Proposed Combined Heat & Power plant at Toughers

aodh_rua

If any of you live down towards the Baroda end of Newbridge, you might have had a knock at the door at the weekend regarding a proposed combined heat and power plant at the back of Toughers.

A company called Organic Power Ltd. are proposing a significant power plant that they say will burn grass and woodchip. The local residents, as well as the bloodstock industry, are very concerned, especially as they feel that such a plant once built could be turned over to other forms of incineration, including burning waste.

I expect that a number of the nearby studs will submit objections, while the residents are raising a petition that they hope will exceed 1500 signatures as part of their opposition.

The planning reference is 10748 and you can view the file online here

If you have any specific questions, please PM me or ask them on the thread.

EvilMonkey

Sounds like an excellent piece of infrastructure for the area, hopefully a few NIMBYs don't get it stopped.
I would say its very unusual for any power plant to be just turned over to be waste incinerators :rolleyes:

91011

aodh_rua wrote: »

especially as they feel that such a plant once built could be turned over to other forms of incineration, including burning waste.
.

I dispise the way some NIMBY groups put fear into ANY form of enterprise.

Our heads have not been fried by Mobile phone masts. The building of social housing has not created a ghetto. Refugees do not get a free car when entering the country and a company that wants to create power using sustainable & renewable materials is not going to turn around and change the use to a animal incinerator.

Yes I do live and work within the area proposed and I will NOT sign any petition issued by bullys who don't want jobs or developement in the area.

btw - here's the company that is looking to build the plant http://www.organicpower.ie/ - I don't think you can get better ideals for power generation than that.

Everyone should be SUPPORTING enterprise and clean energy creators such as this, NOT creating FALSE fears.

djimi

Is there something concrete to actually back up these fears or is it just purely a case of "well its going to be a big furnace so lets not take a chance"? Because it seems like quite a stretch to think that a company is suddenly going to take a u-turn from being a sustainable energy supplier to a waste incinerator. And on what grounds are the studs complaining about this company?

Im not trying to knock the campaign, Id just be interested to hear what grounds the objections are being built on.

aodh_rua

Aside from the merits or otherwise of incineration, if you want to look at the jobs argument, you should consider the experience of the bloodstock industry. Whether well-founded or not, the owners of pedigree racehorses have considerable concerns regarding the proximity of such facilities to their animals, and Aidan O'Brien provided evidence to back this up as part of a previous objection near Ballydoyle. Given the hundreds employed in this sector locally, protecting these jobs is every bit as important as creating around 20 to service this facility.

As for unqualified NIMBYism - absolutely agree that it has no place when it comes to objecting to key infrastructure, whether that be mobile masts or incinerators. However, the people collecting the petition have serious concerns about the capacity of the State to oversee and regulate any thermal treatment facility. They are concerned that while the applicants have strong green credentials, that in time ownership might change or commercial pressures might cause them to consider other waste types.

@EvilMonkey and 91011 - you can send in a letter of support for the facility to the Planning Section, Kildare County Council, Áras Chill Dara, Naas, Co. Kildare and mark it with the reference 10748.

Whether people agree or disagree, the public have a right to be consulted - which is what this thread is doing.

91011

the OP was very clearly talking about objection and putting UNFOUNDED and FALSE fears about that it could be turned into a waste incinerator.

Further UNFOUNDED and FALSE claims are being made by some of the house callers about pollution and they use the "health of our children" argument.

Its total and utter bullsh1t - but when I asked the person for evidence, they could not provide any.

From reading up on biomass energy creation it seems from all the independent anayysis and EXPERIENCE in other countries that it does not crrate pollution, it does not affect nearby farms (in fact the ash from the straw burning is an EXCELLENT fertiliser and is used by farmers throughout europe) and is not detrimental to health.

Also there are only a couple fo studs anywhere in the locality and their total employment is probably less than 50 and there is no evidence whatsoever that a biomass plant affects animals in anyway. - The Ballydoye situation was TOTALLY different.


Scaremongering tactics are being used in this campaign.

Do a little of your own research and you'll see the only thing to fear is the local ecomomy doing better.

EvilMonkey

I wonder how Kildare ever got a blodstock industry with half the county burning turf, and the old peat fired ESB plant.

Patsy Edgers

Having visited one of these "incenerators" in Denmark a few years ago as proposed by OP the boiler cannot be changed to burn any other material except straw and a certain amount of wood-chip.
The products coming out of the chimney contain less chemicals than have been coming out from the Bord na Mona plants or ESB turf burning power stations for the last 50 years.Also the flue gases were filtered for purity

Curlz24

Patsy Edgers wrote: »

Having visited one of these "incenerators" in Denmark a few years ago as proposed by OP the boiler cannot be changed to burn any other material except straw and a certain amount of wood-chip.
The products coming out of the chimney contain less chemicals than have been coming out from the Bord na Mona plants or ESB turf burning power stations for the last 50 years.Also the flue gases were filtered for purity

Work for Organic Power much?


Nice first post

91011

One of the argument used against the plant is traffic.

The anti biomass group have falsly claimed that hundreds of trucks will be driving through great connell en route to the facility.

The fact is, there is about 100 metres of road to be laid from the end of the current road in Toughers to where the plant site commences.

Why would any driver want to use a poor road and narrow lanes & tight corners to go to a place when there is a perfectly straight road in a far more convient location directly into the plant?

Another point

I have searched the internet and there is zero studies on any actual heath issues surrounding biomass. There's a lot of maybe, possibly, in theory stuff fromt eh usual NIMBY quarters, but absolutely ZERO factual information showing any negativity.

Jokesetal

As I live about 4 miles away in the southerly direction, I probably would suffer as much as Newbridge locals with any particulate emissions (based on the proven theory that the plume will travel well beyond the immediate locality) and I'd have no objections. Some people may be unaware that most Pharma companies have "Thermal Oxidisers" onsite that are burning solvents and no-one has suffered yet.

As for Mobile Masts, I objected to one recently, after ESB put in an application for a 40m high structure for their SCADA system. I objected, not on the basis that it's a mast, but rather that it's 40 metres high.The structure is three times the height of anything at the site in question (and KCC agreed, although it was successfully appealed to An Bord Pleanála).
Strangely enough, five years later the SCADA system hasn't been moved to the structure. Instead it's covered in communications equipment. Coincidentally a similar structure on nearby private land has been decommissioned (ESB charge lower rental rates).
Basically plans change! Not all objectors are NIMBY's (responsible representation of facts for all!)

djimi

I suspect a lot of this campaign is based on speculation of what might happen, and mistrust that the plant may not continue to operate as advertised. I think for the campaign to be a success it will need to be based on more hard evidence than the fears of residents and local stud owners; in other words unless they can back those fears up with actual facts and case studies I dont think its going to get very far.

I dont know all the facts tho so I could be (and probably am) talking rubbish.

aodh_rua

djimi wrote: »

I suspect a lot of this campaign is based on speculation of what might happen, and mistrust that the plant may not continue to operate as advertised. I think for the campaign to be a success it will need to be based on more hard evidence than the fears of residents and local stud owners; in other words unless they can back those fears up with actual facts and case studies I dont think its going to get very far.

I dont know all the facts tho so I could be (and probably am) talking rubbish.

I think you're right djimi on the 'might happen' arguments - although last week's Sunday Times did raise some issues with biomass itself.

Ultimately the Council may refuse permission, or approve with conditions. The residents concerns need to be raised so that any potential change of use or other issue can be factored in by the planners. Even if the Council do approve the application, the residents' objections could be dealt with via conditions.

My own submission includes 11 specific concerns, which are reasonable.

1. I have concerns about the operational viability of such a biomass plant. From canvassing the opinions of local farmers, the broad consensus is that the region does not presently produce the volume of woodchip and excess straw required to keep such a facility in constant operation. As part of considering this application, I would ask the planners to firmly establish in their own minds whether such a plant is viable.
2. Secondly, residents have expressed concerns to me that such a plant could be turned over to other forms of incineration. While the applicant is stating excellent environmental credentials, they are ultimately a business backed by investors, and as such, their fundamental motivation is profit. If the biomass proposition turns out to be unviable, I would have concerns that the facility could be retasked to burn other materials.
3. With the Poolbeg incinerator proceeding and the announcement of another incinerator in Meath, there would be viability issues for a general incinerator at the site, in addition to the concerns regarding biomass.
4. It is has been brought to my attention that the zoning presently in force on the site may not permit this type of development.
5. The site is close to a number of thoroughbred stud farms. It would appear from Aidan O’Brien’s experience in Ballydoyle, that the owners of these valuable racehorses feel that thermal treatment near their stock could adversely affect their welfare. This is fundamentally a matter of trust and sentiment, rather than empirical science, and I do not feel that any company could allay these fears with rational argument. As such, the proposed development could undermine one of our key industries in the locality.
6. I understand that the site is owned by an individual who has run afoul of the planning section on a number of previous occasions. This does not instil confidence in the public, especially with such a delicate application.
7. The additional volume of traffic servicing the site to deliver fuel or to remove waste is a source of concern. The area already suffers from high volumes of HGVs, and residents would rather see this situation reversed rather than increased.
8. Public confidence in the planning and development is at an all time low, and this has not been enhanced by the manner of this application. It was lodged at a time when the Council staff typically take annual leave, and when elected members have no meetings. To the casual observer, this could be taken as cynical timing, aimed to minimise the opportunity for a full public engagement.
9. It would appear from the application that the applicant wishes to use the public water and sewage systems. These are both under significant stress at the moment, especially the water supply.
10. Reports from the US in the Sunday Times of August 15, 2010 (see attached) calls into question the true environmental and economic cost of such plants.
11. The State’s capacity to act as an effective regulator lacks public confidence especially in emerging areas like this.

91011

That's an excellent submission.

Basically, you're saying no real problems with what is actually being applied for, but ensure that there are enough conditions attached to ensure that the applied for use cannot be changed.

Regarding the USA research. Based on the burning of wood products from sustainable forestry sources, the environmental benefit would not kick in for approx. 5 years. However if the primary products are residual products from wheat / barley production, wood product production & other fast growing crops, the environmental benefits are immediate.

My guess is residual crop & wood product would be taken from a wide area of leinster and the IFA seems to think there should be more than enough to feed the needs of the plant.

On the traffic route - this is a non argument as it is doubtful if there would be any other entrance into the site other than through Toughers business park and as such no truck would need to go though any residential area for any reason unless it was a local farmer in the great connell area.