Author: Tanja Rebel
‘Measured Protest Meeting’ Discusses Biomass Power Station
10:55 am Thursday, 27th October, 2011, Isle of Wight
ShortURL: http://wig.ht/291c
Read More- Cowes, Green Issues, Island-wide, Newport, Opinion Piece
We weren’t able to go along to the biomass public meeting last night, but VB reader Tanja Rebel did. She has sent through this report which are her own opinions and words. Ed
Around 50 people turned out last night to attend the public meeting organised to discuss the proposed bio-mass power station at Stag Lane.
Bob Keats, the Chair of the evening said, “Can I say thanks to everyone who helped put last night’s meeting together. It was well organised, well publicised, well attended and provided for a very high quality of discussion. Ian did a great job providing a well considered argument against this scale of development.
“This was the most well behaved and measured ‘protest’ meeting I have encountered – The evidence against this project is massive and clear. We just need to get that message out.”
Bob summarises it quite well, I think!
Level of concern
I am overall pleased with the turn-out, which for the Isle of Wight was quite good. This shows the level of concern there is out there about this proposal. I know of several who couldn’t turn up on the night, but who are equally concerned so there is an awareness that is growing amongst residents that biomass is not sustainable at all. My view is that it is polluting and therefore harmful for its nearby environment and contributes to global deforestation as well as global warming.
According to the European Environment Agency Scientific Community Committee, the assumption that biomass is carbon neutral is a “serious accounting error” as it increases C02 emissions.
More CO2 than coal power stations
Biomass plants release more CO2 than coal power stations and even more nitrogen oxides as well as small particulates, which constitute a huge health hazard. They also release dioxins, durans and heavy metals, even if the wood that is burned is so called “clean”.
Importing wood or pellets will increase C02 emissions even further and this huge monstrosity of a plant will rely on imported wood, whatever they say. There is just not enough forest on the island to support it and even if there were, why should we destroy our beautiful forests for something that is a dead-end? Equally, why should we allow forests in Eastern Europe to be raped for our endless energy consumption? It is morally and environmentally wrong.
More demand for wood than can be supplied
In summary, biomass plants lead to more C02 emissions, more deforestation, more monoculture plantations, more land grabs and increased food prices.
It also places more demand for wood than the planet can supply, with UK demand set to increase to 60 million tonnes per year! What’s more, we are paying for this as vast subsidies are going to this dirty form of energy that is classed as “renewable”.
Will lead to other job losses
Nor will it lead to more jobs nationally, as biomass burning is highly capital intensive + it will lead to substantial job losses in other wood industries, such as carpentry, for where will they get their wood from?
Biomass is also highly inefficient, with an average energy waste of 70%! Even if the heat was captured on the Isle of Wight there is no district heating on the island at present and that will be very difficult to realise.
Equally difficult will it be to make the river Medina suitable for the large vessels that are going to transport the wood. Dredging can be ecologically harmful, as well as the pollutants and possible cooling water that may be released into the river, causing thermal shock to river life.
An eyesore along beautiful river habitat
So, from all perspectives, this plant is a no-no and the sooner people realise this the better. It will also be an eyesore along this beautiful river habitat, with a 75 meter high chimney and overall total lack of aesthetic feeling, the importance of which has totally gone out of the window in today’s day and age. Who cares what it looks like, as long as it’s “green”… I say, green should have sheen! In other words, green should be beautiful!
We need to start waking up and this campaign is the start of that! We will continue campaigning until those in County Hall have woken up as well. This seems to be part of a grander plan to industrialise this ecologically sensitive as well as beautiful river habitat in the name of “sustainability” – a most abused word nowadays.
Put efforts elsewhere
I know there is a lot of money in this and that is the main reason why they want to push it through, but it would be a travesty if we allowed this to happen.
Much better would it be to put all our efforts (and subsidies) into home insulation, solar, tidal end geothermal energy, which are far more effective and truly sustainable.
Image: Landrover Our Planet under CC BY 2.0
It does make me smile when people use the internet, the planets biggest single user of fossil fuel energy, to complain about CO2 emmissions. So you want the island to be 21st century, ‘sustainable’ and eco but you dont want biomass CHP plants, gasification planr or wind turbines? so how do you want your ‘green’ power to be generated? And no Solar is far from green.
Offensive comment?
Interesting point you raise about the power used by the Internet. Would love to read into more details of this. Have you got some references/URLs for the “planets biggest single user of fossil fuel energy” point?
Offensive comment?
Unfortunatley I cant remember where I read it, but it talked about the heat and power used by each ‘search’ and IMMSC it said the internal alone accounts for 3% of global power usage. I think is was Wired magazine.
Offensive comment?
It would be helpful if you were able to back up your claims, not that I think that it’s not possible that you’re right.
Offensive comment?
New Scientist, 6 May 2009: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227062.600-is-the-net-hurting-the-environment.html
Offensive comment?
Heres a few just found
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/may/03/internet-carbon-footprint
http://physicsforme.wordpress.com/2011/10/26/internet-responsible-for-2-per-cent-of-global-energy-usage/
http://www.thomaswhite.com/explore-the-world/green-report/2010/carbon-emissions-and-the-internet-is-cloud-computing-the-answer.aspx
Offensive comment?
I doubt it – it sounds like tosh to me. How can a laptop or home PC be the world’s biggest user of coal and oil? What about industry, aviation, shipping, motoring? I think you need a rethink.
This plant, with 70% of energy created wasted, is the wrong solution in the wrong location. I only hope the council’s conections to those involved don’t make it an inevitability.
Offensive comment?
Its not just the power into your laptop its the massive amounts of energy needed globally, and heat generated, to run the search engine servers. Just think about how many trillions of pages of data they need to serach to return you answwers within a fraction of a second. You need to think past what you can see.
Offensive comment?
Arrrgh
I guess the paper from APP (Asia Paper and Pulp)who are cutting down forests in Indonesia and the plastic pen from China don’t use energy.
Offensive comment?
Keith the South East Asian rain forest goes to make that nice dark wood furniture we all have our laptops sat on while we protest and to create areas to build manufacturing plants that produce all the plastics that go into todays ‘green’ “zero emmission” cars, not paper LOL :-)
Offensive comment?
“our planet is home to 750 million laptops, a billion smart phones and 100 million servers.
“
Offensive comment?
This is another quote from the same article:
“Their calculations show that a meeting that takes place by video-conference uses an average of one hundredth as much energy as one in which participants took a flight so that they could sit down together. Replacing just one in four of those meetings by a video call, they add, would save as much power as the entire internet consumes.”
Yes there are a lot of Internet devices, but the vast majority are relatively low power machines. A smartphone typically draws less than 10 watts for example, the same as a low energy light bulb.
Laptops aren’t exactly energy sinks either. My ageing MacBook is consuming 30W – 50W whilst web surfing (yes, I just measured it).
Compare and contrast with the amount of energy used in even a short car journey. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considers one gallon of petrol is equivalent to 33.7 kilowatt hours of electricity (or 8.89 kWh per litre).
So using that, that litre of fuel would power your smartphone for 889 hours or 37 days. For my MacBook, over 7 days constant use.
In fact, more than 25% of all energy consumed in the UK is on transport (from UK National Statistics). A pattern repeated globally, of course. There are over 800 million cars and light trucks worldwide.
Your claims regarding the power usage for searches are equally baseless. Although Google must have many 100,000′s of servers they go out of their way to keep them energy efficient. They do not require the high-power components used by domestic devices – i.e, no screen or video processors – so they consume much less energy. In a post rebutting The Times claim of each search producing 7 grams of CO2, Google provided figures showing this to be actually more like 0.2 grams.
Using that figure – which The Times accepted was correct – puts the CO2 footprint for a typical persons use of Google for a year about the same as a single load of washing.
In my opinion, your assertion that the Internet is the ‘planets biggest single user of fossil fuel energy’ is tosh of the highest order.
Offensive comment?
You don’t mind countering your own argument by using it yourself then, or is it just because it is being used for democratic argument and protest? :)
Offensive comment?
what is 21st century, eco and sustainable about biomass….it is none of those things.
For biomass to be viable (like it is in various places in the world) it has to be placed close to its fuel source.
The utter LIES these people are spreading about these plants is laughable and is all about those dreaded subsidies they go on about when condemning wind farms.
Offensive comment?
Sorry I couldn’t attend the meeting, this biomass plant is all about making money not saving the planet. Unfortunately it is already a done deal with the council sensor offices and certain well known and connected cabinet members.
Offensive comment?
Demand for power is increasing and power plants need to be built. Not one has ever or will ever be built just for the fun of it. Anyone investing £130M in anything will want a return. So what is your point?
And nothing that anyone will ever do from here on in will save the planet, I agree on that bit. too little too late in my opinion. As someone once said trying to save the planet now is like turning up to an earthquake zone with a dustpan & brush :-)
Offensive comment?
What do you mean by “Saving the planet”?
Earth will still be here for millions of years after the last human being has departed.
I am quite capable of looking after myself, thank you.
Offensive comment?
I agree Mother earth. I think when they talk about “saving the planet” they mean saving the environment for future human generations. I personnaly dont think the human race will last more than another couple of hundred years before it wipes itself out one way or another. Then the earth can take all the time in the world to recover just as it has done many times over :-)
Offensive comment?
Well said Rosco. The nasty whiff around this plant doesn’t just come from the planned emissions or the river mud.
Offensive comment?
Just read on IW Radio site that Real Ventures have refuted the claims, calling them “highly misleading or simply untrue”.
Hmmmm….were these not the guys spouting “highly misleading or simply untrue” claims about previous wind turbine applications on the Island? Pot-Kettle-Black comes to mind?
That aside I feel that this is a done deal already. Pugh et al have already nailed their colours to the mast (or cooling tower) through their offer to use Pugh’s family connections to get the relevant govt minister to back the scheme etc.
And going on Pugh’s track-record, even if public opinion is massively against this scheme, he will not listen.
As always its not what you know but who you know. Although it is probably all lawful, it is morally corrupt and stinks.
Offensive comment?
Yes Mersault, I was at the Riverside meeting and pointed out for the umpteenth time that the Directors of Real Ventures are one and the same as ThWART. Their so reported £116m investment (not their own money by any stretch) will reputedly bring them £36-47 million a year gross. No wonder big business wants to invest, and since when have they cared about the effects of their investments on the environment.
The scientific case against biomass is huge.
By the way does anyone know the emissions effects of wind turbines? Precisely nil. Seems ThWART are not entirely honest honest about saving the beautiful landscape of the Island, are they?
Offensive comment?
There is a huge difference between
burning local fuel from sustainably managed Island woods in cleanburn woodburning stoves = A Very Good Thing
and
burning imported biomass from sources which might not be sustainably managed and which needed lots of fossil fuel to get here = A Bad Thing and possible A Very Bad Thing Indeed.
Please, anybody who doesn’t know about the good side of woodfuel, check out the Forestry Commission’s website
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/INFD-839EC6
or
http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk
and read any of Oliver Rackham’s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Rackham books, such as the 100th New Naturalist book on ‘Woodlands’,
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Collins-New-Naturalist-Library-100/dp/0007202431
to understand why burning firewood can actually be good for the environment.
But this biomass plant sounds as though it’ll actually cause harm to wildlife and climate.
Offensive comment?
I am afraid to inform you that the burning of timber is being used far faster than the world can grow it.
In 1969, Bolton in Lancashire was made a smokeless
free town; coal fires were banned. Over the years the health of the people improved – I note that coal and other fossil fuel are still being used on the IoW and the burning of logs appears to be the ‘In thing’,
What will all these wood burners do when the wood
runs out? And it will!
We ask Brazil and Borneo to stop felling trees to deter the Green House effect; funny old world!
Offensive comment?
Yes, didn’t Mr Pugh’s enthusiastic support for this dubious business venture even feature in PRIVATE EYE?
Offensive comment?
It’s not enough to say ‘this is good’ or ‘this is bad’; what we need is for someone to do the sums.
How much CO2 is generated by: the plant itself; transporting fuel to the plant; processing the fuel to suit the plant; growing the fuel sustainably?How long will it take for the plant to repay its own carbon footprint? How do these figures compare to other possible technologies? How do the financial costs compare, and what can we reasonably afford to pay?
Offensive comment?
Kasper, if only there was a truely independant authority to do this but bith side have their own agendas. Not dissimilar to the “Zero Emmision” car nonsence.
But at the end of the day the eco aspect is a bit of a green herring here. (Economic/cheap) Fossil fuels are running out and demand for energy is increasing (you only need to look at the current poulation growth predictions) so we need to look to and develope/experiment with/invest in alternatives now. And if that creates Island jobs and income, isnt that a bonus?
Offensive comment?
hmmm..one that burns trees….kind of Catch 22.
Offensive comment?
Trees release the CO2 when burnt that they absorb whilst growing, and can be replanted, hence sustainable. Unlike fossel fuels that absorbed their CO2 millions of years ago.
Yes I know its not 1 for 1 when you factor in the transport/inefficiencies/monocultures etc etc. But we have to do something.
Offensive comment?
wrong…its no where near one for one…trees need a decade or more before they become a viable size for fuel…before that happens 20,000 a year will have been cut down a year for plant alone, let alone all the other biomass plants ( 4 planned for the Island alone)..these are then prepared by mashing and pulping in huge deisal fed machines to produce fuel logs and then shipped many hundreds of miles in tankers (15 a week) fed by deisal to a purpose built harbour on the medina…at no point during this process is their any eco qualification.
It is actually better to do nothing than build biomass plants…far better to build modern nucleur power stations
Offensive comment?
Well said!
Offensive comment?
I meant well said Ryde a Wight Swan, but I suppose it goes for No. 5 as well.
Offensive comment?
“a green herring”
LOL!
I think it is also fair to enquire how viable this project would be without the subsidies (ROC’s) that so-called renewable energy projects enjoy?
These are paid for by you and me, via our electricity bills, not (as the CP keeps getting wrong) by the government.
Offensive comment?
Kasper, not all the sums are available, but you point is still valid. For example in the US, their environmental protection agency requires energy producers to publish the technical details of the expected pollution, by type & volume.
For example, in Greta Florida where a similar 50MW plant to the Island scheme, is being proposed to be built, the energy company has submitted that their plant would produce:
• 247 Tons Per Year – Particulate Matter
• 239 Tons Per Year – Particulate Matter 10
• 233 Tons Per Year – Particulate Matter 2.5
• 249 Tons Per Year – NOx (Nitrogen Oxide)
• 246 Tons Per Year – SO2 (Sulfur Dioxide)
• 248 Tons Per Year – CO (Carbon Monoxide)
• 40 Tons Per Year – H2SO4 – (Sulfuric Acid Mist)
• 63 Tons Per Year – VOC (Volatile Organic Compounds)
• 29 Tons Per Year – F (Fluorides)
Readers may wish to google, epa particulate or look at the outcome from the European Respiratory Society’s Annual Congress in September this year to find out what harm carbon does.
As for ‘green’ technology, the UKs own environment agency even stated in 2009 that controlling carbon using biomass can only be achieved under very specific circumstances, and carbon emissions are actually worsened if the “schemes used energy crops that are grown on what was previously grassland using a lot of nitrogen fertilizers. Then expend energy in processing the biomass, for example into fuel pellets, and the fuel is transported thousands of miles”
The Real Ventures’ website contains a graphic which shows the source of their wood pellet fuels:
• 2.5% UK
• 6.1% Sweden
• 7.7% Italy
• 9% Austria
• 12.3% Germany
• 36.4% France
• 26.0% Others
Recently, the European Environment Agency, on the 15th September 2011 said, “Several European Union energy directives encourage a switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy derived from plant biomass based on the premise that biomass combustion, regardless of the source of the biomass, would not result in carbon accumulation in the atmosphere. This mistaken assumption results in a serious accounting error”. It will take around 400 years to repay this carbon debt apparently.
Offensive comment?
what he said
Offensive comment?
Okay, thanks – was the Institute for science, innovation & society (Uni of Oxford & LSE) mentioned? Just that their 2009 report “How to get climate policy back on course” came up with this:
“Under the Kyoto Protocol, policy makers have been presented with frequent lessons about the unintended consequences of policy action. For instance, setting huge targets for renewable energy in a short time frame (from 8.5% to 20% by 2020) may unintentionally drive the whole of Europe into large-scale wood burning. This decision will almost double the wood demand for biomass energy in the EU-15 from 55% of harvested wood in 2001 to 100% in 2020 at current harvest levels.
There will be a huge demand-supply gap & there will be different sorts of hazard also. Decentralized wood burning may increase the already considerable number of deaths caused by fine-particle emissions in Europe. Furthermore, it will increase the atmospheric black carbon load, which is thought to have powerful climate forcing effect: the opposite result of what policy intends.”
Offensive comment?
I do hope they realise it shortens your life by 12 years. Hope they consider that when they start to kill the island’s population. Also with this plant no one will visit us which we rely on. No one visits Fawley. Great we will die and the tourist industry will die. Well thank you Isle of Wight council.
Offensive comment?
Surely indirect culling of the population is Council Policy already – rendering the elderly housebound with limited transport, no public toilets, and reduced social services are all serving to accelerate the death rate, extra airborne toxins will help things along a bit more.
Offensive comment?
Then when the fuel becomes too expensive we could convert the plant in to an assisted suicide facility & turn its clients into Soylent Green.
Offensive comment?
Well,
That’s not a bad plan…they could save a fortune on rebuilding The IW Crematorium! Convince everyone on the Island that it’s the green thing to do and that by doing so, would ensure their place in Heaven! I knew that Mr Pugh wasn’t as daft as he looks!
Offensive comment?
Hello All
Real Venture Ltd states on their Website that the Woodpellets are sourced from sustainable approved Sources in the UK and Europe.
I would not be Surprised if Latvia was one of those Sources.
80% of Latvian Forests are owned by Foreign Companies,and those Forests are not Plantations but Prime Forests that are being cut down for Profit.
All this is done with the Approval of the Forestry Comission.
Real Ventures Ltd should be forced to declare where this Wood is sourced from.
Large Scale Biomass Plants are not GREEN,they are only a Means for Profiteering.
Remember the old Saying(Money Talks B…..T Walks.
Olaf
Offensive comment?
well done for highlighting this serious issue Tanya, and applaud all those that turned out for that meeting.
Lets be clear- a large scale Biomess Plant such as Stag Lane is reliant on non-local and mainly non-uk wood and cannot be compared to small scale woodburnng for heat energy from local sources
– even these have to be measured in terms of balance or disruption to arable crop production as Cllr. & farmer, Colin Riches pointed out to G.Brown at last Full council.
Globally, biomass and biofuel arable land crop displacement was assisted Financial markets in doubling basic food commodity prices (affecting even China’s domestic inflation).
In South America and SE Asia- subsistence farmers are being forced off land by traditional land owning dynasties with assistance of Corporations notable for their linkage to major oil/energy cartels.
Right wing oil billionaires like US Ed Koch (he of Liam Fox/Atlantic bridge, tea party and funder of global warming deniers in spite of scientific fact),
- also see biomess as means of maintaining dependency on oil and own wealth/interests at expense of public subsidies for investment in genuine renewables wind-water-solar energy.
How does this affect IOW?
Well, 2 of the ex Tory THWART activists are involved in Stag Lane and show extensive previous career with oil industry.
Big public money is available from Cameron and chums for bio-mess subsidy- so the relationship between Tory and City and Market financial advantage and interest becomes rather conveniently coincidental given Camerons conference announcement re- development funding at public expense.
Large scale- as opposed to small scale Biomass units – have to import fuel/wood which makes their overall green carbon credentials pretty much less than coal. Their are a number of studies that show significant health risk to nearby residents.
See ;biofuel watch,uk.
And scale of Stag lane is comparable to the similar Biomass Plant in upper Southampton Docks which was highlighted across the local TV news last year and on V/blog.
So Whats to compare?
Windturbines which are health friendly and employ lots of ordinary Island people in their construction and maintenance – yet allegedly cause property view devaluations to the owners of the rival Stag Lane Biomess Plant.
This will undoubtedly add to Newport ordinary people health concerns(See today’s IW CP frontpage for Tory presentational view that obscures real historic economic and social stats as usual), pollution and Baltic deforestation for very little energy heat local benefit.
Stag Lane Biomass Plant can hardly be said to be an asthetic or envoronmentally enhanced ‘view’ for residents nearby/
So which central govt. public money industry subsidy (not forgetting tory austerity cuts locally) would you rather see being used?
For the sole financial benefit of a wealthy self interested few behind THWART, Stag Lane and Tory party local funders ?
Or
Wind turbines that bring employment to iow and do not add significant health risk to less well heeled Newport area residents?
That is really the stark choice – or rather lack of choice, by ‘fixed’ outcome by vested economic, social and political interest.
Surely, echoes here, of Tyranny of oligarichical minority at expense of Island majority?
Offensive comment?
Even the plant promoters are is saying that the biomass plant will produce carbon! The best ‘hoped for’ is that it will be carbon neutral; the carbon released from burning the mass = the amount sequestered by the trees when alive. The 75m-chimney stack required, (significantly higher than a wind turbine) confirms that lots of unpleasant stuff is going to be released.
The World Health Authority in their report “Natural and unnatural synergies: climate change policy and health equity” provide a pretty authoritative case of what has happened around the world when ill-considered ‘green’ initiatives actually lead to MORE carbon emissions, deaths, health problems, energy poverty etc.
Offensive comment?
Shipping IS one of the biggest CO2, NOx and SOx creators. If the wood/other raw contributions to the biomass plant is shipped onto the island, what’s the emissions on that???? http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/feb/13/climatechange.pollution?mobile-redirect=false
Offensive comment?
Also read this Guardian article about shipping and health (scary statistics!): http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/09/shipping-pollution?mobile-redirect=false
Offensive comment?
My thoughts are that the most important criteria regarding the protest over the proposed construction of a Bio-Mass Power Station, at Stag Lane should be the grave effects the burning of wood pellets will have on the Islands population.
Wood smoke may smell good, but it’s not good for you. Wood smoke can affect everyone, but children under 18 years, older adults, people with diabetes, heart disease, asthma or other lung diseases are the most vulnerable.
Smoke is made up of a complex mixture of gases and fine particles produced when wood and other organic matter burn. A major health threat from smoke comes from fine particles (also called particle pollution, particulate matter, or PM). These microscopic particles can get into your eyes and respiratory system, where they can cause health problems such as burning eyes, runny nose, and illnesses such as bronchitis.
Particle exposure can lead to a variety of health effects. For example, numerous studies link particle levels to increased hospital admissions and emergency room visits—and even to death from heart or lung diseases.
Both long- and short-term particle exposures have been linked to health problems:
Long-term exposures, such as those experienced by people living for many years in areas with high particle levels, have been associated with problems such as reduced lung function and the development of chronic bronchitis—and even premature death.
Short-term exposures to particles (hours or days) can aggravate lung disease, causing asthma attacks and acute bronchitis, and may also increase susceptibility to respiratory infections.
Offensive comment?
Hello Again
According to Real Ventures the Biomass Plant would be Aircooled,that is at least what was put out to the County Press.In the Latest Paperwork of the Company it states quite clearly that Cooland Water will be released.
I Would not hazard a Guess how big the Fan would be to Aircool this Plant.
Would it be like a GIANT WINDTURBINE ???
This Project should not be allowed to go ahead just alone on the blatent Conflict of Interest.
Who is running this Island The Council or THWART.
Talk about Money rules.
Olaf
Offensive comment?
Just a little Thought
When the Woodpelets run out they could always feed the Boilers with OAP’s that would cure the Councils Problems once and for all.
No more free Busrides for you :)
Offensive comment?
avery minor point wood chips from secondhand wood are in the docks at chichester causing a dust problem and being loaded to bulk carrier for shipment to europe might be good for stobart group to invest in a power plant not too far away
Offensive comment?
Another factor worth considering is additional HGV road traffic to and from site and dock facility.
A glance at the similar Southampton Biomass site estimates even when a conveyor to ship facility has been constructed some approx. 35 HGV site/load turnarounds per day may be required operationally.
Of great real environmental concern is the heated water impact and residue discharge into the River Medina.
Over recent decades, the EA and various partner river/conservation bodies have directed considerable resources and time into the successful return of the migratory Twaite Shad.
This extremely delicate and rare fish species,
See; http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/protectedsites/sacselection/species.asp?featureintcode=s1103
This EA auspiced project has been a much heralded conservation success – testamount to the Medina and Lukely Brook was the late 1990′s construction of the specially designed fish pass situated near the Lidl/ Newport Mill junction of Lukely brook at a then cost of some £140,000.
Spawning has been a great success and numbers of returning fish have been on the increase.
This rare- pre-ice age indigenous fish species id extremely susceptible to pollution AND most significantly esturial water temperature for its survival.
The IOW and River Medina is one of the chosen UK Marine bill conservation zone sancturies with preservation of species like the Twaite Shad a major inherent factor.
Please bear this in mind regarding the ebvironmental impact consequences of proposed Stag Lane Biomass.
Offensive comment?
as someone who will have to look at this thing day in and day out, i find it astounding it is even being considered in the centre of the beautiful
medina valley.
however, our council allowed that huge vestas
building that no one will want in a year or so
to be built, so what is new.
there is nothing green about either of these
monstrosities, and any one with eyes can see that.
Offensive comment?