“only 36 MW? .. surprising, the 65,000 homes must all have only one light bulb then!

in that case it would take only 60 wind turbines to match this output then, and no dioxins, sulfur, NOx or particulates.. might have to put up with some 'flicker' though, eh?”

“I understand the plant is scheduled to produce 36MW of useful power out from 240,000 tonnes burned. Sustainability becomes a concern when we are aware a local pelleting plant is specified to consume 100,000 tonnes of straw for transporting to Drax each year , Tesco burning thousands of tonnes in local biomass plant , straw being used in construction with proposals to use it for providing cellulosic ethanol. A recent Gov Energy report confirms we only have the capability to provide 10% of our biomass needs and these small plants will experience sustainability problems as all available biomass is diverted into larger more efficient processes.
The new renewables subsidy regime creates concerns for use of straw due to confusion over classification but it could mean we will be required to input £30 million annual subsidy plus wholesale electricity cost . The big concern is the health and environmental impact,. A Government report confirms the transfer to biomass energy will add £billions to health costs due to air quality degradation unfortunately the costing was based on anticipated 20g particle pollution per Gj of energy but a recent DECC report has increased anticipated pollution to 30g for particle pollution and a 300% increase in NOX pollution to 150g per Gj of biomass energy. To put pollution into context the 36MW plant is scheduled to create basic hazardous air pollution equal to exhaust emissions from 9 billion additional vehicle km/yr in locality. The sulphur dioxide burden per unit of power out scheduled to be 75 times higher than equivalent gas. With chlorine content of straw reported to be 20 times higher than timber and chlorine content a guide to dioxin formation straw combustion creates further health impact concerns. The NOX creation creates environmental concerns as a precursor to tropospheric ozone and known adverse impact on any vegetation.
Another local biomass plant application confirmed emissions will impact at ground level within 3km of plant irrespective of chimney height.
It has been suggested that sustainability problems could be overcome by import of straw from Denmark but it should be noted Denmark is reported to be importing some 85% of their biomass requirements.
Biomass combustion proposals require serious in depth scrutiny, we have waste wood to energy plants where operator claims air quality coming out is cleaner than air going into plant when aware their own data shows hazardous content 261 times higher than alternative combustion systems. The availability of feedstock and sustainability again requires serious scrutiny.
There appears to be a sad lack of due diligence and duty of care applied by our current decision makers but why when there are clean more efficient alternatives.
Rgds
Brian Wilson”

“this is why i much prefer wind turbines as a source of energy...

this 'straw-burning' project would produce say 300MW of electricity but commits an area of farming land bigger than North Lincolnshire, 1,000 squ km, to exclusively grow energy-crops. Outwardly, all would appear to be wholesome but the stuff being farmed all around isn't food and if you're unfortunate enough to live down-wind of the plant, then you'll be breathing in carcinogens such as dioxin but don't worry, the CEO will be living safely far away.

If you wanted to get 300MW from wind turbines, then it would take 500 of the local variety (2MW peak / 600kW mean output). The land area needed for these would be 150 square km but the land between the turbine towers can be used to grow food normally.

Which would you choose? .. and who would you trust to decide on your behalf?”

“lets hope they keep river clear of weed,s , Why do i feel it,s more about £6 MILLION into local funds ,”

“I really wish people would think these things through

basically this project isn't just a little plant which makes some nice 'green' electricity. Instead it the hub of a machine consisting of a land area bigger than North Lincolnshire, which has to be entirely committed to growing energy crops, and which can be used for no other useful purpose.

Stop this insane mis-use of our countyside!”

“If the government have sanctioned the building of this type of facility, then it just demonstrates that they don't understand the meaning of the words 'sustainable' or 'renewable'.

The burning of straw or any energy-crop grown specifically for the purpose is hopelessly inefficient with an energy yield of no better than 1MW per square km.

apart from the photosynthetic growing phase, CO2 is emitted during all parts of the fuel cycle especially in the manufacture of fertilisers needed to prevent the soil being immediately exhausted. It is doubtful whether the whole process gives rise to a significant reduction in CO2 emission at all. Moreover the combustion of nitrogenous organic matter gives rise to all manner of noxious toxins with their attendant health risks.

I am not sure of the planned electric power output of this particular project but if it was say 300MW then the primary input energy required would have to be 1,000MW. This would require dedicated and aggressive farming of 1,000 square km or 100,000 hectares of farming land. The total area of North Lincolnshire is only 846 square km so this proposal is just stupid!! ..and mental! Such a plant would need to be supplied with a 40-ton lorry load of 'stuff' every 3 minutes continuously day and night.

How in the name of Imhotep could any sane person prefer this method of energy production to wind turbines which are clean, quiet, non-smelly, 98% energy-efficient and allow the surrounding land to be farmed normally to make food .. yum yum!

Outwardly, the countryside would appear all nice with lots of farming going on, which would give all the NIMBYs a nice warm feeling inside, apart from the ones who actually live next door to the actual plant itself of course

Why is it even happening? Presumably because farmers are keen to grow energy crops, which despite the lamentable energy yield are worth much more to them than growing spuds! (I've posted the working out for this statement elsewhere on this website). Another success to chalk-up to the Adam Smith Institute.”

“The Gov decision to approve this straw burning plant raises serious concerns when we consider recent reports on straw supply implications created by large biomass proposals in the Region and confirmed health impact by air quality degradation resulting from transfer to biomass energy.
The Gov DECC-Arup energy report June 2011 confirms the large biomass projects e.g. Drax and Humberside will create sustainability problems for smaller,less than 50MW plants in adjacent Counties. Drax straw pelleting plants will surely draw in all available straw in this Region. The Gov report confirms the large biomass power plants will require 90% of feedstock to be imported due to lack of indigenous supplies.
We should note straw yield can vary by 40% year on year with 25% becoming unsuitable for use during long storage and sadly 12% reported lost due to arson. Straw combustion presents special pollution concerns due to high chlorine content linked to creation of highly carcinogenic dioxin and furan hazard. I understand Drax pelleting process reduces chlorine content.
The Gov produced a report in 2009 confirming use of biomass power would add £billions to annual health costs, this cost requires substantial upward revision following DECC March 2011 report allowing 50% increase in fine particle pollution from biomass combustion and trebling of NOX limit. The anticipated hazardous air pollution from this plant will equate to exhaust emissions from billions of additional diesel vehicle km in the locality.
There are many aspects of biomass power plant proposals in this area that justify serious scrutiny, especially health and environmental consequences but also sustainability concerns with new superior uses for feedstock and heavy reliance on imports.
Rgds
Brian Wilson”

“........and the barge does necessary have to be just one vessel. It could be a tug and a series of 'butties' towed behind.
One major prob would be getting thro' South Ferriby lock...it obviously determines the length of the combination.

As an aside, has anyone thought about the fire hazard probs?
What would happen if a lorry-load of the stuff catches fire going thro Brigg?
...and the proposed power station will have a whole pile of the stuff!”

“The type of craft proposed were flat-bottomed, punt-like, requiring very little depth of river. Lowering of the Ancholme for maintenance purposes takes place maybe one-two weeks a year.during which lorries could have been used to shift the straw. I gather there are big EU grants for using waterways in this fashion, as they do in Germany and elsewhere. It's also very green, of course. Cherry-pickers could have done the loading at the farm and the unloading close to the new power plant. But it's all water under the bridge now. Lorries are what we will see. I trust the council will keep the trees well near the TinTabs, so any straw bales being taken to the plant from the Wrawby and Caistor directions don't clip the branches on the way past. There has been an issue with this in the past, resulting in wind-blown debris.”

“As you've already indicated, MisterBrigg, it's the winter water level of the Ancholme that precludes routing access by river....according to the EA.
But Springs used 200 ton barges without hindrance - however, we have hung ourselves on our own petard - the lowered winter river level ameliorates local flooding.
Additionally, one has to hypothetically accept the economic cost of constructing new barges and wharfage facilities - who would pay?

Access by rail could be an aspect to pursue further. There are already extant rail-sidings in the area that the Beet Sugar factory used. In the medium-long term rail transport costs could be less than the cumulative cost of individual lorry deliveries to the power station and thus, such savings could offset the initial capital cost of improving rail access.”