TopGun

Yes, I would imagine that to be the case. Although it appears that Royston Smith is pitching himself as a one-man action squad.

Council leader Royston Smith states he wrestled the gunman to the ground and disarmed him. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13020502 It might be true and without meaning to doubt Cllr Smith's account I wonder whether he has half an eye on the upcoming local elections...

According to the FL site Huddersfield are unbeaten for 19 games. It might be a mistake but worrying if true. In fact just checked it and I make it 20 games. Not lost since we beat them 4-1. On that basis alone I'm voting for a Posh win as best result.

What a top dog. Amazing how he managed without fresh water though.

Fond memories of the Riverside club in the mid-80s for me.

Dune really is incredibly strange.

Has anyone got an idea why the French are being so gung ho about Libya?

True. But his MIGs and a few Mirages would be cannon fodder (more likely missile fodder) for modern warplanes like a Eurofighter Typhoon.

Third highest in 2009 according to Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Lots of people like the feel of a proper book and I'm sure the Kindle and other similar e-readers won't kill the publishing industry. But they're great for holidays etc.

Explanation at http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/portal/page?_pageid=76,535178&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

* Visual - I would expect the image that appeared in the Echo to be an early and uncladded version of the plant. Often what happens is that the developer will hold public consultation meetings and then come back with a more developed visual that is more attractive. It would not surprise me if they modelled it as a ship or similar. There's a proposal in Teesside that is being modelled as a volcano. * Air Quality - burning clean wood fuel biomass releases emissions although many are destroyed at temperatures of 850c and more which the plant would operate at. However there will be nitrogen oxides, some sulphur dioxide and particulates. The vast majority of these will be treated or captured as part of the plant abatement processes. What is left will be dispersed fairly quickly from the 100m stack. There would be no doubt that the plant would meet EU and UK air quality standards with a 100m stack. However protesters will use air quality as an issue to gee up opposition and are likely to make quite a few dubious and exaggerated claims about effects on public health. However, the Health Protection Agency has stated that it believes the risks from emissions are so small as to be likely undetectable. It would undoubtedly be the case that emissions from the plant would be far less than the older Marchwood and Fawley plants. Expect the protesters to call the plant an incinerator as it is a more emotive word. * Noise - noise is a non-starter as the turbine hall would be acoustically clad. I would also anticipate a hybrid air and water cooling system that is quieter than air fan cooling alone. A construction plan would limit noise from building work to weekday working hours and Saturday morning in probability. * Odour - a non-starter again as wood kept indoors does not smell badly. The images in the Echo show a large fuel store building. Protesters will somehow manage to conjure up stories about rats and flies though. * Traffic - Once operational you are only talking about relatively small amounts of shift worker traffic if the fuel is coming in by ships. I would expect that contingency will be made in the plans for road delivery should there be a dock strike etc. During construction there would obviously be extra lorry traffic. * House prices - Always the core issue that is camoflaged by the others listed above with many protesters. Not a planning concern at the moment. The new Localism Bill being introduced might alter that in the future. I would undoubtedly expect a number of councillors to immediately oppose the scheme looking for local election votes. Probably a cross-party mix. If the developer follows the rules and satisfies the Infrastructure Planning Commission it should go through because of the green energy targets to produce up to 35% of all electricity from renewables by 2020. The IPC will listen to the views of Southampton Council and other stakeholders such as residents before making its planning recommendation. I would expect the whole process to take about 18-24 months before resolution.

Adkins is excellent IMO. The game plan is ok. A couple of unlucky, almost freak losses, recently. Plus the unlucky penalty conceded at Peterboro at the end.

I would expect quite a lot of opposition to the proposal Joe having worked on a number of similar schemes.

I know I've been diverted off topic as the original poster by SuperMikey and others talking about nuke electricity but here's a fairly spectacular crash test arranged in 1984 to demonstrate the safety of nuclear flasks that are used to carry radioactive material across the country by trains. It shows that nuke flasks will withstand huge impact but not necessarily the immense and long term pressure of plates shifting beneath the Earth if they were buried. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHtRZ_k0s7M

The primary concern is geological (and of course cost). While we do not have shifting tectonic plates like Japan, the concern is that deep storing radioactive material at 2km or more relies on the rocks being stable enough to keep the waste safe for thousands of years after it has been sunk in sealed flasks. The idea scares local populations and although the hazard might be minimal, the risk exists and it's beyond our control at that point - i.e. crushed nuclear flasks.

The problem is that we actually don't currently have a big deep hole for our nuke waste. Most of it is held at Sellafield, after re-processing also at Sellafield to get more out of it, in storage that was never designed for long term use. The govt has been prevaricating for years on selecting a site for deep (and permanent) disposal of nuke waste from civil power and RN military sources. The French have the same but bigger issue and quietly send spent nuclear material on trains across Europe to Russia to let them deal with it by and large!

Yes, that's about right. It will depend on linking into the local grid and what is available and suitable already. It could require a new onsite substation as you say. You can probably figure out most of the details at the NG confirmed grid date connections on their website as I'm sure Helius will have sorted that out before going public.

Lol. I'm not familiar with local distribution grid in the Millbrook area but I would expect that the plant would have to export electricity to the nearest suitable substation at a minimum of 132kv (probably via an undergrounded cable). A 290MW biomass plant that I am working on elsewhere even requires a 400kv underground cable to the nearest substation 4km away. Plenty of jobs on the electricity distribution side at Millbrook I would think.

There are of course plans for new nukes in the UK and the sites have been nominated - they are generally alongside existing or closed older nukes as the local populations are used to them - Hinckley Point, Sellafield, Oldbury, Wylva etc. The main issue with nukes as Bexy points out are huge build and decommissioning costs plus each one would take about 8-10 years to build after a probable planning period involving lengthy public consultations etc of 5 years. So unlikely to be operating until mid-2020s. A 100MW biomass plant would have a build period of about 2-3 years. I would estimate the Millbrook plant would cost about £200-250m, have peak construction jobs of about 300 workers and provide about 60 operational jobs onsite plus offsite maintenance and servicing jobs.

Some of you will be aware that this is the field of work that I am involved in although I am not working on this particular proposal being put forward by Helius for a biomass plant burning wood chips/pellets in Millbrook on land owned by ABP on the edge of the docks. I'd be interested in hearing views after the Echo coverage of the proposal last week. Basic details include: 100MW output capable of providing low carbon renewable electricity to equivalent of approx 180,000 - 190,000 homes (all of Southampton and more) Renewable heat in form of steam or hot water to local industry or district heating schemes 800,000 tonnes of wood fuel burned each year Most of wood fuel delivered to plant by ships and sourced from Scotland and Scandinavia Expected minimum life of 25 years Planning application will be decided by national Infrastructure Planning Commission (or successor) because of size (bigger than 50MW), not Southampton Council Southampton Council will be a consultee I see a protest group has already formed and it will probably campaign on the following issues which are usual: Visual detriment - size of buildings and 100m high stack Air quality - stack emissions Noise Possible reduction in local house prices (although not an issue that is currently covered in planning decisions) Extra possible traffic What views do you hold?

Energy remains busy. My PR company is actively dealing with one biomass plant proposal (not Southampton), seven wind farm proposals, two gas-fired power station proposals and a general pro-wind public campaign in mid-Wales.

Overall that's a good night at the office without being there. No one behind us has games in hands to overtake us and we can use our games in hand to still be in an auto promotion spot. Bournemouth will also have to fit their postponed game in somewhere also.

This is good news given there was a bit of a NIMBY campaign organised by nearby households who were objecting on the basis that it would mean lots of extra traffic to see the reserves play...

It looks pretty dismal for them. They have 19 players out of contract in the summer and most of them will leave for nothing. That will leave them with 9 players in contract at the club and no money to buy or pay new ones. They'll lose Cotterill and bring in Poortvliet!!