer to the UK's energy needs, said Energy The government is turning away from its controversial policy of subsidising UK power stations to generate electricity from burning wood. It is proposing that subsidies for bespoke biomass burning plants should be capped at 400 MW. And by 2027, it will end subsidies for biomass burning in existing power stations. Environmentalists are relieved, but say the policy should never have been approved in the first place. The UK's biggest power station, Drax in Yorkshire, which has been converting half its boilers from coal to wood. Most of this wood it burns is imported, particularly from the US. Ed Davey, the Energy Secretary, told the BBC that biomass was a temporary solution to meet climate change targets while renewable energy systems were being developed. "MAKING ELECTRICITY FROM BIOMASS BASED ON IMPORTED WOOD IS NOT A LONG-TERM ANSWER TO OUR ENERGY NEEDS – I AM QUITE CLEAR ABOUT THAT," HE SAID. http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/business-23334 466[/p][/quote]Endgame no local CHP no subsidy.. no Helius - AFAIK: Helius is unlikely to implement CHP owing to the huge extra cost.. no local district heating infrastructure in place. I'm still waiting for Southampton (vaguely promised) geothermal CHP plan to kick in, low cost district heating for all IRONIC OR WHAT.. All of the electrical power from Southampton's geothermal CHP scheme (26 million kWh) is to be used by Associated British Ports via a private electrical connection to the port. - https://www.southamp ton.gov.uk/s-environ ment/energy/Geotherm al/ - BRITAIN TO LIMIT FUNDING FOR NEW POWER-ONLY BIOMASS PLANTS By John McGarrity LONDON | Thu Jul 18, 2013 7:16pm BST (Reuters) - New standalone biomass power plants in Britain will not be eligible for some subsidies unless they generate heat at the same time, under new government proposals, meaning many new plants could be cancelled, an industry lobby said. BRITAIN'S GOVERNMENT SAID ON WEDNESDAY IT AIMED TO DENY PUBLIC MONEY VIA GUARANTEED MINIMUM POWER PRICES TO DEDICATED BIOMASS PLANTS THAT DO NOT GENERATE BOTH HEAT AND ELECTRICITY. "The lack of a strike price for new build biomass means support for this important technology has effectively come to an end, and we urge the Government to reconsider," said Gaynor Hartnell, chief executive with the Renewable Energy Association (REA). She said that as heat output, known as combined heat and power (CHP) could not easily be built into projects that had already been approved, many would be scrapped: "Developers cannot simply add CHP to these projects retrospectively, so they will most likely be cancelled. " CHP is seen as much more efficient as the heat from power generation is used to warm homes and businesses. Last week, RWE npower said it would close a newly converted 750-megawatt biomass plant at Tilbury by July 21 because of a forecast drop in UK power prices and lack of capital from the Germany-based parent RWE. Last year Drax scrapped plans to build a new dedicated biomass plant on its site in North Yorkshire, citing the need for better government support. - http://uk.reuters.co m/article/2013/07/18 /uk-britain-biomass- subsidies-idUKBRE96H 14820130718 Dan Soton
  • Score: 0

3:31pm Fri 19 Jul 13

loosehead says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
From day one.. Its all about a company with bankrupt ideas pumping its Shares.



Helius will Say/Do anything to prompt its Shares.. nothing eco friendly (absolutely/proved) about Helius's land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans.




TAKEN FROM ECHO ARCHIVE, REPLY TO ANDY LOCKS HEATH 15TH MAY 2012



Andy Locks Heath said.. The (Helius) location in a port is ideal for initial import of fuel stock and road and rail links for future domestic supplies.



I said... Helius would say we have to fully utilize this location before a competitor puts a toe in, we'll push for a 300% expansion and LOOKING FORWARD WE'LL TARGET POMPEY DOCKS.


-

ECHO ARCHIVE


http://www.dailyecho









.co.uk/news/9706278.









New_biomass_plans_a_









_greenwash_/
Portsmouth/Southampt








on Biomass schemes could cost Taxpayers £600m plus subsidies for operating costs.



If it all works out for Helius...we're giving millions ££££ to Helius to borrow £600m from are bankrupt Banks... knowing all the time the Government may cut the subsidies or stop them altogether.




RWE NPOWER CLOSES TILBURY BIOMASS POWER STATION

The blow to the UK's renewables industry was welcome news to some green campaigners who argue biomass is unsustainable

Fiona Harvey and Natalie Starkey

The Guardian, Friday 5 July 2013 13.11 BST

RWE npower is halting operations at its Tilbury biomass power station, with the likely loss of 220 jobs, in a blow to Britain's renewable power industry.
But some green campaigners welcomed the closure, which will take effect from the end of October, as they argue biomass use on a large scale is environmentally unsustainable.
The German electricity generator blamed a lack of investment capacity and the difficulty in converting the plant – the world's biggest biomass power station, with a planned capacity of 750MW – to use wood, waste oil and other organic materials in place of coal.

BIOMASS INVESTORS HAVE ALSO BEEN RATTLED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S PLANNED CHANGES IN SUBSIDIES FOR BIOMASS AND OTHER RENEWABLE FORMS OF ENERGY. DRAX, BRITAIN'S BIGGEST COAL-FIRED POWER STATION, LAST YEAR SHELVED PLANS FOR TWO NEW BIOMASS POWER STATIONS.

The closure has reopened debate over the future of biomass power generation in Britain.

The government supports biomass, as a low-carbon form of power generation compared with fossil fuels – the trees and plants used as fuel take up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow, so if they are regrown under environmentally sound conditions, burning them results in a net carbon saving as it displaces coal and gas.

However, that is not the whole story, according to many green campaigners. They point to problems with sourcing sufficient quantities of biomass, much of which has to be imported, and say that without strict regulations, growing trees and crops for biomass can lead to deforestation in developing countries. There are also concerns about the effects of the soot that comes from burning the organic fuel.


http://www.guardian.








co.uk/environment/20








13/jul/05/rwe-npower








-tilbury-biomass-pow








er-station




YOU'RE OK WITH THAT MISTERGRIMSDALE ?
Helius Director Alastair Salvesen has a fortune of £1.3 billion, up £460 million from last year



Alastair Salvesen is also a major shareholder owning 25% of Helius..


Alastair Salvesen wants anyone who turns a light on in Southampton to subsidise his land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans.



YOU'RE OK WITH THAT MISTERGRIMSDALE ?
Skin2000 says.. I think Helius might be having trouble raising funds from the banks


Some of Helius's Directors and major shareholders are in the Super Rich Class..


I'm afraid subsidies have turned the Wood Biomass Industry into a honey pot for the Super Rich.. UK Banks will find it hard to turn Helius down..


Pulling the plug on subsidies will be the only thing that will stop Helius building three or four Wood/Grass incinerators in Southampton.




Ten years from now the headlines could read..


SOUTHAMPTON THE UKs LITTLE BEIJING..


ALL POLLUTION NONE OF THE WEALTH..
US Federal Court Confirms..




Summary



The science is clear Wood Biomass burning accelerates global warming..

"Burning trees to generate electricity is dangerous polluting, contributing to a host of respiratory and cardiac problems and should to be limited to protect people and the environment

Biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that burn fossil fuels—even coal







FEDERAL COURT FOLLOWS SCIENCE IN STRIKING DOWN EPA'S BIOMASS EMISSIONS LOOPHOLE

WASHINGTON (July 12, 2013)

– A key federal court ruling today confirmed that Clean Air Act limits on carbon dioxide pollution apply to industrial facilities, including tree-burning power plants that burn biomass. The court vacated an exemption the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had carved out for "biogenic carbon dioxide."

The decision by a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 11-1101) found that EPA had improperly exempted all sources of biogenic CO2 from otherwise applicable permitting requirements.

"THE SCIENCE IS CLEAR THAT NOT ALL BIOMASS BURNING IS GOOD FOR THE PLANET AND TODAY'S RULING RIGHTLY AFFIRMS SCIENCE as the guide for how EPA must now move forward on biomass energy production," said Niel Lawrence, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "This decision will ultimately benefit the climate, as well as Americans who want to breathe easier and protect the forests that they love. It will also ensure that our investments in clean energy go to sources that are actually clean."

"Today's ruling upholds EPA's authority to regulate pollution that drives climate change. The Court's decision is grounded in an understanding that THE SCIENCE SHOWS THAT BIOMASS FUELS, INCLUDING TREE-BURNING, CAN MAKE CLIMATE DISRUPTION WORSE," said Ann Weeks, Legal Director of the Clean Air Task Force, who argued the case for Petitioners and appeared on behalf of the Conservation Law Foundation and the Natural Resource Council of Maine. "The Court clearly noted that the atmosphere can't tell the difference between fossil fuel carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide emitted by burning trees."

"BURNING TREES TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY IS DANGEROUS, POLLUTING AND OUGHT TO BE LIMITED TO PROTECT PEOPLE AND THE ENVIRONMENT," SAID KEVIN BUNDY, A SENIOR ATTORNEY WITH THE CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY'S CLIMATE LAW INSTITUTE. "THIS IMPORTANT DECISION WILL REDUCE RESPIRATORY AILMENTS, PROTECT FORESTS AND HELP ENSURE A HEALTHIER, MORE LIVABLE CLIMATE."

"The Court's decision is particularly important for the Southeast. Now we have an opportunity for a more sensible, science-based policy, one that avoids clear-cutting the region's wildlife-rich forests for energy while intensifying climate change impacts," said Frank Rambo, head of the Clean Energy and Air Program for the Southern Environmental Law Center, which is representing Dogwood Alliance, Georgia ForestWatch, South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, and Wild Virginia in the case.

Emissions from power plants and other industrial facilities that burn biomass can accelerate global warming and contribute to a host of respiratory and cardiac problems. BIOMASS-FUELED POWER PLANTS EMIT SIGNIFICANTLY MORE CO2 PER KILOWATT PRODUCED THAN POWER PLANTS THAT BURN FOSSIL FUELS—EVEN COAL—and it can take decades before that excess CO2 is "re-sequestered" by subsequent plant growth. Under the Clean Air Act, facilities that are required to control their CO2 emissions must also control any "significant" emissions of other regulated pollutants, so the Court's decision also means that communities near these plants will also benefit from reductions in pollution that causes asthma and other health problems.


The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is an international nonprofit environmental organization with more than 1.4 million members and online activists. Since 1970, our lawyers, scientists, and other environmental specialists have worked to protect the world's natural resources, public health, and the environment. NRDC has offices in New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Livingston, Montana, and Beijing. Visit us at www.nrdc.org and follow us on Twitter @NRDC.

The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 500,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.

The Clean Air Task Force works to help safeguard against the worst impacts of climate change by catalyzing the rapid global development and deployment of low carbon energy and other climate-protecting technologies through research and analysis, public advocacy leadership, and partnership with the private sector.

The Southern Environmental Law Center is a regional nonprofit using the power of the law to protect the health and environment of the Southeast (Virginia, Tennessee, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama). Founded in 1986, SELC's team of more than 50 legal and policy experts represent more than 100 partner groups on issues of climate change and energy, air and water quality, forests, the coast and wetlands, transportation, and land use.

Dogwood Alliance is increasing protection for millions of acres of Southern forests by transforming the way corporations, landowners and communities value them for their climate, wildlife and water benefits. Dogwood Alliance has revolutionized the environmental practices of some of the world's largest corporations. For more information on the organization please visit, www.dogwoodalliance.





org.

Coastal Conservation League is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of South Carolina and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that works to protect the natural environment and communities of the South Carolina coastal plain.

Conservation Law Foundation is a not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that uses law, science, policy, and the business market to find pragmatic, innovative solutions to New England's toughest environmental problems.

Georgia ForestWatch is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of Georgia and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that works to promote healthy forests and watersheds in national forest lands in Georgia.

Natural Resources Council of Maine, a not-for-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maine, is a membership organization dedicated to preserving the quality of the air, water, forest and other natural resources of the State of Maine, for the benefit of its people and its environment.

Wild Virginia is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of Virginia and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Wild Virginia works to preserve wild forest ecosystems in Virginia's National Forests.
US Federal Court ruling could put the brakes on subsidies for Wood Biomass in the UK.




Re: US Federal Court Confirms.. Biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that burn fossil fuels—even coal





GREEN MADNESS: DO BRITISH MINISTERS KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING?

Date: 01/05/13.

The Drax plant in Yorkshire, England is one of the biggest coal-fired power plants in the world with an almost 1,000 foot-tall flue chimney, 6 boilers, and 12 very large cooling towers. It consumes 36,000 tons of coal each day, providing 7 percent of the country's electricity. Starting next month, the plant will be converted to burn millions of tons of wood chips a year, costing £700 million ($1.085 billion).

Most of the wood chips will travel 3,000 miles across the Atlantic Ocean, coming from trees downed in the United States. Drax is building 2 plants in the United States that will turn the wood from trees into chips that can be transported by ship to Yorkshire and then hauled to the power station by railway trucks. In order to prevent spontaneous combustion, the wood chips must be stored in domes where the humidity is controlled before they can be pulverized into powder. (Wood is 1,000 times more prone to spontaneous combustion than coal.)

Despite the fact that coal is the least-expensive source of electricity generation in England, THE OWNERS OF THE DRAX PLANT REALIZED THAT A RECENTLY INSTITUTED CARBON TAX ON FOSSIL FUELS WOULD PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS IF THEY CONTINUED TO BURN COAL EVENTUALLY MAKING THEIR ELECTRICITY BECOME TWICE AS EXPENSIVE. The political incumbents in Britain decided last year to give any coal-fired power station that switched to 'biomass' the almost 100 percent 'renewable subsidy' that owners of onshore wind farms get.

A British Carbon Tax and an EU Mandate.

A new carbon tax introduced in Britain on April 1 is applied to every ton of carbon dioxide produced during electricity production. WHILE THE TAX IS STARTING OUT LOW, IT WILL INCREASE EACH YEAR, MAKING THE COST OF GENERATING ELECTRICITY FROM COAL DOUBLE WITHIN 20 YEARS, AT WHICH POINT IT WILL NO LONGER BE ECONOMICAL FOR DRAX TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY FROM COAL. Along with the carbon tax, the British government will also be subsidizing electricity produced from its list of 'carbon neutral' power sources that will further increase consumer electricity bills.

-

http://www.thegwpf.o




rg/green-madness-bri




tish-ministers-doing




/






Ten years from now the headlines could read..


SOUTHAMPTON THE UKs LITTLE BEIJING..


ALL POLLUTION NONE OF THE WEALTH..
Has all the good work of the 1956 Clean Air Act been wasted?



Re: US Federal Court ruling..

Burning trees to generate electricity is dangerous polluting, contributing to a host of respiratory and cardiac problems and should to be limited to protect people and the environment

Biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that burn fossil fuels—EVEN COAL.



http://www.nrdc.org/



media/2013/130712.as



p



Yet Helius's plans to build two land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass Biomass POWER PLANTs within a miles radius of Southampton and Portsmouth Centre


Has all the good work of the 1956 Clean Air Act been wasted, the Act included measures to relocate polluting POWER PLANTs away from Cities. .?
"MAKING ELECTRICITY FROM BIOMASS BASED ON IMPORTED WOOD IS NOT A LONG-TERM ANSWER TO OUR ENERGY NEEDS





ED DAVEY: BIOMASS FUEL SUBSIDIES TO BE CAPPED

16 July 2013 Last updated at 20:19

By Roger Harrabin Environment analyst, BBC News
Pile of logs Burning wood is not a long term answer to the UK's energy needs, said Energy

The government is turning away from its controversial policy of subsidising UK power stations to generate electricity from burning wood.

It is proposing that subsidies for bespoke biomass burning plants should be capped at 400 MW.

And by 2027, it will end subsidies for biomass burning in existing power stations.

Environmentalists are relieved, but say the policy should never have been approved in the first place.

The UK's biggest power station, Drax in Yorkshire, which has been converting half its boilers from coal to wood. Most of this wood it burns is imported, particularly from the US.

Ed Davey, the Energy Secretary, told the BBC that biomass was a temporary solution to meet climate change targets while renewable energy systems were being developed.

"MAKING ELECTRICITY FROM BIOMASS BASED ON IMPORTED WOOD IS NOT A LONG-TERM ANSWER TO OUR ENERGY NEEDS – I AM QUITE CLEAR ABOUT THAT," HE SAID.

http://www.bbc.co.uk


/news/business-23334


466
Endgame no local CHP no subsidy.. no Helius

-


AFAIK: Helius is unlikely to implement CHP owing to the huge extra cost.. no local district heating infrastructure in place.


I'm still waiting for Southampton (vaguely promised) geothermal CHP plan to kick in, low cost district heating for all


IRONIC OR WHAT.. All of the electrical power from Southampton's geothermal CHP scheme (26 million kWh) is to be used by Associated British Ports via a private electrical connection to the port.

-

https://www.southamp

ton.gov.uk/s-environ

ment/energy/Geotherm

al/



-


BRITAIN TO LIMIT FUNDING FOR NEW POWER-ONLY BIOMASS PLANTS

By John McGarrity
LONDON | Thu Jul 18, 2013 7:16pm BST

(Reuters) - New standalone biomass power plants in Britain will not be eligible for some subsidies unless they generate heat at the same time, under new government proposals, meaning many new plants could be cancelled, an industry lobby said.

BRITAIN'S GOVERNMENT SAID ON WEDNESDAY IT AIMED TO DENY PUBLIC MONEY VIA GUARANTEED MINIMUM POWER PRICES TO DEDICATED BIOMASS PLANTS THAT DO NOT GENERATE BOTH HEAT AND ELECTRICITY.

"The lack of a strike price for new build biomass means support for this important technology has effectively come to an end, and we urge the Government to reconsider," said Gaynor Hartnell, chief executive with the Renewable Energy Association (REA).

She said that as heat output, known as combined heat and power (CHP) could not easily be built into projects that had already been approved, many would be scrapped:

"Developers cannot simply add CHP to these projects retrospectively, so they will most likely be cancelled.

" CHP is seen as much more efficient as the heat from power generation is used to warm homes and businesses.

Last week, RWE npower said it would close a newly converted 750-megawatt biomass plant at Tilbury by July 21 because of a forecast drop in UK power prices and lack of capital from the Germany-based parent RWE.

Last year Drax scrapped plans to build a new dedicated biomass plant on its site in North Yorkshire, citing the need for better government support.

-


http://uk.reuters.co

m/article/2013/07/18

/uk-britain-biomass-

subsidies-idUKBRE96H

14820130718
Why not try having a debate on this issue instead of this rubbish?
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: From day one.. Its all about a company with bankrupt ideas pumping its Shares. Helius will Say/Do anything to prompt its Shares.. nothing eco friendly (absolutely/proved) about Helius's land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans. TAKEN FROM ECHO ARCHIVE, REPLY TO ANDY LOCKS HEATH 15TH MAY 2012 Andy Locks Heath said.. The (Helius) location in a port is ideal for initial import of fuel stock and road and rail links for future domestic supplies. I said... Helius would say we have to fully utilize this location before a competitor puts a toe in, we'll push for a 300% expansion and LOOKING FORWARD WE'LL TARGET POMPEY DOCKS. - ECHO ARCHIVE http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/news/9706278. New_biomass_plans_a_ _greenwash_/[/p][/quote]Portsmouth/Southampt on Biomass schemes could cost Taxpayers £600m plus subsidies for operating costs. If it all works out for Helius...we're giving millions ££££ to Helius to borrow £600m from are bankrupt Banks... knowing all the time the Government may cut the subsidies or stop them altogether. RWE NPOWER CLOSES TILBURY BIOMASS POWER STATION The blow to the UK's renewables industry was welcome news to some green campaigners who argue biomass is unsustainable Fiona Harvey and Natalie Starkey The Guardian, Friday 5 July 2013 13.11 BST RWE npower is halting operations at its Tilbury biomass power station, with the likely loss of 220 jobs, in a blow to Britain's renewable power industry. But some green campaigners welcomed the closure, which will take effect from the end of October, as they argue biomass use on a large scale is environmentally unsustainable. The German electricity generator blamed a lack of investment capacity and the difficulty in converting the plant – the world's biggest biomass power station, with a planned capacity of 750MW – to use wood, waste oil and other organic materials in place of coal. BIOMASS INVESTORS HAVE ALSO BEEN RATTLED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S PLANNED CHANGES IN SUBSIDIES FOR BIOMASS AND OTHER RENEWABLE FORMS OF ENERGY. DRAX, BRITAIN'S BIGGEST COAL-FIRED POWER STATION, LAST YEAR SHELVED PLANS FOR TWO NEW BIOMASS POWER STATIONS. The closure has reopened debate over the future of biomass power generation in Britain. The government supports biomass, as a low-carbon form of power generation compared with fossil fuels – the trees and plants used as fuel take up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow, so if they are regrown under environmentally sound conditions, burning them results in a net carbon saving as it displaces coal and gas. However, that is not the whole story, according to many green campaigners. They point to problems with sourcing sufficient quantities of biomass, much of which has to be imported, and say that without strict regulations, growing trees and crops for biomass can lead to deforestation in developing countries. There are also concerns about the effects of the soot that comes from burning the organic fuel. http://www.guardian. co.uk/environment/20 13/jul/05/rwe-npower -tilbury-biomass-pow er-station YOU'RE OK WITH THAT MISTERGRIMSDALE ?[/p][/quote]Helius Director Alastair Salvesen has a fortune of £1.3 billion, up £460 million from last year Alastair Salvesen is also a major shareholder owning 25% of Helius.. Alastair Salvesen wants anyone who turns a light on in Southampton to subsidise his land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans. YOU'RE OK WITH THAT MISTERGRIMSDALE ?[/p][/quote]Skin2000 says.. I think Helius might be having trouble raising funds from the banks Some of Helius's Directors and major shareholders are in the Super Rich Class.. I'm afraid subsidies have turned the Wood Biomass Industry into a honey pot for the Super Rich.. UK Banks will find it hard to turn Helius down.. Pulling the plug on subsidies will be the only thing that will stop Helius building three or four Wood/Grass incinerators in Southampton. Ten years from now the headlines could read.. SOUTHAMPTON THE UKs LITTLE BEIJING.. ALL POLLUTION NONE OF THE WEALTH..[/p][/quote]US Federal Court Confirms.. Summary The science is clear Wood Biomass burning accelerates global warming.. "Burning trees to generate electricity is dangerous polluting, contributing to a host of respiratory and cardiac problems and should to be limited to protect people and the environment Biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that burn fossil fuels—even coal FEDERAL COURT FOLLOWS SCIENCE IN STRIKING DOWN EPA'S BIOMASS EMISSIONS LOOPHOLE WASHINGTON (July 12, 2013) – A key federal court ruling today confirmed that Clean Air Act limits on carbon dioxide pollution apply to industrial facilities, including tree-burning power plants that burn biomass. The court vacated an exemption the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had carved out for "biogenic carbon dioxide." The decision by a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 11-1101) found that EPA had improperly exempted all sources of biogenic CO2 from otherwise applicable permitting requirements. "THE SCIENCE IS CLEAR THAT NOT ALL BIOMASS BURNING IS GOOD FOR THE PLANET AND TODAY'S RULING RIGHTLY AFFIRMS SCIENCE as the guide for how EPA must now move forward on biomass energy production," said Niel Lawrence, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "This decision will ultimately benefit the climate, as well as Americans who want to breathe easier and protect the forests that they love. It will also ensure that our investments in clean energy go to sources that are actually clean." "Today's ruling upholds EPA's authority to regulate pollution that drives climate change. The Court's decision is grounded in an understanding that THE SCIENCE SHOWS THAT BIOMASS FUELS, INCLUDING TREE-BURNING, CAN MAKE CLIMATE DISRUPTION WORSE," said Ann Weeks, Legal Director of the Clean Air Task Force, who argued the case for Petitioners and appeared on behalf of the Conservation Law Foundation and the Natural Resource Council of Maine. "The Court clearly noted that the atmosphere can't tell the difference between fossil fuel carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide emitted by burning trees." "BURNING TREES TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY IS DANGEROUS, POLLUTING AND OUGHT TO BE LIMITED TO PROTECT PEOPLE AND THE ENVIRONMENT," SAID KEVIN BUNDY, A SENIOR ATTORNEY WITH THE CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY'S CLIMATE LAW INSTITUTE. "THIS IMPORTANT DECISION WILL REDUCE RESPIRATORY AILMENTS, PROTECT FORESTS AND HELP ENSURE A HEALTHIER, MORE LIVABLE CLIMATE." "The Court's decision is particularly important for the Southeast. Now we have an opportunity for a more sensible, science-based policy, one that avoids clear-cutting the region's wildlife-rich forests for energy while intensifying climate change impacts," said Frank Rambo, head of the Clean Energy and Air Program for the Southern Environmental Law Center, which is representing Dogwood Alliance, Georgia ForestWatch, South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, and Wild Virginia in the case. Emissions from power plants and other industrial facilities that burn biomass can accelerate global warming and contribute to a host of respiratory and cardiac problems. BIOMASS-FUELED POWER PLANTS EMIT SIGNIFICANTLY MORE CO2 PER KILOWATT PRODUCED THAN POWER PLANTS THAT BURN FOSSIL FUELS—EVEN COAL—and it can take decades before that excess CO2 is "re-sequestered" by subsequent plant growth. Under the Clean Air Act, facilities that are required to control their CO2 emissions must also control any "significant" emissions of other regulated pollutants, so the Court's decision also means that communities near these plants will also benefit from reductions in pollution that causes asthma and other health problems. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is an international nonprofit environmental organization with more than 1.4 million members and online activists. Since 1970, our lawyers, scientists, and other environmental specialists have worked to protect the world's natural resources, public health, and the environment. NRDC has offices in New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Livingston, Montana, and Beijing. Visit us at www.nrdc.org and follow us on Twitter @NRDC. The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 500,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places. The Clean Air Task Force works to help safeguard against the worst impacts of climate change by catalyzing the rapid global development and deployment of low carbon energy and other climate-protecting technologies through research and analysis, public advocacy leadership, and partnership with the private sector. The Southern Environmental Law Center is a regional nonprofit using the power of the law to protect the health and environment of the Southeast (Virginia, Tennessee, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama). Founded in 1986, SELC's team of more than 50 legal and policy experts represent more than 100 partner groups on issues of climate change and energy, air and water quality, forests, the coast and wetlands, transportation, and land use. Dogwood Alliance is increasing protection for millions of acres of Southern forests by transforming the way corporations, landowners and communities value them for their climate, wildlife and water benefits. Dogwood Alliance has revolutionized the environmental practices of some of the world's largest corporations. For more information on the organization please visit, www.dogwoodalliance. org. Coastal Conservation League is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of South Carolina and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that works to protect the natural environment and communities of the South Carolina coastal plain. Conservation Law Foundation is a not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that uses law, science, policy, and the business market to find pragmatic, innovative solutions to New England's toughest environmental problems. Georgia ForestWatch is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of Georgia and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that works to promote healthy forests and watersheds in national forest lands in Georgia. Natural Resources Council of Maine, a not-for-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maine, is a membership organization dedicated to preserving the quality of the air, water, forest and other natural resources of the State of Maine, for the benefit of its people and its environment. Wild Virginia is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of Virginia and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Wild Virginia works to preserve wild forest ecosystems in Virginia's National Forests.[/p][/quote]US Federal Court ruling could put the brakes on subsidies for Wood Biomass in the UK. Re: US Federal Court Confirms.. Biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that burn fossil fuels—even coal GREEN MADNESS: DO BRITISH MINISTERS KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING? Date: 01/05/13. The Drax plant in Yorkshire, England is one of the biggest coal-fired power plants in the world with an almost 1,000 foot-tall flue chimney, 6 boilers, and 12 very large cooling towers. It consumes 36,000 tons of coal each day, providing 7 percent of the country's electricity. Starting next month, the plant will be converted to burn millions of tons of wood chips a year, costing £700 million ($1.085 billion). Most of the wood chips will travel 3,000 miles across the Atlantic Ocean, coming from trees downed in the United States. Drax is building 2 plants in the United States that will turn the wood from trees into chips that can be transported by ship to Yorkshire and then hauled to the power station by railway trucks. In order to prevent spontaneous combustion, the wood chips must be stored in domes where the humidity is controlled before they can be pulverized into powder. (Wood is 1,000 times more prone to spontaneous combustion than coal.) Despite the fact that coal is the least-expensive source of electricity generation in England, THE OWNERS OF THE DRAX PLANT REALIZED THAT A RECENTLY INSTITUTED CARBON TAX ON FOSSIL FUELS WOULD PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS IF THEY CONTINUED TO BURN COAL EVENTUALLY MAKING THEIR ELECTRICITY BECOME TWICE AS EXPENSIVE. The political incumbents in Britain decided last year to give any coal-fired power station that switched to 'biomass' the almost 100 percent 'renewable subsidy' that owners of onshore wind farms get. A British Carbon Tax and an EU Mandate. A new carbon tax introduced in Britain on April 1 is applied to every ton of carbon dioxide produced during electricity production. WHILE THE TAX IS STARTING OUT LOW, IT WILL INCREASE EACH YEAR, MAKING THE COST OF GENERATING ELECTRICITY FROM COAL DOUBLE WITHIN 20 YEARS, AT WHICH POINT IT WILL NO LONGER BE ECONOMICAL FOR DRAX TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY FROM COAL. Along with the carbon tax, the British government will also be subsidizing electricity produced from its list of 'carbon neutral' power sources that will further increase consumer electricity bills. - http://www.thegwpf.o rg/green-madness-bri tish-ministers-doing / Ten years from now the headlines could read.. SOUTHAMPTON THE UKs LITTLE BEIJING.. ALL POLLUTION NONE OF THE WEALTH..[/p][/quote]Has all the good work of the 1956 Clean Air Act been wasted? Re: US Federal Court ruling.. Burning trees to generate electricity is dangerous polluting, contributing to a host of respiratory and cardiac problems and should to be limited to protect people and the environment Biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that burn fossil fuels—EVEN COAL. http://www.nrdc.org/ media/2013/130712.as p Yet Helius's plans to build two land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass Biomass POWER PLANTs within a miles radius of Southampton and Portsmouth Centre Has all the good work of the 1956 Clean Air Act been wasted, the Act included measures to relocate polluting POWER PLANTs away from Cities. .?[/p][/quote]"MAKING ELECTRICITY FROM BIOMASS BASED ON IMPORTED WOOD IS NOT A LONG-TERM ANSWER TO OUR ENERGY NEEDS ED DAVEY: BIOMASS FUEL SUBSIDIES TO BE CAPPED 16 July 2013 Last updated at 20:19 By Roger Harrabin Environment analyst, BBC News Pile of logs Burning wood is not a long term answer to the UK's energy needs, said Energy The government is turning away from its controversial policy of subsidising UK power stations to generate electricity from burning wood. It is proposing that subsidies for bespoke biomass burning plants should be capped at 400 MW. And by 2027, it will end subsidies for biomass burning in existing power stations. Environmentalists are relieved, but say the policy should never have been approved in the first place. The UK's biggest power station, Drax in Yorkshire, which has been converting half its boilers from coal to wood. Most of this wood it burns is imported, particularly from the US. Ed Davey, the Energy Secretary, told the BBC that biomass was a temporary solution to meet climate change targets while renewable energy systems were being developed. "MAKING ELECTRICITY FROM BIOMASS BASED ON IMPORTED WOOD IS NOT A LONG-TERM ANSWER TO OUR ENERGY NEEDS – I AM QUITE CLEAR ABOUT THAT," HE SAID. http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/business-23334 466[/p][/quote]Endgame no local CHP no subsidy.. no Helius - AFAIK: Helius is unlikely to implement CHP owing to the huge extra cost.. no local district heating infrastructure in place. I'm still waiting for Southampton (vaguely promised) geothermal CHP plan to kick in, low cost district heating for all IRONIC OR WHAT.. All of the electrical power from Southampton's geothermal CHP scheme (26 million kWh) is to be used by Associated British Ports via a private electrical connection to the port. - https://www.southamp ton.gov.uk/s-environ ment/energy/Geotherm al/ - BRITAIN TO LIMIT FUNDING FOR NEW POWER-ONLY BIOMASS PLANTS By John McGarrity LONDON | Thu Jul 18, 2013 7:16pm BST (Reuters) - New standalone biomass power plants in Britain will not be eligible for some subsidies unless they generate heat at the same time, under new government proposals, meaning many new plants could be cancelled, an industry lobby said. BRITAIN'S GOVERNMENT SAID ON WEDNESDAY IT AIMED TO DENY PUBLIC MONEY VIA GUARANTEED MINIMUM POWER PRICES TO DEDICATED BIOMASS PLANTS THAT DO NOT GENERATE BOTH HEAT AND ELECTRICITY. "The lack of a strike price for new build biomass means support for this important technology has effectively come to an end, and we urge the Government to reconsider," said Gaynor Hartnell, chief executive with the Renewable Energy Association (REA). She said that as heat output, known as combined heat and power (CHP) could not easily be built into projects that had already been approved, many would be scrapped: "Developers cannot simply add CHP to these projects retrospectively, so they will most likely be cancelled. " CHP is seen as much more efficient as the heat from power generation is used to warm homes and businesses. Last week, RWE npower said it would close a newly converted 750-megawatt biomass plant at Tilbury by July 21 because of a forecast drop in UK power prices and lack of capital from the Germany-based parent RWE. Last year Drax scrapped plans to build a new dedicated biomass plant on its site in North Yorkshire, citing the need for better government support. - http://uk.reuters.co m/article/2013/07/18 /uk-britain-biomass- subsidies-idUKBRE96H 14820130718[/p][/quote]Why not try having a debate on this issue instead of this rubbish? loosehead
  • Score: 0

2:49pm Mon 29 Jul 13

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
Dan Soton wrote:
From day one.. Its all about a company with bankrupt ideas pumping its Shares.



Helius will Say/Do anything to prompt its Shares.. nothing eco friendly (absolutely/proved) about Helius's land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans.




TAKEN FROM ECHO ARCHIVE, REPLY TO ANDY LOCKS HEATH 15TH MAY 2012



Andy Locks Heath said.. The (Helius) location in a port is ideal for initial import of fuel stock and road and rail links for future domestic supplies.



I said... Helius would say we have to fully utilize this location before a competitor puts a toe in, we'll push for a 300% expansion and LOOKING FORWARD WE'LL TARGET POMPEY DOCKS.


-

ECHO ARCHIVE


http://www.dailyecho









.co.uk/news/9706278.









New_biomass_plans_a_









_greenwash_/
Portsmouth/Southampt








on Biomass schemes could cost Taxpayers £600m plus subsidies for operating costs.



If it all works out for Helius...we're giving millions ££££ to Helius to borrow £600m from are bankrupt Banks... knowing all the time the Government may cut the subsidies or stop them altogether.




RWE NPOWER CLOSES TILBURY BIOMASS POWER STATION

The blow to the UK's renewables industry was welcome news to some green campaigners who argue biomass is unsustainable

Fiona Harvey and Natalie Starkey

The Guardian, Friday 5 July 2013 13.11 BST

RWE npower is halting operations at its Tilbury biomass power station, with the likely loss of 220 jobs, in a blow to Britain's renewable power industry.
But some green campaigners welcomed the closure, which will take effect from the end of October, as they argue biomass use on a large scale is environmentally unsustainable.
The German electricity generator blamed a lack of investment capacity and the difficulty in converting the plant – the world's biggest biomass power station, with a planned capacity of 750MW – to use wood, waste oil and other organic materials in place of coal.

BIOMASS INVESTORS HAVE ALSO BEEN RATTLED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S PLANNED CHANGES IN SUBSIDIES FOR BIOMASS AND OTHER RENEWABLE FORMS OF ENERGY. DRAX, BRITAIN'S BIGGEST COAL-FIRED POWER STATION, LAST YEAR SHELVED PLANS FOR TWO NEW BIOMASS POWER STATIONS.

The closure has reopened debate over the future of biomass power generation in Britain.

The government supports biomass, as a low-carbon form of power generation compared with fossil fuels – the trees and plants used as fuel take up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow, so if they are regrown under environmentally sound conditions, burning them results in a net carbon saving as it displaces coal and gas.

However, that is not the whole story, according to many green campaigners. They point to problems with sourcing sufficient quantities of biomass, much of which has to be imported, and say that without strict regulations, growing trees and crops for biomass can lead to deforestation in developing countries. There are also concerns about the effects of the soot that comes from burning the organic fuel.


http://www.guardian.








co.uk/environment/20








13/jul/05/rwe-npower








-tilbury-biomass-pow








er-station




YOU'RE OK WITH THAT MISTERGRIMSDALE ?
Helius Director Alastair Salvesen has a fortune of £1.3 billion, up £460 million from last year



Alastair Salvesen is also a major shareholder owning 25% of Helius..


Alastair Salvesen wants anyone who turns a light on in Southampton to subsidise his land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans.



YOU'RE OK WITH THAT MISTERGRIMSDALE ?
Skin2000 says.. I think Helius might be having trouble raising funds from the banks


Some of Helius's Directors and major shareholders are in the Super Rich Class..


I'm afraid subsidies have turned the Wood Biomass Industry into a honey pot for the Super Rich.. UK Banks will find it hard to turn Helius down..


Pulling the plug on subsidies will be the only thing that will stop Helius building three or four Wood/Grass incinerators in Southampton.




Ten years from now the headlines could read..


SOUTHAMPTON THE UKs LITTLE BEIJING..


ALL POLLUTION NONE OF THE WEALTH..
US Federal Court Confirms..




Summary



The science is clear Wood Biomass burning accelerates global warming..

"Burning trees to generate electricity is dangerous polluting, contributing to a host of respiratory and cardiac problems and should to be limited to protect people and the environment

Biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that burn fossil fuels—even coal







FEDERAL COURT FOLLOWS SCIENCE IN STRIKING DOWN EPA'S BIOMASS EMISSIONS LOOPHOLE

WASHINGTON (July 12, 2013)

– A key federal court ruling today confirmed that Clean Air Act limits on carbon dioxide pollution apply to industrial facilities, including tree-burning power plants that burn biomass. The court vacated an exemption the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had carved out for "biogenic carbon dioxide."

The decision by a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 11-1101) found that EPA had improperly exempted all sources of biogenic CO2 from otherwise applicable permitting requirements.

"THE SCIENCE IS CLEAR THAT NOT ALL BIOMASS BURNING IS GOOD FOR THE PLANET AND TODAY'S RULING RIGHTLY AFFIRMS SCIENCE as the guide for how EPA must now move forward on biomass energy production," said Niel Lawrence, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "This decision will ultimately benefit the climate, as well as Americans who want to breathe easier and protect the forests that they love. It will also ensure that our investments in clean energy go to sources that are actually clean."

"Today's ruling upholds EPA's authority to regulate pollution that drives climate change. The Court's decision is grounded in an understanding that THE SCIENCE SHOWS THAT BIOMASS FUELS, INCLUDING TREE-BURNING, CAN MAKE CLIMATE DISRUPTION WORSE," said Ann Weeks, Legal Director of the Clean Air Task Force, who argued the case for Petitioners and appeared on behalf of the Conservation Law Foundation and the Natural Resource Council of Maine. "The Court clearly noted that the atmosphere can't tell the difference between fossil fuel carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide emitted by burning trees."

"BURNING TREES TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY IS DANGEROUS, POLLUTING AND OUGHT TO BE LIMITED TO PROTECT PEOPLE AND THE ENVIRONMENT," SAID KEVIN BUNDY, A SENIOR ATTORNEY WITH THE CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY'S CLIMATE LAW INSTITUTE. "THIS IMPORTANT DECISION WILL REDUCE RESPIRATORY AILMENTS, PROTECT FORESTS AND HELP ENSURE A HEALTHIER, MORE LIVABLE CLIMATE."

"The Court's decision is particularly important for the Southeast. Now we have an opportunity for a more sensible, science-based policy, one that avoids clear-cutting the region's wildlife-rich forests for energy while intensifying climate change impacts," said Frank Rambo, head of the Clean Energy and Air Program for the Southern Environmental Law Center, which is representing Dogwood Alliance, Georgia ForestWatch, South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, and Wild Virginia in the case.

Emissions from power plants and other industrial facilities that burn biomass can accelerate global warming and contribute to a host of respiratory and cardiac problems. BIOMASS-FUELED POWER PLANTS EMIT SIGNIFICANTLY MORE CO2 PER KILOWATT PRODUCED THAN POWER PLANTS THAT BURN FOSSIL FUELS—EVEN COAL—and it can take decades before that excess CO2 is "re-sequestered" by subsequent plant growth. Under the Clean Air Act, facilities that are required to control their CO2 emissions must also control any "significant" emissions of other regulated pollutants, so the Court's decision also means that communities near these plants will also benefit from reductions in pollution that causes asthma and other health problems.


The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is an international nonprofit environmental organization with more than 1.4 million members and online activists. Since 1970, our lawyers, scientists, and other environmental specialists have worked to protect the world's natural resources, public health, and the environment. NRDC has offices in New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Livingston, Montana, and Beijing. Visit us at www.nrdc.org and follow us on Twitter @NRDC.

The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 500,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.

The Clean Air Task Force works to help safeguard against the worst impacts of climate change by catalyzing the rapid global development and deployment of low carbon energy and other climate-protecting technologies through research and analysis, public advocacy leadership, and partnership with the private sector.

The Southern Environmental Law Center is a regional nonprofit using the power of the law to protect the health and environment of the Southeast (Virginia, Tennessee, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama). Founded in 1986, SELC's team of more than 50 legal and policy experts represent more than 100 partner groups on issues of climate change and energy, air and water quality, forests, the coast and wetlands, transportation, and land use.

Dogwood Alliance is increasing protection for millions of acres of Southern forests by transforming the way corporations, landowners and communities value them for their climate, wildlife and water benefits. Dogwood Alliance has revolutionized the environmental practices of some of the world's largest corporations. For more information on the organization please visit, www.dogwoodalliance.





org.

Coastal Conservation League is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of South Carolina and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that works to protect the natural environment and communities of the South Carolina coastal plain.

Conservation Law Foundation is a not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that uses law, science, policy, and the business market to find pragmatic, innovative solutions to New England's toughest environmental problems.

Georgia ForestWatch is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of Georgia and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that works to promote healthy forests and watersheds in national forest lands in Georgia.

Natural Resources Council of Maine, a not-for-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maine, is a membership organization dedicated to preserving the quality of the air, water, forest and other natural resources of the State of Maine, for the benefit of its people and its environment.

Wild Virginia is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of Virginia and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Wild Virginia works to preserve wild forest ecosystems in Virginia's National Forests.
US Federal Court ruling could put the brakes on subsidies for Wood Biomass in the UK.




Re: US Federal Court Confirms.. Biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that burn fossil fuels—even coal





GREEN MADNESS: DO BRITISH MINISTERS KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING?

Date: 01/05/13.

The Drax plant in Yorkshire, England is one of the biggest coal-fired power plants in the world with an almost 1,000 foot-tall flue chimney, 6 boilers, and 12 very large cooling towers. It consumes 36,000 tons of coal each day, providing 7 percent of the country's electricity. Starting next month, the plant will be converted to burn millions of tons of wood chips a year, costing £700 million ($1.085 billion).

Most of the wood chips will travel 3,000 miles across the Atlantic Ocean, coming from trees downed in the United States. Drax is building 2 plants in the United States that will turn the wood from trees into chips that can be transported by ship to Yorkshire and then hauled to the power station by railway trucks. In order to prevent spontaneous combustion, the wood chips must be stored in domes where the humidity is controlled before they can be pulverized into powder. (Wood is 1,000 times more prone to spontaneous combustion than coal.)

Despite the fact that coal is the least-expensive source of electricity generation in England, THE OWNERS OF THE DRAX PLANT REALIZED THAT A RECENTLY INSTITUTED CARBON TAX ON FOSSIL FUELS WOULD PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS IF THEY CONTINUED TO BURN COAL EVENTUALLY MAKING THEIR ELECTRICITY BECOME TWICE AS EXPENSIVE. The political incumbents in Britain decided last year to give any coal-fired power station that switched to 'biomass' the almost 100 percent 'renewable subsidy' that owners of onshore wind farms get.

A British Carbon Tax and an EU Mandate.

A new carbon tax introduced in Britain on April 1 is applied to every ton of carbon dioxide produced during electricity production. WHILE THE TAX IS STARTING OUT LOW, IT WILL INCREASE EACH YEAR, MAKING THE COST OF GENERATING ELECTRICITY FROM COAL DOUBLE WITHIN 20 YEARS, AT WHICH POINT IT WILL NO LONGER BE ECONOMICAL FOR DRAX TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY FROM COAL. Along with the carbon tax, the British government will also be subsidizing electricity produced from its list of 'carbon neutral' power sources that will further increase consumer electricity bills.

-

http://www.thegwpf.o




rg/green-madness-bri




tish-ministers-doing




/






Ten years from now the headlines could read..


SOUTHAMPTON THE UKs LITTLE BEIJING..


ALL POLLUTION NONE OF THE WEALTH..
Has all the good work of the 1956 Clean Air Act been wasted?



Re: US Federal Court ruling..

Burning trees to generate electricity is dangerous polluting, contributing to a host of respiratory and cardiac problems and should to be limited to protect people and the environment

Biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that burn fossil fuels—EVEN COAL.



http://www.nrdc.org/



media/2013/130712.as



p



Yet Helius's plans to build two land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass Biomass POWER PLANTs within a miles radius of Southampton and Portsmouth Centre


Has all the good work of the 1956 Clean Air Act been wasted, the Act included measures to relocate polluting POWER PLANTs away from Cities. .?
"MAKING ELECTRICITY FROM BIOMASS BASED ON IMPORTED WOOD IS NOT A LONG-TERM ANSWER TO OUR ENERGY NEEDS





ED DAVEY: BIOMASS FUEL SUBSIDIES TO BE CAPPED

16 July 2013 Last updated at 20:19

By Roger Harrabin Environment analyst, BBC News
Pile of logs Burning wood is not a long term answer to the UK's energy needs, said Energy

The government is turning away from its controversial policy of subsidising UK power stations to generate electricity from burning wood.

It is proposing that subsidies for bespoke biomass burning plants should be capped at 400 MW.

And by 2027, it will end subsidies for biomass burning in existing power stations.

Environmentalists are relieved, but say the policy should never have been approved in the first place.

The UK's biggest power station, Drax in Yorkshire, which has been converting half its boilers from coal to wood. Most of this wood it burns is imported, particularly from the US.

Ed Davey, the Energy Secretary, told the BBC that biomass was a temporary solution to meet climate change targets while renewable energy systems were being developed.

"MAKING ELECTRICITY FROM BIOMASS BASED ON IMPORTED WOOD IS NOT A LONG-TERM ANSWER TO OUR ENERGY NEEDS – I AM QUITE CLEAR ABOUT THAT," HE SAID.

http://www.bbc.co.uk


/news/business-23334


466
Endgame no local CHP no subsidy.. no Helius

-


AFAIK: Helius is unlikely to implement CHP owing to the huge extra cost.. no local district heating infrastructure in place.


I'm still waiting for Southampton (vaguely promised) geothermal CHP plan to kick in, low cost district heating for all


IRONIC OR WHAT.. All of the electrical power from Southampton's geothermal CHP scheme (26 million kWh) is to be used by Associated British Ports via a private electrical connection to the port.

-

https://www.southamp

ton.gov.uk/s-environ

ment/energy/Geotherm

al/



-


BRITAIN TO LIMIT FUNDING FOR NEW POWER-ONLY BIOMASS PLANTS

By John McGarrity
LONDON | Thu Jul 18, 2013 7:16pm BST

(Reuters) - New standalone biomass power plants in Britain will not be eligible for some subsidies unless they generate heat at the same time, under new government proposals, meaning many new plants could be cancelled, an industry lobby said.

BRITAIN'S GOVERNMENT SAID ON WEDNESDAY IT AIMED TO DENY PUBLIC MONEY VIA GUARANTEED MINIMUM POWER PRICES TO DEDICATED BIOMASS PLANTS THAT DO NOT GENERATE BOTH HEAT AND ELECTRICITY.

"The lack of a strike price for new build biomass means support for this important technology has effectively come to an end, and we urge the Government to reconsider," said Gaynor Hartnell, chief executive with the Renewable Energy Association (REA).

She said that as heat output, known as combined heat and power (CHP) could not easily be built into projects that had already been approved, many would be scrapped:

"Developers cannot simply add CHP to these projects retrospectively, so they will most likely be cancelled.

" CHP is seen as much more efficient as the heat from power generation is used to warm homes and businesses.

Last week, RWE npower said it would close a newly converted 750-megawatt biomass plant at Tilbury by July 21 because of a forecast drop in UK power prices and lack of capital from the Germany-based parent RWE.

Last year Drax scrapped plans to build a new dedicated biomass plant on its site in North Yorkshire, citing the need for better government support.

-


http://uk.reuters.co

m/article/2013/07/18

/uk-britain-biomass-

subsidies-idUKBRE96H

14820130718
£110 billion up for grabs.. Southampton perfectly positioned to be the UK's Solar/Geothermal Capital.



ABOVE US.. according to UK Solar radiation maps, we are perfectly positioned to reap the maximum benefits of Solar Power.



http://contemporarye
nergy.co.uk/solarmap
.htmc



BELOW US we have hot rocks, perfectly positioned to reap the benefits of Geothermal power.



ONE PROBLEM Southampton's overpaid Overlords are happy with the Status Quo..

nice air purifiered and conditioned homes, off to work in their air conditioned cars to their air conditioned offices.. what do they care if Southampton is turning into the diesel pollution Capital of Europe ?






NEW ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT TO FUEL RECOVERY

Department of Energy & Climate Change

Published:27 June 2013

New details of reforms vital to keeping the lights on and emissions and bills down
placeholder

• GOVERNMENT ACTION TO UNLOCK UP TO £110 BILLION ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT AND SUPPORT UP TO 250,000 JOBS BY 2020

• Capacity Market to be initiated in 2014 to bring on gas and other flexible electricity supply to meet future demand and reduce risks to security of supply from winter 2018

• Renewable Strike Prices to help renewables contribute more than 30% of total power by 2020

The potential scale of investment, growth and job opportunities available in the energy economy was made clear today as Cabinet Ministers announced new details of reforms vital to keeping the lights on and emissions and bills down.

With around a fifth of Great Britain's ageing power plants due to close over the coming decade, and further closures in the 2020s, we need huge investment in our energy infrastructure. The Energy Bill currently before Parliament introduces vital market reforms to bring this about.

Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander and Energy and Climate Change Secretary Edward Davey today announced more details about the reforms, ahead of schedule, to give developers and investors the confidence to progress with new projects.

Secretary of State Edward Davey said:

"NO OTHER SECTOR IS EQUAL IN SCALE TO THE BRITISH POWER MARKET, IN TERMS OF THE OPPORTUNITY THAT IT OFFERS TO INVESTORS, AND THE SCALE OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE CHALLENGE. "OUR REFORMS WILL RENEW OUR ELECTRICITY SUPPLY, ATTRACTING UP TO £110 BILLION INVESTMENT IN A MIX OF CLEAN, SECURE POWER AND DEMAND REDUCTION, AND WILL SUPPORT UP TO 250,000 JOBS UP AND DOWN THE SUPPLY-CHAIN.

"The Energy Bill is already progressing well through Parliament and received overwhelming cross-party backing at Commons Third Reading.
"Developers and investors have been crying out for more details, sooner, and that is what we are giving them today.

"The Capacity Market will incentivise investment in new gas plant and other flexible capacity to maintain an adequate supply margin – the safety blanket over and above expected demand – for 2018 onwards.

"Ofgem and National Grid will consult on possible steps they could take to ensure that mothballed power plant or demand response is available if needed in the middle of the decade. This will mean the public can continue to enjoy a reliable supply of electricity.

"The Strike Prices for renewable technologies announced today aim to make the UK market one of the most attractive for developers of wind, wave, tidal, solar and other renewables technologies, whilst minimising the costs to consumers.

"This will help boost home-grown sources of clean secure energy, and enable us to decarbonise the power sector, with renewables contributing more than 30% to our mix by the end of this decade.

"Our reforms will keep the lights on and emissions down, and will save consumers money on their bills. The result – low-carbon, affordable and reliable power for the long-term"
Capacity Market

The Government will run the first Capacity Market in 2014. This will ensure sufficient electricity supplies from winter 2018 by attracting necessary investment in new and existing generation, as well as other forms of capacity such as demand response.

Capacity agreements, alongside long-term Contracts for Difference (CfDs) for low-carbon power, will boost supplies into the next decade and protect consumers against volatility in market price.

Similar capacity markets already operate in the USA and a number of EU countries, and one is being introduced in France.

Detail confirmed today:

• A Capacity Market (CM) will be initiated with the first auctions taking place subject to State Aid approval in 2014, for the delivery of electricity capacity from the winter of 2018-19, as previously proposed. This confirmation, alongside further detail on the design of the CM, will enable industry to prepare for implementation.

• Participants in the CM (who could include existing generators and investors in new plant such as gas or demand-side response), will bid to provide the total amount of electricity capacity that is forecast to be required through an auction, and if successful would receive a steady payment in the year they agree to make capacity available.

• In exchange they will be obliged to deliver electricity in periods of system stress or face financial penalties.

• The costs of capacity agreements will be met by suppliers. But the impact on bills will be partially offset by reduced wholesale prices, and consumers will be protected against volatility in market prices and costly blackouts.

Ofgem today updated their assessment of supply margins in the middle of this decade, anticipating that the buffer between peak demand and supply could be lower than previously expected.

This is in part due to the low price of coal that has led coal-fired power stations in the UK to operate more often, whilst gas has become uncompetitive, leading plants to close. This surge in the use of coal has also brought forward the point at which the dirtiest plants are required to close in compliance with environmental standards.

In response, Ofgem and National Grid will each consult on extending existing arrangements they use to balance supply and demand in the short term, and to ensure enough power is available when needed. This could include contracting for additional reserve in the form of currently mothballed plant or incentivising flexible demand response.
As a result of the prudent action set out today by DECC, Ofgem and National Grid, customers will continue to enjoy security of electricity supply throughout the rest of this decade, and into the next.

Renewable Strike Prices

Also announced today are details, earlier than expected, of the proposed strike prices that will be available from 2014 - 2019 for renewable electricity including onshore and offshore wind, tidal, wave, biomass conversion and large solar projects. This support comes from within the £7.6 billion Levy Control Framework, as previously announced.

Strike Prices effectively remove price volatility risk for electricity generated from low-carbon sources, under new long-term CfDs being established by the Energy Bill. This ensures greater certainty to generators and therefore a better deal to consumers.

They form a core component of the Government's strategy to bring forward investment in affordable low-carbon electricity generation – including renewables, Carbon Capture and Storage and new nuclear.

CfDs are vital to give investors the confidence they need to pay the up-front costs of major new infrastructure projects, and will help ensure that renewable energy makes up more than 30% of the UK's electricity mix in 2020, helping to significantly decarbonise the power sector by 2030.





https://www.gov.uk/g
overnment/news/new-e
nergy-infrastructure
-investment-to-fuel-
recovery
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: From day one.. Its all about a company with bankrupt ideas pumping its Shares. Helius will Say/Do anything to prompt its Shares.. nothing eco friendly (absolutely/proved) about Helius's land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans. TAKEN FROM ECHO ARCHIVE, REPLY TO ANDY LOCKS HEATH 15TH MAY 2012 Andy Locks Heath said.. The (Helius) location in a port is ideal for initial import of fuel stock and road and rail links for future domestic supplies. I said... Helius would say we have to fully utilize this location before a competitor puts a toe in, we'll push for a 300% expansion and LOOKING FORWARD WE'LL TARGET POMPEY DOCKS. - ECHO ARCHIVE http://www.dailyecho .co.uk/news/9706278. New_biomass_plans_a_ _greenwash_/[/p][/quote]Portsmouth/Southampt on Biomass schemes could cost Taxpayers £600m plus subsidies for operating costs. If it all works out for Helius...we're giving millions ££££ to Helius to borrow £600m from are bankrupt Banks... knowing all the time the Government may cut the subsidies or stop them altogether. RWE NPOWER CLOSES TILBURY BIOMASS POWER STATION The blow to the UK's renewables industry was welcome news to some green campaigners who argue biomass is unsustainable Fiona Harvey and Natalie Starkey The Guardian, Friday 5 July 2013 13.11 BST RWE npower is halting operations at its Tilbury biomass power station, with the likely loss of 220 jobs, in a blow to Britain's renewable power industry. But some green campaigners welcomed the closure, which will take effect from the end of October, as they argue biomass use on a large scale is environmentally unsustainable. The German electricity generator blamed a lack of investment capacity and the difficulty in converting the plant – the world's biggest biomass power station, with a planned capacity of 750MW – to use wood, waste oil and other organic materials in place of coal. BIOMASS INVESTORS HAVE ALSO BEEN RATTLED BY THE GOVERNMENT'S PLANNED CHANGES IN SUBSIDIES FOR BIOMASS AND OTHER RENEWABLE FORMS OF ENERGY. DRAX, BRITAIN'S BIGGEST COAL-FIRED POWER STATION, LAST YEAR SHELVED PLANS FOR TWO NEW BIOMASS POWER STATIONS. The closure has reopened debate over the future of biomass power generation in Britain. The government supports biomass, as a low-carbon form of power generation compared with fossil fuels – the trees and plants used as fuel take up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow, so if they are regrown under environmentally sound conditions, burning them results in a net carbon saving as it displaces coal and gas. However, that is not the whole story, according to many green campaigners. They point to problems with sourcing sufficient quantities of biomass, much of which has to be imported, and say that without strict regulations, growing trees and crops for biomass can lead to deforestation in developing countries. There are also concerns about the effects of the soot that comes from burning the organic fuel. http://www.guardian. co.uk/environment/20 13/jul/05/rwe-npower -tilbury-biomass-pow er-station YOU'RE OK WITH THAT MISTERGRIMSDALE ?[/p][/quote]Helius Director Alastair Salvesen has a fortune of £1.3 billion, up £460 million from last year Alastair Salvesen is also a major shareholder owning 25% of Helius.. Alastair Salvesen wants anyone who turns a light on in Southampton to subsidise his land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass incinerator plans. YOU'RE OK WITH THAT MISTERGRIMSDALE ?[/p][/quote]Skin2000 says.. I think Helius might be having trouble raising funds from the banks Some of Helius's Directors and major shareholders are in the Super Rich Class.. I'm afraid subsidies have turned the Wood Biomass Industry into a honey pot for the Super Rich.. UK Banks will find it hard to turn Helius down.. Pulling the plug on subsidies will be the only thing that will stop Helius building three or four Wood/Grass incinerators in Southampton. Ten years from now the headlines could read.. SOUTHAMPTON THE UKs LITTLE BEIJING.. ALL POLLUTION NONE OF THE WEALTH..[/p][/quote]US Federal Court Confirms.. Summary The science is clear Wood Biomass burning accelerates global warming.. "Burning trees to generate electricity is dangerous polluting, contributing to a host of respiratory and cardiac problems and should to be limited to protect people and the environment Biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that burn fossil fuels—even coal FEDERAL COURT FOLLOWS SCIENCE IN STRIKING DOWN EPA'S BIOMASS EMISSIONS LOOPHOLE WASHINGTON (July 12, 2013) – A key federal court ruling today confirmed that Clean Air Act limits on carbon dioxide pollution apply to industrial facilities, including tree-burning power plants that burn biomass. The court vacated an exemption the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had carved out for "biogenic carbon dioxide." The decision by a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA (D.C. Cir. No. 11-1101) found that EPA had improperly exempted all sources of biogenic CO2 from otherwise applicable permitting requirements. "THE SCIENCE IS CLEAR THAT NOT ALL BIOMASS BURNING IS GOOD FOR THE PLANET AND TODAY'S RULING RIGHTLY AFFIRMS SCIENCE as the guide for how EPA must now move forward on biomass energy production," said Niel Lawrence, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "This decision will ultimately benefit the climate, as well as Americans who want to breathe easier and protect the forests that they love. It will also ensure that our investments in clean energy go to sources that are actually clean." "Today's ruling upholds EPA's authority to regulate pollution that drives climate change. The Court's decision is grounded in an understanding that THE SCIENCE SHOWS THAT BIOMASS FUELS, INCLUDING TREE-BURNING, CAN MAKE CLIMATE DISRUPTION WORSE," said Ann Weeks, Legal Director of the Clean Air Task Force, who argued the case for Petitioners and appeared on behalf of the Conservation Law Foundation and the Natural Resource Council of Maine. "The Court clearly noted that the atmosphere can't tell the difference between fossil fuel carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide emitted by burning trees." "BURNING TREES TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY IS DANGEROUS, POLLUTING AND OUGHT TO BE LIMITED TO PROTECT PEOPLE AND THE ENVIRONMENT," SAID KEVIN BUNDY, A SENIOR ATTORNEY WITH THE CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY'S CLIMATE LAW INSTITUTE. "THIS IMPORTANT DECISION WILL REDUCE RESPIRATORY AILMENTS, PROTECT FORESTS AND HELP ENSURE A HEALTHIER, MORE LIVABLE CLIMATE." "The Court's decision is particularly important for the Southeast. Now we have an opportunity for a more sensible, science-based policy, one that avoids clear-cutting the region's wildlife-rich forests for energy while intensifying climate change impacts," said Frank Rambo, head of the Clean Energy and Air Program for the Southern Environmental Law Center, which is representing Dogwood Alliance, Georgia ForestWatch, South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, and Wild Virginia in the case. Emissions from power plants and other industrial facilities that burn biomass can accelerate global warming and contribute to a host of respiratory and cardiac problems. BIOMASS-FUELED POWER PLANTS EMIT SIGNIFICANTLY MORE CO2 PER KILOWATT PRODUCED THAN POWER PLANTS THAT BURN FOSSIL FUELS—EVEN COAL—and it can take decades before that excess CO2 is "re-sequestered" by subsequent plant growth. Under the Clean Air Act, facilities that are required to control their CO2 emissions must also control any "significant" emissions of other regulated pollutants, so the Court's decision also means that communities near these plants will also benefit from reductions in pollution that causes asthma and other health problems. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is an international nonprofit environmental organization with more than 1.4 million members and online activists. Since 1970, our lawyers, scientists, and other environmental specialists have worked to protect the world's natural resources, public health, and the environment. NRDC has offices in New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Livingston, Montana, and Beijing. Visit us at www.nrdc.org and follow us on Twitter @NRDC. The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 500,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places. The Clean Air Task Force works to help safeguard against the worst impacts of climate change by catalyzing the rapid global development and deployment of low carbon energy and other climate-protecting technologies through research and analysis, public advocacy leadership, and partnership with the private sector. The Southern Environmental Law Center is a regional nonprofit using the power of the law to protect the health and environment of the Southeast (Virginia, Tennessee, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama). Founded in 1986, SELC's team of more than 50 legal and policy experts represent more than 100 partner groups on issues of climate change and energy, air and water quality, forests, the coast and wetlands, transportation, and land use. Dogwood Alliance is increasing protection for millions of acres of Southern forests by transforming the way corporations, landowners and communities value them for their climate, wildlife and water benefits. Dogwood Alliance has revolutionized the environmental practices of some of the world's largest corporations. For more information on the organization please visit, www.dogwoodalliance. org. Coastal Conservation League is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of South Carolina and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that works to protect the natural environment and communities of the South Carolina coastal plain. Conservation Law Foundation is a not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that uses law, science, policy, and the business market to find pragmatic, innovative solutions to New England's toughest environmental problems. Georgia ForestWatch is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of Georgia and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that works to promote healthy forests and watersheds in national forest lands in Georgia. Natural Resources Council of Maine, a not-for-profit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maine, is a membership organization dedicated to preserving the quality of the air, water, forest and other natural resources of the State of Maine, for the benefit of its people and its environment. Wild Virginia is a nonprofit organization organized under the laws of the State of Virginia and incorporated under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Wild Virginia works to preserve wild forest ecosystems in Virginia's National Forests.[/p][/quote]US Federal Court ruling could put the brakes on subsidies for Wood Biomass in the UK. Re: US Federal Court Confirms.. Biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that burn fossil fuels—even coal GREEN MADNESS: DO BRITISH MINISTERS KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING? Date: 01/05/13. The Drax plant in Yorkshire, England is one of the biggest coal-fired power plants in the world with an almost 1,000 foot-tall flue chimney, 6 boilers, and 12 very large cooling towers. It consumes 36,000 tons of coal each day, providing 7 percent of the country's electricity. Starting next month, the plant will be converted to burn millions of tons of wood chips a year, costing £700 million ($1.085 billion). Most of the wood chips will travel 3,000 miles across the Atlantic Ocean, coming from trees downed in the United States. Drax is building 2 plants in the United States that will turn the wood from trees into chips that can be transported by ship to Yorkshire and then hauled to the power station by railway trucks. In order to prevent spontaneous combustion, the wood chips must be stored in domes where the humidity is controlled before they can be pulverized into powder. (Wood is 1,000 times more prone to spontaneous combustion than coal.) Despite the fact that coal is the least-expensive source of electricity generation in England, THE OWNERS OF THE DRAX PLANT REALIZED THAT A RECENTLY INSTITUTED CARBON TAX ON FOSSIL FUELS WOULD PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS IF THEY CONTINUED TO BURN COAL EVENTUALLY MAKING THEIR ELECTRICITY BECOME TWICE AS EXPENSIVE. The political incumbents in Britain decided last year to give any coal-fired power station that switched to 'biomass' the almost 100 percent 'renewable subsidy' that owners of onshore wind farms get. A British Carbon Tax and an EU Mandate. A new carbon tax introduced in Britain on April 1 is applied to every ton of carbon dioxide produced during electricity production. WHILE THE TAX IS STARTING OUT LOW, IT WILL INCREASE EACH YEAR, MAKING THE COST OF GENERATING ELECTRICITY FROM COAL DOUBLE WITHIN 20 YEARS, AT WHICH POINT IT WILL NO LONGER BE ECONOMICAL FOR DRAX TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY FROM COAL. Along with the carbon tax, the British government will also be subsidizing electricity produced from its list of 'carbon neutral' power sources that will further increase consumer electricity bills. - http://www.thegwpf.o rg/green-madness-bri tish-ministers-doing / Ten years from now the headlines could read.. SOUTHAMPTON THE UKs LITTLE BEIJING.. ALL POLLUTION NONE OF THE WEALTH..[/p][/quote]Has all the good work of the 1956 Clean Air Act been wasted? Re: US Federal Court ruling.. Burning trees to generate electricity is dangerous polluting, contributing to a host of respiratory and cardiac problems and should to be limited to protect people and the environment Biomass-fueled power plants emit significantly more CO2 per kilowatt produced than power plants that burn fossil fuels—EVEN COAL. http://www.nrdc.org/ media/2013/130712.as p Yet Helius's plans to build two land grabbing, pollution generating timber/grass Biomass POWER PLANTs within a miles radius of Southampton and Portsmouth Centre Has all the good work of the 1956 Clean Air Act been wasted, the Act included measures to relocate polluting POWER PLANTs away from Cities. .?[/p][/quote]"MAKING ELECTRICITY FROM BIOMASS BASED ON IMPORTED WOOD IS NOT A LONG-TERM ANSWER TO OUR ENERGY NEEDS ED DAVEY: BIOMASS FUEL SUBSIDIES TO BE CAPPED 16 July 2013 Last updated at 20:19 By Roger Harrabin Environment analyst, BBC News Pile of logs Burning wood is not a long term answer to the UK's energy needs, said Energy The government is turning away from its controversial policy of subsidising UK power stations to generate electricity from burning wood. It is proposing that subsidies for bespoke biomass burning plants should be capped at 400 MW. And by 2027, it will end subsidies for biomass burning in existing power stations. Environmentalists are relieved, but say the policy should never have been approved in the first place. The UK's biggest power station, Drax in Yorkshire, which has been converting half its boilers from coal to wood. Most of this wood it burns is imported, particularly from the US. Ed Davey, the Energy Secretary, told the BBC that biomass was a temporary solution to meet climate change targets while renewable energy systems were being developed. "MAKING ELECTRICITY FROM BIOMASS BASED ON IMPORTED WOOD IS NOT A LONG-TERM ANSWER TO OUR ENERGY NEEDS – I AM QUITE CLEAR ABOUT THAT," HE SAID. http://www.bbc.co.uk /news/business-23334 466[/p][/quote]Endgame no local CHP no subsidy.. no Helius - AFAIK: Helius is unlikely to implement CHP owing to the huge extra cost.. no local district heating infrastructure in place. I'm still waiting for Southampton (vaguely promised) geothermal CHP plan to kick in, low cost district heating for all IRONIC OR WHAT.. All of the electrical power from Southampton's geothermal CHP scheme (26 million kWh) is to be used by Associated British Ports via a private electrical connection to the port. - https://www.southamp ton.gov.uk/s-environ ment/energy/Geotherm al/ - BRITAIN TO LIMIT FUNDING FOR NEW POWER-ONLY BIOMASS PLANTS By John McGarrity LONDON | Thu Jul 18, 2013 7:16pm BST (Reuters) - New standalone biomass power plants in Britain will not be eligible for some subsidies unless they generate heat at the same time, under new government proposals, meaning many new plants could be cancelled, an industry lobby said. BRITAIN'S GOVERNMENT SAID ON WEDNESDAY IT AIMED TO DENY PUBLIC MONEY VIA GUARANTEED MINIMUM POWER PRICES TO DEDICATED BIOMASS PLANTS THAT DO NOT GENERATE BOTH HEAT AND ELECTRICITY. "The lack of a strike price for new build biomass means support for this important technology has effectively come to an end, and we urge the Government to reconsider," said Gaynor Hartnell, chief executive with the Renewable Energy Association (REA). She said that as heat output, known as combined heat and power (CHP) could not easily be built into projects that had already been approved, many would be scrapped: "Developers cannot simply add CHP to these projects retrospectively, so they will most likely be cancelled. " CHP is seen as much more efficient as the heat from power generation is used to warm homes and businesses. Last week, RWE npower said it would close a newly converted 750-megawatt biomass plant at Tilbury by July 21 because of a forecast drop in UK power prices and lack of capital from the Germany-based parent RWE. Last year Drax scrapped plans to build a new dedicated biomass plant on its site in North Yorkshire, citing the need for better government support. - http://uk.reuters.co m/article/2013/07/18 /uk-britain-biomass- subsidies-idUKBRE96H 14820130718[/p][/quote]£110 billion up for grabs.. Southampton perfectly positioned to be the UK's Solar/Geothermal Capital. ABOVE US.. according to UK Solar radiation maps, we are perfectly positioned to reap the maximum benefits of Solar Power. http://contemporarye nergy.co.uk/solarmap .htmc BELOW US we have hot rocks, perfectly positioned to reap the benefits of Geothermal power. ONE PROBLEM Southampton's overpaid Overlords are happy with the Status Quo.. nice air purifiered and conditioned homes, off to work in their air conditioned cars to their air conditioned offices.. what do they care if Southampton is turning into the diesel pollution Capital of Europe ? NEW ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT TO FUEL RECOVERY Department of Energy & Climate Change Published:27 June 2013 New details of reforms vital to keeping the lights on and emissions and bills down placeholder • GOVERNMENT ACTION TO UNLOCK UP TO £110 BILLION ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT AND SUPPORT UP TO 250,000 JOBS BY 2020 • Capacity Market to be initiated in 2014 to bring on gas and other flexible electricity supply to meet future demand and reduce risks to security of supply from winter 2018 • Renewable Strike Prices to help renewables contribute more than 30% of total power by 2020 The potential scale of investment, growth and job opportunities available in the energy economy was made clear today as Cabinet Ministers announced new details of reforms vital to keeping the lights on and emissions and bills down. With around a fifth of Great Britain's ageing power plants due to close over the coming decade, and further closures in the 2020s, we need huge investment in our energy infrastructure. The Energy Bill currently before Parliament introduces vital market reforms to bring this about. Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander and Energy and Climate Change Secretary Edward Davey today announced more details about the reforms, ahead of schedule, to give developers and investors the confidence to progress with new projects. Secretary of State Edward Davey said: "NO OTHER SECTOR IS EQUAL IN SCALE TO THE BRITISH POWER MARKET, IN TERMS OF THE OPPORTUNITY THAT IT OFFERS TO INVESTORS, AND THE SCALE OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE CHALLENGE. "OUR REFORMS WILL RENEW OUR ELECTRICITY SUPPLY, ATTRACTING UP TO £110 BILLION INVESTMENT IN A MIX OF CLEAN, SECURE POWER AND DEMAND REDUCTION, AND WILL SUPPORT UP TO 250,000 JOBS UP AND DOWN THE SUPPLY-CHAIN. "The Energy Bill is already progressing well through Parliament and received overwhelming cross-party backing at Commons Third Reading. "Developers and investors have been crying out for more details, sooner, and that is what we are giving them today. "The Capacity Market will incentivise investment in new gas plant and other flexible capacity to maintain an adequate supply margin – the safety blanket over and above expected demand – for 2018 onwards. "Ofgem and National Grid will consult on possible steps they could take to ensure that mothballed power plant or demand response is available if needed in the middle of the decade. This will mean the public can continue to enjoy a reliable supply of electricity. "The Strike Prices for renewable technologies announced today aim to make the UK market one of the most attractive for developers of wind, wave, tidal, solar and other renewables technologies, whilst minimising the costs to consumers. "This will help boost home-grown sources of clean secure energy, and enable us to decarbonise the power sector, with renewables contributing more than 30% to our mix by the end of this decade. "Our reforms will keep the lights on and emissions down, and will save consumers money on their bills. The result – low-carbon, affordable and reliable power for the long-term" Capacity Market The Government will run the first Capacity Market in 2014. This will ensure sufficient electricity supplies from winter 2018 by attracting necessary investment in new and existing generation, as well as other forms of capacity such as demand response. Capacity agreements, alongside long-term Contracts for Difference (CfDs) for low-carbon power, will boost supplies into the next decade and protect consumers against volatility in market price. Similar capacity markets already operate in the USA and a number of EU countries, and one is being introduced in France. Detail confirmed today: • A Capacity Market (CM) will be initiated with the first auctions taking place subject to State Aid approval in 2014, for the delivery of electricity capacity from the winter of 2018-19, as previously proposed. This confirmation, alongside further detail on the design of the CM, will enable industry to prepare for implementation. • Participants in the CM (who could include existing generators and investors in new plant such as gas or demand-side response), will bid to provide the total amount of electricity capacity that is forecast to be required through an auction, and if successful would receive a steady payment in the year they agree to make capacity available. • In exchange they will be obliged to deliver electricity in periods of system stress or face financial penalties. • The costs of capacity agreements will be met by suppliers. But the impact on bills will be partially offset by reduced wholesale prices, and consumers will be protected against volatility in market prices and costly blackouts. Ofgem today updated their assessment of supply margins in the middle of this decade, anticipating that the buffer between peak demand and supply could be lower than previously expected. This is in part due to the low price of coal that has led coal-fired power stations in the UK to operate more often, whilst gas has become uncompetitive, leading plants to close. This surge in the use of coal has also brought forward the point at which the dirtiest plants are required to close in compliance with environmental standards. In response, Ofgem and National Grid will each consult on extending existing arrangements they use to balance supply and demand in the short term, and to ensure enough power is available when needed. This could include contracting for additional reserve in the form of currently mothballed plant or incentivising flexible demand response. As a result of the prudent action set out today by DECC, Ofgem and National Grid, customers will continue to enjoy security of electricity supply throughout the rest of this decade, and into the next. Renewable Strike Prices Also announced today are details, earlier than expected, of the proposed strike prices that will be available from 2014 - 2019 for renewable electricity including onshore and offshore wind, tidal, wave, biomass conversion and large solar projects. This support comes from within the £7.6 billion Levy Control Framework, as previously announced. Strike Prices effectively remove price volatility risk for electricity generated from low-carbon sources, under new long-term CfDs being established by the Energy Bill. This ensures greater certainty to generators and therefore a better deal to consumers. They form a core component of the Government's strategy to bring forward investment in affordable low-carbon electricity generation – including renewables, Carbon Capture and Storage and new nuclear. CfDs are vital to give investors the confidence they need to pay the up-front costs of major new infrastructure projects, and will help ensure that renewable energy makes up more than 30% of the UK's electricity mix in 2020, helping to significantly decarbonise the power sector by 2030. https://www.gov.uk/g overnment/news/new-e nergy-infrastructure -investment-to-fuel- recovery 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