Although local opposition remains strong, Worcester County Council in partnership with Malvern Hills District Council and Advantage West Midlands are still pursuing the building of this Power Station in a totally unsuitable site.
The main reason for this policy is not because of it's green credentials, but as a box ticking exercise. Worcester County want to appear to be carbon neutral and by placing a Biomass Power Station on this site they can go a long way towards this claim, and because unlike almost any other site in the county they can do it virtually cost free due to grant aid.
Although financially this makes sense to the Council and helps Malvern Hills District Council diverse themselves of yet another Tenbury Wells asset, the final cost may be a political one. The Tenbury area has in recent times voted for Conservative representatives on both the District and County Councils and returned a Conservative MP. With the majority of the towns population against the Biomass Plan, then the likely benefactors will be the Liberal Democrats.
Harriett Baldwin & George Lord at the proposed Biomass Power Station site, Tenbury Wells. Both potential losers in the political fallout if the project goes ahead.
For full details see Shropshire Star
Posts
6 comments:
Worcestershire County Council leader to be shown that Tenbury biomass proposed site is “wrong”
Harriett Baldwin, Conservative Parliamentary Candidate for West Worcestershire brought Cllr George Lord, leader of Worcestershire County Council to visit Tenbury on December 19th to see for himself the site of the proposed biomass plant.
Harriett Baldwin said, “I maintain that the Tenbury Business Park is the wrong place for a biomass plant for three reasons. First of all, it is a business park with high value white collar jobs on it. Secondly, the site is on the wrong side of Tenbury to the electricity grid and the main street would have to be dug up. Thirdly, it is not close to the source of the woodchip, so more heavy lorries will have to thunder through Tenbury. I am delighted that George Lord has listened to my arguments and has agreed to visit the Tenbury Business Park. I hope we can find a better location for the biomass plant near the source of the woodchip and close to the grid.”
Lets hope that Harriett Baldwin and George Lord now apply the necessary pressure to persuade MHDC & AVM to use the available grants to create a vibrant business park with both starter units and additional suitable office accommodation to attract new employers.
Tenbury Business Park has a mmix of white and blue collar jobs. The planning designation, which I have checked, allows for light industrial use and manunfacturing processes already take place on the Business Park.
There are a number of issues to consider when selecting a site for renewable energy generation in light of serious threat from climate change (residents may have noticed the increased threat of extreme weather events from their flooded streets also featured on this site).
Biomass CHP requires an serious assessment of supply (in terms of ecology, security, quality, embodied energy and cost). If all political parites are to be believed (including the Conservatives) climate change poses the most significant threat though this is not to discount the other issues.
In relation to Tenbury, potentially secure and cost effective supplies were identified that would offer the quality control necessary within an acceptable distance (30 mile radius)to offer almost carbon neutral production of electricity and heat.
Further measures were being put in place to secure contracts for local orchard, farming and arboriculture firms to supply a proportion of the fuel, some as close as few miles. Much of the fuel source employed may well continue to be left to spoil or, in some cases, sent at great expense to landfill. There was no interference with food production potential and the Tenbury solution avoided the threat of methane (a greenhouse gas)emitted to atmosphere.
These measures aligned as closely as any project could get to the recommendations of the report produced by Ben Gill of the UK Goovernment sponsored Biomass Task Force (the transport was to be brought into the ownership of the power plant in order that biodiesel could be employed for deliveries). Advice had been sought from the leading public sector organisations in the UK on topics such as woodland and orchard management to further enhance the benefits (more woodlands brought into management, improved water quality through nutrient fixing from planting regimes)brought by the power plant.
Greater efficiency from biomass is not gained by locating the plant next door to the fuel supply but by marrying a local fuel supply to a user of the heat:this was being negotiated on Tenbury Busines Park and would have led to Tenbury Power generaton being much more efficient than the large centralised plant seen in the UK today. For the digging up of the road, was it not for the delay to the carefully planned schedule, the cable laying would have been conducted at the same time as the resurfacing of the High Street which would have closed the same part of the road. The improvement to the electrical infrastructure is exactly what is required to enable a cost effective decentralised energy system: micro-generation will be many hundred times more expensive and, in many cases, will not payback for the householder during their lifetime or residence in a property. The subsidy mentioned in a previous article is simple fabrication. No public money was ever designated to be spent on the power station itself - the project was going to lever in money for training, jobs and infrstructure in the local area - this looks to be lost. What isn't mentioned is the sums involved in subsidising the nuclear industry and the cost to taxpayers, this is now what we have to look forward to for the forseeable future not to mention evem more than the 250,000 journies curerently made around the UK carrying radiation poisoned cargo. Tenbury Biomass would have generated enough renewable energy to make the town carbon neutral - something that many UK communities can only aspire to.
Emissions from the plant would have been heavily regulated by the Environment Agency and District Council but commitments made on the back of testing and experience by C J Day Associates far exceeded what was required. Tests carried out showed that cars arriving at the local schoool far exceeded any pollution levels that might be generated by the power station.
The transport difficulties already experienced in Tenbury would not be added to by the power station. Re-routing of vehicles was scheduled so as not to pass up the High Street. Surveys of the number of trucks / vehicles passing through Tenbury each day, over which residents have little control, demonstrated that the two heading for the power station would barely be noticed. They were also going to be brought into ownership by the power plant to schedule deliveries at times of most convenience to the community.
There are two sides to every argument, but the facts remain.
The Biomass Plant will cause additional pollution in Tenbury.
Traffic will increase. (2 large lorries, but how many small ones bring cuttings from Orchards etc)
Employment will decrease. (The other employers on the business park will look to leave, and they have no use for the 'heat')
You cant just run a cable under the high street when resurfacing it needs a trench which will take much longer.
Most of the local opposition isn't anti biomass, but they do think that this is the wrong location. You can say that is NIMBYISM, but again the facts remain. Large Biomass Plants are much more efficient that small ones, and this site is too small with inadequate access too close to a residential area.
Of course there is some emission from the plant, but won't this also be the case if if another building / employment site is created at the site plus increased vehicle emissions?
The smaller loads can be stacked and collected on roadside: this does not necessarily mean increased transport.
One employer only is threatening to leave: most employers on the site do not object to the plant and some do have use for the heat. An employer can always threaten to leave an area, and some do, when other opprtunities arise or when they don't get what they want: in such cases I would suggest the biomass plant is a much more reliable bed-fellow and good for the long-term prospects of Tenbury Business Park: other businesses have expressed an interest in co-locating BECAUSE the plant would be there!
Trenching would not have taken significantly longer than re-surfacing and both would partially shut down the road.
Large biomass plants are more efficient than small ones except when heat is captured (which it is often not at large plants): this is more likely from a smaller plant co-located with manufacture / process requiring heat.
If the access is inadequate why is it that many more large lorries, than are necessary for the biomass plant, visit the Park already?
There are certainly many sides to this story and I follow with interest the outcome...
I just signed up to your rss feed! Will you post more on the topic?
Post a Comment