Wooly, wishy-washy, nanny thinking

This is the Biofuel enigma... Scotland let alone the UK cannot grow anything like enough feedstock to satisfy the demand without importing it from overseas. The problem is that everyone else will be competing for that feedstock as well.

We have to move to hydrogen.

The real green cons are these, that (a) temperature is increasing out of control (b) that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are causing it and (c) increasing our energy costs will control the temperature of the planet.

King Canute is alive and well and living in the UK.

They can if they grow hemp

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3070358204716119... theres loads of other vids that are well worth the watching of on the subject of hemp

Well of course it is useless. Its "environmentalist approved". Every "environmentalist who really believes in CO2 caused warming & wants to do something supports nuclear (I can think of 2 of them). The rest are really only Luddites seeking government grants.

"The £9 million given was regional selective assistance on the basis of business investment, job creation and job sustainability. The 'green' aspect of the plant was in no way connected to our funding of the project."
Anybody believe that?

Funding of these types of plants is important, the technology needs to be in place before UK farmers will grow the crops to fuel the plant. I guess that they will be able to use a wide range of fuel sources to power the plant.

Palm oil is renewable and its use should not add to GHG emissions. I wonder though how green it will be as a fuel source if it is transported around the world in a ship. Unless it is powered by palm oil or is a sailboat, it will add the GHG emissions. The plant management need to be honest about how it sources raw materials- hopefully ensuring no rainforest will be converted to palm oil plantation.

At £9m it is still a bargain, this small sum would barely register in the construction and/or running costs of a nuclear power plant.

And just from where do you get the hydrogen?

"At £9m it is still a bargain"
It is about 1% of the cost of a nuclear station. Unfortunately the article doesn't say how much power this is rated at.

A new nuclear station should be about 1,000 megawatts.

The £9 million is just what we donate - it is quite possible the owners will be putting in some money too.

Nuclear works 24/7.

And for nuclear fuel costs are insignificant.

The nuclear industry isn't looking for subsidy - just to be allowed to provide cheap reliable electricity.

Meanwhile we are in the world of subsidising palm oil fueled boats to bring palm oils across the world to burn & release CO2 rather than not subsidising non-CO2 producing nuclear because we want to stop CO2 production as it is alleged to be raising the sea level, even though it isn't.

Alice in Wonderland isn't in it.

Can someone tell me the difference between the CO2 absorbed by trees and shrubs and the CO2 absorbed by canola (rape seed) plants, palm oil trees and the like???

Lets look at what happens when someone suggests an alternative power or fuel source:
Nuclear- The green and bearded ones go berserk about the waste.
Wind Power- The green and bearded ones complain that they are killing rare birds and upseting the local ecology.
Biofuels- See the article above
Electric cars- The beardies complain loudly that the power stations create greenhouse gas and that the vehicles contain too much plastic that comes from oil.
Solar- The panels require more energy to manufacture than they can produce
Luddites everyone of em

to Steve Philliips - CO2 is the same everywhere but ecosystems aren't. Old growth forests contain more biomass so they store more carbon, also they store more water (drought in your country at the moment?) and far more species than cropland. We have a woodchip boiler and it is fueled by local woodland waste - great but there isn't enough land/crop wastes to supply everybody. So we need a range of clean technologies. BTW climate change is real as you can see from record temps in this country, USA, record droughts in Australia, Kenya, changes in ocean acidity and animal migrations.

7,9- This is a biodiesel factory, which will produce transport fuel- so comparisons with nuclear power stations are irrelevant. You should be comparing this with the environmental damage caused by oil drilling (deforestation, displacement of people and wildlife etc), transport (oil spills and slicks) and refining (highly polluting emissions).

2- Hydrogen is an energy vector and needs energy input to be produced. At the moment using hydrogen as a fuel is simply a more wasteful way of moving around fossil energy. This can be of course improved by producing the hydrogen from renewable sources

Yes, there is an environmental cost if Ineos bring in material from non sustainable sources but there is no need for them to do so. The Kyoto Protocol offers a mechanisim to encorage companies such as Ineos to invest in new plantations for seed oil production in third world countries called the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). This can be done without disturbing the rain forests and the like as there is plenty of finacially viable options that are totally sustainable and help the economies in these countries. An example would be replacing tobacco crops in Malawi with Jatropha trees which produce oil for biodiesel production. The tabacco plantations already exist but world demand in decline so local farmers need another type of cash crop. Ineos could invest in Jatropha production in Malawi and recieve carbon credits which could be sold on the EU carbon trading market. This not only assists their 'green' credentials but is economically sound and has the further added benefit of assisting one of the poorest counties in Africa. A complete win win situation. This is just one example of such global opportunities that does not involve further destruction of the environment. Replacing tobacco production is a futher bonus. And before someone comments on the issue of transporting the Jatropha oil from Africa and the emissions involved they are far outweighed by the carbon savings in such a scheme not to mention the economic advantage gained by Malawi.