Paving Paradise

[David Paterson]

 - not to put up a parking lot, but a "bio-mass generator".

I am extremely suspicious of these "planet-friendly" projects. Hundreds, maybe thousands, of trees were cut down to clear the site, and once it is operating, the generator will consume anything up to 30 truck-loads of fuel per day. None of this could happen without government and EU grants, but it is a "private-finance" project and the profits will no doubt be private as well. It will create no jobs for people living in this area (by their own admission). None of this sounds very planet-friendly to me.

Plus, look what I found today across one of my favourite dog-walks (it wasn't there last week) -

[Olivier]

not nice shot...

were there meetings with the local population before the project was initiated?

[John Geerts]

Not such a nice developments. But someone must have sold the ground?

[rosko]

the generator will consume anything up to 30 truck-loads of fuel per day.

That makes 60 trips per day...which will impact the traffic, with more dust, noise, ect.

A nightmare to come for local peoples.

What sort of energy this will produce ?

Power, gas ?

[John G]

There are 1000's of Hectares of contaminated lands available. The sort of places where Crops grown can not enter the food chain, and the type of place that would not be high on a planning list to create a community amenity / Leisure setting.
Why substantial amounts of High Grade Land is being removed from its intended purpose and allowed to support a variety of alternative energy production schemes is unsettling. 
There is allegedly a story of the National Grid in the UK, having to dump a Megawatt of energy daily. This is a result of small energy producers not using hardly any of the produced energy and just claiming a energy production feed in Tariff.
This is causing a overload of supplied energy, the daily operation and a overload can cause a damage.

[Frank Fremerey]

- not to put up a parking lot, but a "bio-mass generator".
I am extremely suspicious of these "planet-friendly" projects. Hundreds, maybe thousands, of trees were cut down to clear the site, and once it is operating, the generator will consume anything up to 30 truck-loads of fuel per day. None of this could happen without government and EU grants, but it is a "private-finance" project and the profits will no doubt be private as well. It will create no jobs for people living in this area (by their own admission). None of this sounds very planet-friendly to me.
Plus, look what I found today across one of my favourite dog-walks (it wasn't there last week) -

Most "planet friendly" schemes are scams that is true.

Best measure is:
Is the amount of burning reduced?
Is the amount of photosynthesis increased?

Both no? Then it is a scam.
Both yes? Then it is the real thing.

[David Paterson]

Thanks for all your contributions. To answer a few of your points and questions - there were no public meetings before work began. The whole thing has been shrouded in secrecy from the start. (I only knew about it because I do a lot of forest walks and accidentally found this huge site which had been totally cleared.) The power produced will be electricity but the UK currently already has a surplus of capacity; the traffic problems during the construction phase will be horrific, and not much better after production starts. The land is privately owned and was no doubt sold perfectly legally to the developers who then paid somebody to make sure they could avoid the normal planning procedures and controls. The sitte has been carefully chosen - just one km outside a National Park boundary; inside, and there would have been no chance of obtaining permission. Even so, it is an area officially described as being "of outstanding natural beauty". Sadly, this has no legal force and confers no extra protection.

Frank - I'm no expert and an accurate answer is beyond me, but I would guess - from what little I do know - that the answers would be "no" and "no".

[pluton]

There is the slight possibility that the barrier has been incorrectly placed.  You'd have to investigate all the legalities involved.
My definition of 'planet friendly' is something that reduces the human population.

[Akira]

If there is a "good" reason to clear-cut such a large area, that would be to contribute to close down the nuclear power plants...

[David Paterson]

Keith and Akira - I sympathise with both points of view but I think things will have to get very much worse before politicians start to do anything about population control or practical alternatives to nuclear energy.

[rosko]

that would be to contribute to close down the nuclear power plants...

I am not sure...even if the following project (involving France & China), appears to be controversial :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station