Talk:Eemshaven

message: The journalists who wrote the article under footnote 1, http://www.noz.de/lokales/53839582/niederlande-planen-atomkraftwerk-an-der-emsmuendung-reichsregierung-will-reaktor-in-eemshaven-bauen-lassen have drawn the wrong conclusion. The second half of the header is true "Reichsregierung will Reaktor in Eemshaven bauen lassen" which means something like "National government wants to let reactor be built in Eemshaven". If any power producing company wants to build a nuclear plant in the Netherlands, there are only three sites for which they can apply (see http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2686/Binnenland/article/detail/316572/2009/02/20/Drie-resterende-locaties-kerncentrale.dhtml).
However, there are currently no plans to build one at the Eemshaven. The article on noz.de mentions that two companies have already filed applications, but this is a mixup. RWE is currently constructing a coal fired plant at the site, NUON was planning to build a gas, coal and biofuel-fired plant, then scrapped the plans for the coal and biofuel fired sections. Electrabel is already operating a gas-fired plant. So the two applications were there, but they were not for a nuclear plant.
Local labour (PvdA) politician William Moorlag told a local newspaper (DvhN) one month prior to the 2011 provincial elections that a lobbyist working for Electrabel asked him about his party's stance on energy, and Moorlag claims to have told the lobbyist the province does not want a nuclear plant built at the Eemshaven. (http://www.dvhn.nl/nieuws/groningen/article1180561.ece) Remember, Electrabel already had a plant, it was RWE and Nuon that were building new ones, but not nuclear.
In the same dhvn article, an Electrabel spokesman states that Electrabel operates seven nuclear plants in Belgium and the company is interested in and available for "getting to work" in the Netherlands, adding "there are no concrete plans." To me that sounds like a company keeping their options open, not a company with "ongoing plans" to build a nuclear plant at the Eemshaven.
Long story short: Unless someone can show an article about an actual application to build a nuclear plant or press release from a power producing company about plans for a nuclear plant at the Eemshaven, I propose to strike "as well as a nuclear power plant" from this entry. 82.74.193.75 (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  There are no ongoing plans for nuclear plant at Eemshaven 

message: The estimated costs of €600 million were too great, and the plug was pulled on the LNG project. (http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2680/Economie/article/detail/1019722/2010/09/01/Eemshaven-krijgt-geen-LNG-terminal.dhtml) Apparantly investors realised there's already a pipe network in place and tanker ships just can't compete with that.
The Biodiesel plant was built and opened for business in 2007, but only for a few years: http://www.rtl.nl/components/financien/rtlz/2010/weken_2010/28/0714_1510_Biodieselfarbriek-Eemshaven-stopt.xml Perhaps it's for the best, as this was a generation 1 biofuel project, using crops grown especially for fuel rather than using only waste and leftovers.
An aborted project and a failed project are also not "ongoing plans", I propose to rephrase into something like "Plans for an LNG  terminal proved too costly. A biodiesel plant operated briefly, but went out of business." Or just strike these projects from the Eemhaven page, although that would make the stub situation even worse. 82.74.193.75 (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  No LNG terminal. Biodiesel plant built, but went bust.