Green energy bid in Keighley gets green light

Keighley News: A computer image of how the energy plant will look when it is built next to the Aire Valley trunk road at Marley A computer image of how the energy plant will look when it is built next to the Aire Valley trunk road at Marley

Keighley is to get a new £120 million energy complex on the site of an old gas works despite locals’ concerns it could give off “toxic smoke”.

The three plants will effectively burn non-recyclable waste for fuel, preventing it from having to be landfilled.

They are to be constructed on the derelict former gasworks site in Airedale Road, alongside the Aire Valley trunk road at Marley.

Already-processed commercial and industrial waste will be brought to the plants, which together will be capable of producing 80 million kWh of electricity a year – virtually enough to power the whole town.

The Halton Group scheme got the green light at Bradford Council’s regulatory and appeals committee last Thursday.

But the meeting heard the National Trust was among those calling for its refusal.

Trust spokesman Barbara Hooper said a 60-metre stack, which formed part of the plant, and the plume it will give off, would harm the setting of the nearby East Riddlesden Hall, which the trust owns.

She said it would “introduce a very modern and intrusive feature” at a hall that now gave visitors “a sense of stepping back in time”.

And resident Sarah Nash-Myers, of nearby The Croft, said she would be worried about letting her children play outdoors in a “huge plume of toxic smoke”.

Officers told committee members no serious concerns with noise, smells or air pollution were foreseen, and Public Health England had no objection to the scheme.

But they were told these aspects would be a matter for the Environment Agency to regulate, as they would be the ones to issue a permit to the operators.

Coun Valerie Binney said while she had initially been torn by the proposal, having visited the site she had seen how many chimney stacks there were already on the landscape.

She added: “This facility is very badly needed by Bradford Council to counter the landfill sites.”

Coun Malcolm Sykes said he still had reservations. He added: ”I’m still not quite certain that five or ten years from now these people are not going to be faced with smells or emissions that are carcinogenic.”

But he said as long as local people got a chance to have their say in the Environment Agency’s permit process, he was content to back the application.

A total of 300 jobs are expected to be created during the construction phase and, once operational, 79 people will be employed in the plants and 99 in commercially-let offices.

The scheme has been welcomed by many.

Keighley Central councillor and Lord Mayor of Bradford Coun Khadim Hussain said: “I am pleased the plans have been approved.

“I attended the exhibition of the proposals when they were put on show and was very impressed. It will be a good scheme for Keighley.”

Town mayor Coun Sally Walker said: “I think it is an excellent idea. It will produce clean energy and give a major boost to the town.”

Comments (9)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:21pm Thu 10 Apr 14

Mr Perks says...

All the articles regarding this project seem to be fairly devoid of details so far. They are trying to build something similar near Manchester and the locals are protesting vociferously, whilst most Keighley folk seem to be just accepting this being built as a 'done deal'. I'm not arguing that it isn't cleaner than landfill, but it isn't without its problems. The 'economic' reasons, bar a few jobs, are debatable and the resulting energy will only be profitable for the firm that builds it, locals energy bills won't be reduced. I'm glad I'm not living near it. Are a few jobs worth the cost of possibly breathing in poisons?
All the articles regarding this project seem to be fairly devoid of details so far. They are trying to build something similar near Manchester and the locals are protesting vociferously, whilst most Keighley folk seem to be just accepting this being built as a 'done deal'. I'm not arguing that it isn't cleaner than landfill, but it isn't without its problems. The 'economic' reasons, bar a few jobs, are debatable and the resulting energy will only be profitable for the firm that builds it, locals energy bills won't be reduced. I'm glad I'm not living near it. Are a few jobs worth the cost of possibly breathing in poisons? Mr Perks
  • Score: 2

8:38pm Fri 11 Apr 14

steve10 says...

Mr Perks wrote:
All the articles regarding this project seem to be fairly devoid of details so far. They are trying to build something similar near Manchester and the locals are protesting vociferously, whilst most Keighley folk seem to be just accepting this being built as a 'done deal'. I'm not arguing that it isn't cleaner than landfill, but it isn't without its problems. The 'economic' reasons, bar a few jobs, are debatable and the resulting energy will only be profitable for the firm that builds it, locals energy bills won't be reduced. I'm glad I'm not living near it. Are a few jobs worth the cost of possibly breathing in poisons?
well put Mr Perks.
[quote][p][bold]Mr Perks[/bold] wrote: All the articles regarding this project seem to be fairly devoid of details so far. They are trying to build something similar near Manchester and the locals are protesting vociferously, whilst most Keighley folk seem to be just accepting this being built as a 'done deal'. I'm not arguing that it isn't cleaner than landfill, but it isn't without its problems. The 'economic' reasons, bar a few jobs, are debatable and the resulting energy will only be profitable for the firm that builds it, locals energy bills won't be reduced. I'm glad I'm not living near it. Are a few jobs worth the cost of possibly breathing in poisons?[/p][/quote]well put Mr Perks. steve10
  • Score: 1

9:22am Sat 12 Apr 14

G_Firth says...

No body is disputing the fact that this would create jobs but at what cost and how green is it in reality as it will still produce carbon emission equal to a coal plant and will only produce a 100th of that a single coal plant. on top of which the cost of actually producing energy in this way is even more costly than that of off shore wind farms.
I find it totally amazing that no body on both councils even took note that every other council in Yorkshire rejected duplicate plans as this and even the testimony of the one in Manchester.
As I have said before I only hope that this does not come to bite Keighley in the rear end later on in years in a big way.
No body is disputing the fact that this would create jobs but at what cost and how green is it in reality as it will still produce carbon emission equal to a coal plant and will only produce a 100th of that a single coal plant. on top of which the cost of actually producing energy in this way is even more costly than that of off shore wind farms. I find it totally amazing that no body on both councils even took note that every other council in Yorkshire rejected duplicate plans as this and even the testimony of the one in Manchester. As I have said before I only hope that this does not come to bite Keighley in the rear end later on in years in a big way. G_Firth
  • Score: 1

10:12am Sat 12 Apr 14

Little Green Man says...

G_Firth wrote:
No body is disputing the fact that this would create jobs but at what cost and how green is it in reality as it will still produce carbon emission equal to a coal plant and will only produce a 100th of that a single coal plant. on top of which the cost of actually producing energy in this way is even more costly than that of off shore wind farms.
I find it totally amazing that no body on both councils even took note that every other council in Yorkshire rejected duplicate plans as this and even the testimony of the one in Manchester.
As I have said before I only hope that this does not come to bite Keighley in the rear end later on in years in a big way.
But coal is not only a limited resource, it is also largely imported so your might be true now (although no facts to back up your figures?) but in years to come it will become a non-argument as coal runs out or becomes too expensive.
[quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: No body is disputing the fact that this would create jobs but at what cost and how green is it in reality as it will still produce carbon emission equal to a coal plant and will only produce a 100th of that a single coal plant. on top of which the cost of actually producing energy in this way is even more costly than that of off shore wind farms. I find it totally amazing that no body on both councils even took note that every other council in Yorkshire rejected duplicate plans as this and even the testimony of the one in Manchester. As I have said before I only hope that this does not come to bite Keighley in the rear end later on in years in a big way.[/p][/quote]But coal is not only a limited resource, it is also largely imported so your might be true now (although no facts to back up your figures?) but in years to come it will become a non-argument as coal runs out or becomes too expensive. Little Green Man
  • Score: -1

12:16pm Sat 12 Apr 14

pjl20 says...

Little Green Man wrote:
G_Firth wrote:
No body is disputing the fact that this would create jobs but at what cost and how green is it in reality as it will still produce carbon emission equal to a coal plant and will only produce a 100th of that a single coal plant. on top of which the cost of actually producing energy in this way is even more costly than that of off shore wind farms.
I find it totally amazing that no body on both councils even took note that every other council in Yorkshire rejected duplicate plans as this and even the testimony of the one in Manchester.
As I have said before I only hope that this does not come to bite Keighley in the rear end later on in years in a big way.
But coal is not only a limited resource, it is also largely imported so your might be true now (although no facts to back up your figures?) but in years to come it will become a non-argument as coal runs out or becomes too expensive.
My response to Little Green Man.

From where do you source your data and information?

Britain has at least 400 years worth of coal deposits remaining beneath this country. What is more, massive new deposits of coal have recently been discovered beneath the North Sea, awaiting extraction.

UK Coal is closing the final coal mines in Britain, the latest being at Killingley. That company requires a £100million grant to assist with the closure costs. Between 1600 and 2,000 employees/miners will be made redundant on the pit closure.

Coal was once a primary industry, why must it be run down and closed?

What is 'green' in relation to energy requirements?

CO2 emissions are not harmful, neither has the increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide to 400ppm led to any man-made climate change.

Where is the evidence? There is none.

I say revitalise the British coal industry, open more coal mines and extract anthracite the type of coal ideally suited for burning in power stations.

A balanced energy policy is required for Britain and coal is an essential part of this. Without coal and coal fuelled power stations the lights may well go out with energy cuts in 2020 and beyond.

This will create tens of thousands of new jobs in Britain, whilst the doom mongers tell us carbon is a dangerous element. Well it isn't, It is a life-sustaining material. We are all are carbon-based life form on Earth.

Finally the residents of Keighley and especially those who live close and nearby to this new waste energy plant deserve to be consulted individually about their views.

A referendum is surely required on a matter as important as a £120 million investment in this waste facility at Keighley.
[quote][p][bold]Little Green Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: No body is disputing the fact that this would create jobs but at what cost and how green is it in reality as it will still produce carbon emission equal to a coal plant and will only produce a 100th of that a single coal plant. on top of which the cost of actually producing energy in this way is even more costly than that of off shore wind farms. I find it totally amazing that no body on both councils even took note that every other council in Yorkshire rejected duplicate plans as this and even the testimony of the one in Manchester. As I have said before I only hope that this does not come to bite Keighley in the rear end later on in years in a big way.[/p][/quote]But coal is not only a limited resource, it is also largely imported so your might be true now (although no facts to back up your figures?) but in years to come it will become a non-argument as coal runs out or becomes too expensive.[/p][/quote]My response to Little Green Man. From where do you source your data and information? Britain has at least 400 years worth of coal deposits remaining beneath this country. What is more, massive new deposits of coal have recently been discovered beneath the North Sea, awaiting extraction. UK Coal is closing the final coal mines in Britain, the latest being at Killingley. That company requires a £100million grant to assist with the closure costs. Between 1600 and 2,000 employees/miners will be made redundant on the pit closure. Coal was once a primary industry, why must it be run down and closed? What is 'green' in relation to energy requirements? CO2 emissions are not harmful, neither has the increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide to 400ppm led to any man-made climate change. Where is the evidence? There is none. I say revitalise the British coal industry, open more coal mines and extract anthracite the type of coal ideally suited for burning in power stations. A balanced energy policy is required for Britain and coal is an essential part of this. Without coal and coal fuelled power stations the lights may well go out with energy cuts in 2020 and beyond. This will create tens of thousands of new jobs in Britain, whilst the doom mongers tell us carbon is a dangerous element. Well it isn't, It is a life-sustaining material. We are all are carbon-based life form on Earth. Finally the residents of Keighley and especially those who live close and nearby to this new waste energy plant deserve to be consulted individually about their views. A referendum is surely required on a matter as important as a £120 million investment in this waste facility at Keighley. pjl20
  • Score: 2

6:22pm Sat 12 Apr 14

Little Green Man says...

pjl20 wrote:
Little Green Man wrote:
G_Firth wrote:
No body is disputing the fact that this would create jobs but at what cost and how green is it in reality as it will still produce carbon emission equal to a coal plant and will only produce a 100th of that a single coal plant. on top of which the cost of actually producing energy in this way is even more costly than that of off shore wind farms.
I find it totally amazing that no body on both councils even took note that every other council in Yorkshire rejected duplicate plans as this and even the testimony of the one in Manchester.
As I have said before I only hope that this does not come to bite Keighley in the rear end later on in years in a big way.
But coal is not only a limited resource, it is also largely imported so your might be true now (although no facts to back up your figures?) but in years to come it will become a non-argument as coal runs out or becomes too expensive.
My response to Little Green Man.

From where do you source your data and information?

Britain has at least 400 years worth of coal deposits remaining beneath this country. What is more, massive new deposits of coal have recently been discovered beneath the North Sea, awaiting extraction.

UK Coal is closing the final coal mines in Britain, the latest being at Killingley. That company requires a £100million grant to assist with the closure costs. Between 1600 and 2,000 employees/miners will be made redundant on the pit closure.

Coal was once a primary industry, why must it be run down and closed?

What is 'green' in relation to energy requirements?

CO2 emissions are not harmful, neither has the increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide to 400ppm led to any man-made climate change.

Where is the evidence? There is none.

I say revitalise the British coal industry, open more coal mines and extract anthracite the type of coal ideally suited for burning in power stations.

A balanced energy policy is required for Britain and coal is an essential part of this. Without coal and coal fuelled power stations the lights may well go out with energy cuts in 2020 and beyond.

This will create tens of thousands of new jobs in Britain, whilst the doom mongers tell us carbon is a dangerous element. Well it isn't, It is a life-sustaining material. We are all are carbon-based life form on Earth.

Finally the residents of Keighley and especially those who live close and nearby to this new waste energy plant deserve to be consulted individually about their views.

A referendum is surely required on a matter as important as a £120 million investment in this waste facility at Keighley.
Erm, coal is a non-renewable resource, it WILL run out - do I need facts to back that up?
[quote][p][bold]pjl20[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Little Green Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: No body is disputing the fact that this would create jobs but at what cost and how green is it in reality as it will still produce carbon emission equal to a coal plant and will only produce a 100th of that a single coal plant. on top of which the cost of actually producing energy in this way is even more costly than that of off shore wind farms. I find it totally amazing that no body on both councils even took note that every other council in Yorkshire rejected duplicate plans as this and even the testimony of the one in Manchester. As I have said before I only hope that this does not come to bite Keighley in the rear end later on in years in a big way.[/p][/quote]But coal is not only a limited resource, it is also largely imported so your might be true now (although no facts to back up your figures?) but in years to come it will become a non-argument as coal runs out or becomes too expensive.[/p][/quote]My response to Little Green Man. From where do you source your data and information? Britain has at least 400 years worth of coal deposits remaining beneath this country. What is more, massive new deposits of coal have recently been discovered beneath the North Sea, awaiting extraction. UK Coal is closing the final coal mines in Britain, the latest being at Killingley. That company requires a £100million grant to assist with the closure costs. Between 1600 and 2,000 employees/miners will be made redundant on the pit closure. Coal was once a primary industry, why must it be run down and closed? What is 'green' in relation to energy requirements? CO2 emissions are not harmful, neither has the increase in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide to 400ppm led to any man-made climate change. Where is the evidence? There is none. I say revitalise the British coal industry, open more coal mines and extract anthracite the type of coal ideally suited for burning in power stations. A balanced energy policy is required for Britain and coal is an essential part of this. Without coal and coal fuelled power stations the lights may well go out with energy cuts in 2020 and beyond. This will create tens of thousands of new jobs in Britain, whilst the doom mongers tell us carbon is a dangerous element. Well it isn't, It is a life-sustaining material. We are all are carbon-based life form on Earth. Finally the residents of Keighley and especially those who live close and nearby to this new waste energy plant deserve to be consulted individually about their views. A referendum is surely required on a matter as important as a £120 million investment in this waste facility at Keighley.[/p][/quote]Erm, coal is a non-renewable resource, it WILL run out - do I need facts to back that up? Little Green Man
  • Score: 0

8:01pm Sat 12 Apr 14

jimmy k says...

from what i can see the future is new nuclear the sooner people wise up to that the better,a few wind farms aren't going to do anything(except maybe kill off some species of birds.)
from what i can see the future is new nuclear the sooner people wise up to that the better,a few wind farms aren't going to do anything(except maybe kill off some species of birds.) jimmy k
  • Score: 0

4:12pm Sun 13 Apr 14

pjl20 says...

Little Green Man

'Erm, coal is a non-renewable resource, it WILL run out'

Do you need facts to back this up? Yes, you do in the context in which you make them.

At present 400-years worth of coal remains in the coal deposits/coal measures beneath this country. This resource sustained Britain's industrial revolution, yet we are still left with massive reserves of coal.

Vast new reserves of coal have been found beneath the North sea in recently discovered deposits.

Britain has to have a balanced energy policy so as to ensure that the lights remain on and power cuts are avoided, after the year 2020.

The EU Large Combustion Plant Directive calls for all our coal and oil-fired power stations to be closed down or converted to biomass fuel by the end of next year.

Nuclear will not come on-steam to help bridge the energy supplies gap for another decade and will be very expensive.

Wind power is inefficient and unreliable power source. Even in Germany the wind turbines are being dismantled.
Little Green Man 'Erm, coal is a non-renewable resource, it WILL run out' Do you need facts to back this up? Yes, you do in the context in which you make them. At present 400-years worth of coal remains in the coal deposits/coal measures beneath this country. This resource sustained Britain's industrial revolution, yet we are still left with massive reserves of coal. Vast new reserves of coal have been found beneath the North sea in recently discovered deposits. Britain has to have a balanced energy policy so as to ensure that the lights remain on and power cuts are avoided, after the year 2020. The EU Large Combustion Plant Directive calls for all our coal and oil-fired power stations to be closed down or converted to biomass fuel by the end of next year. Nuclear will not come on-steam to help bridge the energy supplies gap for another decade and will be very expensive. Wind power is inefficient and unreliable power source. Even in Germany the wind turbines are being dismantled. pjl20
  • Score: -1

6:31pm Sun 13 Apr 14

Little Green Man says...

Little Green Man wrote:
G_Firth wrote:
No body is disputing the fact that this would create jobs but at what cost and how green is it in reality as it will still produce carbon emission equal to a coal plant and will only produce a 100th of that a single coal plant. on top of which the cost of actually producing energy in this way is even more costly than that of off shore wind farms.
I find it totally amazing that no body on both councils even took note that every other council in Yorkshire rejected duplicate plans as this and even the testimony of the one in Manchester.
As I have said before I only hope that this does not come to bite Keighley in the rear end later on in years in a big way.
But coal is not only a limited resource, it is also largely imported so your might be true now (although no facts to back up your figures?) but in years to come it will become a non-argument as coal runs out or becomes too expensive.
plj - I don't see context in which that comment of mine is not true - do you?
[quote][p][bold]Little Green Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]G_Firth[/bold] wrote: No body is disputing the fact that this would create jobs but at what cost and how green is it in reality as it will still produce carbon emission equal to a coal plant and will only produce a 100th of that a single coal plant. on top of which the cost of actually producing energy in this way is even more costly than that of off shore wind farms. I find it totally amazing that no body on both councils even took note that every other council in Yorkshire rejected duplicate plans as this and even the testimony of the one in Manchester. As I have said before I only hope that this does not come to bite Keighley in the rear end later on in years in a big way.[/p][/quote]But coal is not only a limited resource, it is also largely imported so your might be true now (although no facts to back up your figures?) but in years to come it will become a non-argument as coal runs out or becomes too expensive.[/p][/quote]plj - I don't see context in which that comment of mine is not true - do you? Little Green Man
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree