Power to the people or a biomass of trouble?
THE SPECTRE of a 70-foot high chimney on the fringe of Bournemouth Airport belching fumes into the air over the greenbelt has cast a cloud over plans for a wood-fired power station at Hurn.
Eco-composting is seeking approval from Dorset county council for its pioneering scheme to develop a biomass generator on its Parley Lane complex to turn scrap wood into electricity.
The biomass process, already widely used in Europe where wood chippings piling up at Parley are currently being shipped to fire furnaces in Germany, is claimed to minimise emissions by burning wood at ultra-high temperatures and fitting filters in the smoke stack.
But the scheme has ignited local opposition from Hurn parish council concerned at the fall out from the proposed 22-metre high smoke stack and the blot of the landscape it will create.
And tomorrow Christchurch borough council's planning control committee is being recommended by its officers to lodge a formal objection to the biomass scheme when it comes before county planners later in the year.
In his report to the committee planning officer Giles Moir argued the bio energy facility would be harmful to the greenbelt setting and threaten surrounding heathland areas of special scientific interest and the applicants had failed to prove special circumstances to outweigh the harm.
He said proposed landscaping, including willow plantations to provide additional fuel for the facility, would not screen the power station complex, especially the tall chimney which would be highly visible in an area of largely open land.
Mr Moir also questioned claims that biomass burning was the best available technology for dealing with wood waste and raised concerns at the impact of gases including nitrogen compounds being emitted into the air and falling on environmentally sensitive sites.
"While it is acknowledge that measures will be in place to reduce the level of harmful emissions, the environmental statement identifies that these will have very limited impact on the reduction of emissions," he said.
1:00pm Tuesday 9th October 2007
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: fedupwithjobsworths, Moordown on 2:04pm Tue 9 Oct 07
I thought the idea was to reduce CO2 emissions to help combat Global Warming.
Those who say that this is a carbon neutral “eco” project because all the CO2 released from burning these chippings were originally in the atmosphere conveniently forget that this is also the case for coal. Like “bio fuels” and “carbon neutral homes” (with wood burners) this idea is seriously flawed. CO2 is CO2” whatever the source.
I thought the idea was to reduce CO2 emissions to help combat Global Warming.
Those who say that this is a carbon neutral “eco” project because all the CO2 released from burning these chippings were originally in the atmosphere conveniently forget that this is also the case for coal. Like “bio fuels” and “carbon neutral homes” (with wood burners) this idea is seriously flawed. CO2 is CO2” whatever the source.
Posted by: jamie, Winton on 2:27pm Tue 9 Oct 07
With most non-renewable energy sources becoming more scarce and increasingly expensive, it will not be long before we are running out of alternatives. So its a choice between unsightly chimneys and a bit of CO2 or kissing your current lifestyle of heated homes, tvs and lighting goodbye. In my opinion localised power stations are by far the best alternative and before parish councils object to such plants they need to think about viable alternatives.
With most non-renewable energy sources becoming more scarce and increasingly expensive, it will not be long before we are running out of alternatives. So its a choice between unsightly chimneys and a bit of CO2 or kissing your current lifestyle of heated homes, tvs and lighting goodbye. In my opinion localised power stations are by far the best alternative and before parish councils object to such plants they need to think about viable alternatives.
Posted by: The-bleeding-obvious, Bournemouth on 2:47pm Tue 9 Oct 07
Having produced the biomass surely the best thing to do with it has got to be to put it in landfill so that we achive a net reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere?
All the worlds energy needs can be met by covering 3% of the surface with solar panels end of problem!
Having produced the biomass surely the best thing to do with it has got to be to put it in landfill so that we achive a net reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere?
All the worlds energy needs can be met by covering 3% of the surface with solar panels end of problem!
Posted by: Ted, Bournemouth on 2:49pm Tue 9 Oct 07
If the chippings already have to be shipped to Germany for burning in a similar biomass generator (and German regs are more strict than here), why not do it here and make use of the power locally. It would save the CO2 miles in transportation also. Is the reporter correct in saying that there would be "..belching fumes into the air..." if the filters or emissions control processes are engineered in?
If the chippings already have to be shipped to Germany for burning in a similar biomass generator (and German regs are more strict than here), why not do it here and make use of the power locally. It would save the CO2 miles in transportation also. Is the reporter correct in saying that there would be "..belching fumes into the air..." if the filters or emissions control processes are engineered in?
Posted by: Ted, Bournemouth on 3:01pm Tue 9 Oct 07
Forgot to add:-
Have Christchurch planning officers forgotten that the proposed generator is next to a major airport with all it's noise and aircraft emissions? A lot of unburnt Aviation Turbine Kerosene falls on the heather and it seems to survive!!
Forgot to add:-
Have Christchurch planning officers forgotten that the proposed generator is next to a major airport with all it's noise and aircraft emissions? A lot of unburnt Aviation Turbine Kerosene falls on the heather and it seems to survive!!
Posted by: Badger, Poole on 3:04pm Tue 9 Oct 07
[quote][bold]jamie[/bold] wrote:
With most non-renewable energy sources becoming more scarce and increasingly expensive, it will not be long before we are running out of alternatives. So its a choice between unsightly chimneys and a bit of CO2 or kissing your current lifestyle of heated homes, tvs and lighting goodbye. In my opinion localised power stations are by far the best alternative and before parish councils object to such plants they need to think about viable alternatives.[/quote] Jamie from Winton is right; our supply of non-renewable energy sources is running out. But the alternative doesnt have to be a change of lifestyle at all.
The burning of fuel (regardless of type or source) which releases particles into the atmosphere should be avoided completely. We should be looking at non polluting forms of renewable power such as wind, solar and nuclear. No doubt many of you will be against nuclear but we have to realise that wind and solar can only produce so much. If we are serious about becoming self sufficient in power output then we have to embrace the nuclear option.
…And for all those doom-mongers and panic merchants out there I would say that with the restrictions on civil liberties that we have in this country nowadays the chances of a terrorist getting anywhere near a nuclear installation are less than zero!
jamie wrote:
With most non-renewable energy sources becoming more scarce and increasingly expensive, it will not be long before we are running out of alternatives. So its a choice between unsightly chimneys and a bit of CO2 or kissing your current lifestyle of heated homes, tvs and lighting goodbye. In my opinion localised power stations are by far the best alternative and before parish councils object to such plants they need to think about viable alternatives.
Jamie from Winton is right; our supply of non-renewable energy sources is running out. But the alternative doesnt have to be a change of lifestyle at all.
The burning of fuel (regardless of type or source) which releases particles into the atmosphere should be avoided completely. We should be looking at non polluting forms of renewable power such as wind, solar and nuclear. No doubt many of you will be against nuclear but we have to realise that wind and solar can only produce so much. If we are serious about becoming self sufficient in power output then we have to embrace the nuclear option.
…And for all those doom-mongers and panic merchants out there I would say that with the restrictions on civil liberties that we have in this country nowadays the chances of a terrorist getting anywhere near a nuclear installation are less than zero!
Posted by: knocker, christchurch on 3:11pm Tue 9 Oct 07
The CO2 scare stories are nothing more than that.
It has been reconsidered ,and determined that it would result in a temperature elevation of 0.8 DegC. So consider any activity on its merits not some mythical "scientific" conclusion.
The CO2 scare stories are nothing more than that.
It has been reconsidered ,and determined that it would result in a temperature elevation of 0.8 DegC. So consider any activity on its merits not some mythical "scientific" conclusion.
Posted by: Rory, Wimborne on 3:46pm Tue 9 Oct 07
I aint to good at math so if im wrong sorry but;
Earths surface - 510,065,600km2(incl. Water)
3% of Earths Surface is 15,301,968km2, which taking into acount Englands surface area is 130,395km2, that means we would have to cover an area of land, or water, with solar panels 117.350 times the size of England to apparently solve all are energy problems. Would we even have the resources to make such a structure?!!? I'm not quite sure thats a blatently obvious option.
I aint to good at math so if im wrong sorry but;
Earths surface - 510,065,600km2(incl. Water)
3% of Earths Surface is 15,301,968km2, which taking into acount Englands surface area is 130,395km2, that means we would have to cover an area of land, or water, with solar panels 117.350 times the size of England to apparently solve all are energy problems. Would we even have the resources to make such a structure?!!? I'm not quite sure thats a blatently obvious option.
Posted by: Rory, Wimborne on 3:47pm Tue 9 Oct 07
I aint to good at math so if im wrong sorry but;
Earths surface - 510,065,600km2(incl. Water)
3% of Earths Surface is 15,301,968km2, which taking into acount Englands surface area is 130,395km2, that means we would have to cover an area of land, or water, with solar panels 117.350 times the size of England to apparently solve all are energy problems. Would we even have the resources to make such a structure?!!? I'm not quite sure thats a blatently obvious option.
I aint to good at math so if im wrong sorry but;
Earths surface - 510,065,600km2(incl. Water)
3% of Earths Surface is 15,301,968km2, which taking into acount Englands surface area is 130,395km2, that means we would have to cover an area of land, or water, with solar panels 117.350 times the size of England to apparently solve all are energy problems. Would we even have the resources to make such a structure?!!? I'm not quite sure thats a blatently obvious option.
Posted by: The-bleeding-obvious, Bournemouth on 6:04pm Tue 9 Oct 07
[quote][bold]Rory[/bold] wrote:
I aint to good at math so if im wrong sorry but; Earths surface - 510,065,600km2(incl. Water) 3% of Earths Surface is 15,301,968km2, which taking into acount Englands surface area is 130,395km2, that means we would have to cover an area of land, or water, with solar panels 117.350 times the size of England to apparently solve all are energy problems. Would we even have the resources to make such a structure?!!? I'm not quite sure thats a blatently obvious option. [/quote] Its about 2500 sq mts per person on the planet (50 x 50 mtrs)!
Rory wrote:
I aint to good at math so if im wrong sorry but; Earths surface - 510,065,600km2(incl. Water) 3% of Earths Surface is 15,301,968km2, which taking into acount Englands surface area is 130,395km2, that means we would have to cover an area of land, or water, with solar panels 117.350 times the size of England to apparently solve all are energy problems. Would we even have the resources to make such a structure?!!? I'm not quite sure thats a blatently obvious option.
Its about 2500 sq mts per person on the planet (50 x 50 mtrs)!
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
