The thought of the Biomass plant being built in Barrow is a nightmare. It will have an unbelievable visual inpact locally but, equally as bad and perhaps under-appreciated is the impact that growing biomass fuel (willow) will have.

Recently, we were travelling on a coach near Carlisle and Penrith when we came across fields of young trees so tall that they blocked out the views of the surrounding area. You could not see the beautiful scenery at all! This I discovered was Biopmass fuel. Bearing in mind that a large part of Cumbria depends on tourism for their survival this could only be very bad news for them if this plant goes ahead.

You really have to see these things growing to appreciate the impact and one can only imagine what it would be like to live surrounded by these densedly planted and over-powering young trees. Tons and tons of them would be required to keep the plant going I am sure and anywhere where these trees were grown would find their landscape totally ruined.

If it is not in our backyard it would be in somebody else's and heaven help them if it happens. They would find themselves oppressed by the visual impact and depressed by the diruption the harvesting and transportation of them to the Biomass plant would cause in rural areas! Lets hope common sense prevails!

Hi Peter,

Absolutely agree people are entitled to their own opinions; it is called democracy. However, I am sorry that you feel I should not be allowed to participate in that process, correcting what others say, who also correct me. Democracy is a two way debate and process.

Some people have resorted to calling those opposed to the Biomass Plant "idiots" and of "scaremongering". That does not make for wither sensible or meaningful debate.

CS....I stand corrected, but disappointingly so. I really thought that education should provide a curriculum where spelling and grammar was at least a consideration. (However, it it's good enough for BAE, building world class nuclear submarines....then it has to be good enough for me...LOL!!!....Apologies if I underestimated your hidden skills)

I agree entirely with you about some of the other issues in Barrow; not good and trying to do something about them.

You make an assumption that hardly anyone notices the DDH; I presume that is based on evidence rather than supposition?

The effect on the landscape of the proposed Biomass Plant is immense; even those supportive of the proposal have recognised that. However, I have to remain of the view that two wrongs do not make a right.

I am NOT against nuclear power and have never said I was. I FULLY SUPPORT tidal and wave power and supported the Bridge across the Bay initiative. I TOTALLY SUPPORT underwater turbines and have never said otherwise.

YOU ARE MAKING TOTALLY WRONG STATEMENTS AND SUPPOSITIONS.

You state we cannot "realy" on BAE forever which I think is intended to mean that we cannot "rely" on BAE. I totally agree with you which is why I have been involved in trying to attract new business to Barrow as well as retaining existing businesses.

I am sorry that we beg to differ over this issue. Those opposing Biomass are not anti everything; we just believe that there may be, as you have quite rightly highlighted, potentially better options. I would like to see all of the means of energy production that you have listed made better use of and fully explored. Perhaps even through inward investment and new businesses coming here to use the excellent skill base barrow enjoys.

Hopefully, we at least agree on something!!!!

Are you kidding C S if you are talking about the DDH surely this can be seen miles away. Can't believe hardly anyone notices it! Just an observation!

Money talks! If it is such a positive for the region, can anyone explain how 12 000 people signed a petition against the building of the plant. Does this mean that this amount of citizens were tricked by Furness Against Biomass?

Who does Mr Guselli think he is correcting what people say, im sure there entitled to there own opinion.

Haha @ Ray Guselli
Yes i do work, i work for Bae systems and have done since i left school, i have paid all my taxes and never lived on the dole like the majority of barrow, you really are narrow minded saying that just cause i made a few spelling mistakes, what about the leaflet that was posted through our doors, that was coated in spelling mistakes, if your that fussed about how the area will look why dont you and your "ward" do something about it now cause theres worse things then a power station in barrow e.g chavs, smackheads, doleys, roads, etc etc.

As for the "effect on the landscape" if you look at the plans you will see the boiler house is the same height as the gas powerd station that is there now ONLY the chimney stack is 30 meters taller so i doubt anyone will notice that considering i WORK in a shed thats 260x51 meters tall which hardley anyone notices.

You'se were all against the windfarms, you'se are against nuclear power, you'se are against tidal barrages and underwater turbines now this. how else are we going to bring money into cumbria, you can not simply realy on bae forever. rant over Mr Guselli.

Thanks to Energy for Thinking for identifying the potential failure by some to properly consider the evidence available or understand our views.

FOB has not used Wikipedia so we cannot be accused of using references in student's submissions.

We have not resorted to scaremongering, instead, simply offering a diametrically opposed view to the "promotional literature" provided by Centrica. One might equally suggest that presentations or information circulated which omitted some of the known effects of biomass, failed to disclose crucial information; FOB has simply sought to offer an alternative opinion; our view was that it may not be pleasant or sensible to live near the Biomass plant. Coincidentally, a view shared by one Centrica representative who had the integrity to confirm that he too, would not want to live near a biomass plant.

We have not generated what Energy for Thinking refers to as website dross; the WWW is an encyclopaedia of evidence and information which must be viewed carefully and which we have done.

We have been persuaded by the views of Professor Steffen Loft, Professor C. Vyvyan Howard MB. ChB. PhD. FRCPath, Professor Kirk Smith, the American Cancer Society, The U.S. EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, the American Lung Association, The Massachusetts Medical Society, Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition, The North Carolina Academy of Family Physicians, the Dundee Health Board, Dr Dick Van Steenis and Michael Ryan research.....to name but a few. We fully appreciate that "some" UK and European regulatory standards may be met by proposed emission levels; it is those emissions that do not comply or where standards elsewhere are higher and more protective than we might enjoy, that we find a matter of concern.

We have also been persuaded by the thousands of members of the public who similarly opposed Biomass Plants, the length and breadth of the UK, from Southampton to Scotland, like us, not only on health grounds, but a whole raft of issues. Strangely enough, all of these people had also considered the dangers of Biomass and were equally concerned as are many here. Of course, Energy for Thinking may suggest that all of these thousands of people are also scaremongering, or insult their intelligence by suggesting that like 13,000 in Furness, they too were unable to make a reasonable judgement.

I think Energy for thinking should give people a little more credit and realise that just because he may be in favour of Biomass, other people are also equally entitled to voice their disagreement and if they so wish, do so by registering that concern through any democratic process; in this case; a petition.

Of course, Energy for Thinking makes a blanket statement that "the pro-biomass lobby do not need to generate page after page of website dross, they use the proper scientific channels".........haven't seen any yet but, with respect, that lobby couldn't even understand that there would be more than one lorry coming from the proposed site every day, despite Centrica's confirmation that it would be dozens weekly.

Energy for Thinking might find it helpful to take an objective view and at least ask for sight of some of the evidence upon which FOB relies, which we are happy to provide.

As for the accusation of NIMBY's: why is it that when anyone democratically objects to something that, regardless of where they may live, this terminology is used to try to discredit them. Nimby is a derogatory term and has no place in sensible argument. FOB is a reasonable group of people simply trying to illustrate that, "in our opinion", regardless of where we may live, we happen to object to this proposed development. There are people as far away as Millom who have expressed concern about the proposal, having contacted us after carrying out their own research without any persuasion from FOB.

Are we correct? We have an equal right to believe that we are and as yet, have not been persuaded otherwise.

What is needed is for people to moderate the language surrounding the debate which has become unnecessarily heated and volatile.

All parties should have some respect for others and allow reasoned sensible debate without it being interspersed with unhelpful comment.

Therefore, if anyone is sufficiently interested in understanding why we are concerned, rather than throw mud at the wall, why not contact us on our Facebook site, let us know what your views are and allow us to respond sensibly and/or provide you with information which you may find helpful.

Well said Ray, James and others whoever are apposed to this plant being built in Furness.
If the worst happens and it goes ahead then I hope the likes of Mr Diamond, Mason, Jonny, CS & Co that its yours and your families back yard they use for the land fill not to mention god forbid have the health problems associated with these plants. But hay it seems like your more than willing to take that risk?

FOB are certainly guilty of scaremongering and as the letter in last night's Mail made reference, attacking those who dare to differ in opinion. I was approached by an elederly gent in Dalton Road with their petition, where he asked me to sign and "prevent this waste incinerator" being built. Selective choice of words I think there that is guaranteed to stir emotion - is this the same level of "canvassing" that generated 12000 signatories? If so then the petition has just lost a huge amount of credibility. Intersetingly, I have just returned from Belgium, where Biomass as an energy source is embraced - the view is that emissions are controlled by legislation and there is no debate as to the "green" credentials. People are saying there is huge amounts of data on the internet about the harmful side of Biomass, I do not doubt this, campaing groups wishing to air an opinion, whther correct or not get a level playing field with expert opinion - it's the way internet search engines work, there is no "credibility" filter. Any mis-informed rubbish can rank just as high in a google search as scientific research, it's a scaremongerer's paradise. This is why Universities don't generally accept sites such a Wikipedia as references in student submissions, it isn'r proper thorough research, it's just regurgitating someone elses drivel.

The pro-biomass lobby do not need to generate page after page of website dross, they use the proper scientific channels.

Much as the Daily Mail seem to have a different cause for Cancer week by week, so does the internet, but you'll generally find the medical profession do not. It's a matter of separating fact from fiction and hysteria. But if the hysteria fuels the nimby's then they'll look no further...

Get it built, petitions do nothing,waste of time and as for the scaremongering leaflets through the door, get real, loads of spelling mistakes, amateurs