Estuary energy plan makes waves (10 mile tidal barrage)

[muriel_volestrangler]

· Local politicians enthused by Severn barrage scheme
· Green groups fear for effects on wildlife


As a feat of engineering it would be remarkable; a barrage stretching for 10 miles across the Severn estuary. As a source of power, it would have few equals - at least the output of two nuclear power stations.

A consortium of construction companies said yesterday that its multibillion-pound plan to build a concrete boom across the river could be completed in just over a decade, and provide the UK with a sizeable chunk of its electricity needs. The project, which is backed by the Welsh secretary, Peter Hain, last night won the backing of the Welsh assembly, which described it as an "exceptional opportunity" to tackle the UK's energy crisis. Mr Hain said a barrage could make a "massive contribution" to tackling climate change.

But the revived idea has horrified some members of the green lobby. Friends of the Earth, WWF and the RSPB all expressed concern yesterday, warning that the production of green energy would be offset by environmental damage caused by building the barrage and the changes it would make to a globally important habitat for birds and marine life.
...
Local political support for a barrage has grown dramatically. Bristol city council has passed a motion urging the government to consider the scheme, and last night it received further backing when the Welsh assembly, in a submission to the government's energy review, argued that the barrage provided an "exceptional opportunity" to tap the estuary's tidal surges. Wales's energy minister, Andrew Davies, said: "The barrage would be equivalent to around two nuclear power stations operating continuously, lasting not 40 to 50 years with a problematic legacy but operating for 150 years plus."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1761579,00.html

Political support is really building up now. I can see why it's tempting - the Severn estuary has some of the largest tides in the world, and while this doesn't provide power 24 hours a day, it can provide it for well over half that, and in a perfectly predictable way. The nearest thing to this is the barrage at La Rance in France, but this is more than 10 times the size. The Severn is tidal for another 50 miles or so upstream of the proposed barrage, so a lot of coastline is potentially affected.

[EC]

1. and the species of birds and wildlife the greens are

concerned about, do they survive anywhere else? This sounds like a good way of furthering clean energy, resulting in the saving of more birds and wildlife in the world in the long run....I think the greens have to pick their fights better....

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. No unique organisms that I know of

Here's a government agency's view of the Severn:

The Severn Estuary lies on the south-west coast of Britain at the mouth of three major rivers (the Severn, Wye and Avon) and many lesser rivers. The immense tidal range (the second highest in the world) and classic funnel shape make the Severn Estuary unique in Britain and very rare worldwide. The intertidal zone of mudflats, sandbanks, rocky platforms and saltmarsh is one of the largest and most important in Britain. The estuarine fauna includes internationally important populations of waterfowl, important invertebrate populations and large populations of migratory fish. The estuary has a diverse geological setting and a wide range of geomorphological features, especially sediment deposits. It is important for the interpretation of coastline dynamics and landforms and past changes in sea level, sediment supply, climate and river flow. The estuary's overall interest depends on its large size and on the processes and interrelationships between the intertidal and marine habitats and its fauna.

http://www.english-nature.org.uk/science/natural/NA_Details.asp?NA_ID=116

The government said in 2003:

Large-scale tidal barrages have the potential
to make a significant contribution to carbon
reductions in 2020 or beyond. But such
schemes have a very substantial impact on
the local and regional environment and are
very expensive, though some of the costs
could be offset by other benefits. It is clear
that plans for a Severn Barrage would raise
strong environmental concerns and we doubt
if it would be fruitful to pursue it at this
stage. Tidal barrages may be capable of
offering major renewable projects which will
help us reach our goals and we will continue
to explore opportunities.

http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/whitepaper/ourenergyfuture.pdf

Some people claim that the barrage, by slowing down the currents behind it, will actually lower the amount of sediment in the water, allowing more plant growth and animals feeding off that. It's a big step, altering the environment this much - an alternaive being put forward is creating several 'lagoons', and running turbines from them, rather than damming the whole estuary. But that would be more expensive.

[EC]

3. Well, as we have learned in NO, wetlands are important

in control of natural occurrences, but it seems there is a way of not creating more problems if they are willing to spend the extra bucks...as in the lagoon concept...maybe the greens should work with them for a good compromise...because in the long term if alternate, clean energy will help ALL living organisms....

[hunter]

4. This is a terrible idea.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/south_east/4927744.stm

The creatures that live there would do better with two or three nuclear power plants.

[jpak]

5. Yes - they could heat the water and keep the critters warm

all winter long.

Seriously though, submersible turbines would be a far better option than a barrage...

http://www.bwea.com/marine/devices.html

http://eeru.open.ac.uk/natta/renewonline/rol56/3.htm

[hunter]

10. Personally, I think they should let the estuary be.

No nukes, barrages, or submersible turbines.

And at this point we probably need to think about rising ocean levels. How will we deal with that? It is quite likely the wetlands will start to encroach on places previously inhabited by people.

Anyone interested in this issue should take a look at the Cardiff Bay Barrage...

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/regions/wales/426317/549459/?version=1&lang=_e

[jpak]

13. The Cardiff Bay Barrage is no way similar to the proposed Severn barrage

A better comparison would be France's 240 MW La Rance tidal station which began operation in 1966 - and which apparently had little impact on the local environment....

http://www.earthtoys.com/emagazine.php?issue_number=06.04.01&article=tidal

That said - I still think submersible tidal turbines are the best option for the Severn...

[hunter]

14. " the studies seem to point to a natural evolution..."

I got that from your link.

:rofl:

Nature does seem to adapt to whatever crap we dish out, doesn't it?

Just look at Chernobyl. At Chernobyl human beings have inadvertantly created a huge nature preserve. The radiation is bad, but many, many diverse forms of life have taken advantage of the situation.

[Dead_Parrot]

17. Or lagoons...

There's a FOE blurb on them here. Still lots of concrete, but doesn't affect the coast - any thoughts?

[NNadir]

9. Well, you know I agree with that. From a mass balance perspective

and from the sheer physical size of the enviromental insult, it should be obvious, but somehow, mysteriously, it's not.

People still exist who would rather grind up the entire biosphere, encase every bit of it in concrete, rather than have a nuclear powerplant. Fortunately this bit of irrationality is passing in it's attractions, but it may be a tad too late.

[jpak]

11. Include the UK Sustainable Development Commission in the "Twit" category

http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/060306.html

<snip>

Nuclear power is not the answer to tackling climate change or security of supply, according to
the Sustainable Development Commission.

In response to the Government’s current Energy Review, the SDC nuclear report draws together the most comprehensive evidence base available, to find that there is no justification for bringing forward a new nuclear power programme at present. The report, Nuclear power in a low carbon economy, has been agreed by all 16 SDC commissioners.

<snip>

Based on eight new research papers, the SDC report gives a balanced examination of the pros and cons of nuclear power. Its research recognizes that nuclear is a low carbon technology, with an impressive safety record in the UK. Nuclear could generate large quantities of electricity, contribute to stabilising CO2 emissions and add to the diversity of the UK’s energy supply.

However, the research establishes that even if the UK’s existing nuclear capacity was doubled, it would only give an 8% cut on CO2 emissions by 2035 (and nothing before 2010). This must be set against the risks.

<more>

[NNadir]

12. Consider it done.

I consider almost everyone opposed to nuclear energy as being a twit.

All the self-serious "commissions" in the world cannot escape the facts of the matter.

[jpak]

15. The UKSDC considered all the "facts of the matter"

and concluded that nuclear power was not the answer...

Inconvenient facts = twittery; the logic is impeccable....

[NNadir]

18. I checked out the board of this band of circle jerks. QED.

Let's see, flashing through the board I see not ONE member who has any background in nuclear power. There's a brewer, a writer, a business manager, one guy who actually has a technical backgroud, albeit in polyester manufacturer, an agribusiness executive (I'll bet he thinks "the answer" is a biofuel), a professor of "social policy" (how precious is that), nope not one nuclear engineer, not one person with a background in energy production, unless you count the mining executive (presumably he thinks "clean coal" is the answer.)

http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/commissioners.html

In fact, the credibility of the "UK Sustainable Development Commission" is made up. There is no reason whatsoever to award these people any credibility whatsoever, but apparently this hasn't stopped them from awarding themselves instant credibility.

Of course we can go on all day listing people who oppose nuclear power who also don't have a fucking clue about that on which they are speaking. Is this list of incompetants supposed to be more impressive than the pro-coal A-holes at Greenpeace?

Greenpeace also concluded that "nuclear power is not the answer," in the grand circle jerk of wishful thinking, inability to comprehend risk assessment and coal mongering. So what?

You can always get a grand collection of people who know no physics, or understand the first thing about physical reality, to stand around an all nod at each other in favor of ridiculous ideas. In fact there are many larger organizations that are predicated on collectively lying to themselves. There are large international churches like work like that, and large organizations like the Repuke party that do pretty much the same thing: Engage in collective hallucination.

I'll bet a lot of money that the things that this particular group of weak poor thinkers considers to be a solution are either more coal or things that have yet to produce a single exajoule of energy.

Of course, if wishing were the same thing as reality, everybody would win the lottery, Jesus would show up and bring on the kingdom of heaven, and solar energy would finally produce a single exajoule.

QED again.

[hunter]

19. I loved that article! It had review snippets, just like a bad movie!

"the most thorough, hard-hitting and detailed case against the British nuclear option" - Michael McCarthy, Independent

[Kolesar]

6. barrage

Shame about that choice of a term. Maybe they should have called it "clear skies".

[phantom power]

7. "Operation Infinite Enduring Divine Freedom Straking Tides"

[Kolesar]

8. Religion, patriotism, quality, and green values--all in one...eom

[Dead_Parrot]

16. Here's a list of SSSI's

-Sites of Special Scientific Interest - in the Severn Estuary:
http://www.english-nature.org.uk/special/sssi/unitlist.cfm?sssi_id=1002284

There's also an overview of the estuary here

Damaging these (or more likely wiping them out) would be appalling, so it's not surprising Greenpeace are in favour of the scheme. Well maybe not this particular one, a search on their site reveals they've heard of the river, but they seem to support tidal schemes in general. Morons. I can't help wondering why the Granuiad linked to them, unless they're got a sense of humour and want to make a point :).