Severn barrage

newcastlecaver

New member
does anyone know anything about this? I saw a piece on the BBC news yesterday about plans for a Severn Barrage to capture hydroelectric power from the river (and more specifically the tide) does this have implications for Otter Hole or is the plan not likely to go ahead?
 
H

hoehlenforscher

Guest
Has been talked about for decades. Someone has just put in for planning permission to do it tho. But not to worry the chances of it coming to fruition are less than zero IMHO. Apart form the cost and environemental impact, there will be no end of arguements against it. Even heard that since the severn is so tidal than stopping the bore will change the pull on the earth by the moon and will effectively slow down the spin of the earth!
 

martinr

Active member
newcastlecaver said:
.....saw a piece on the BBC news yesterday about plans for a Severn Barrage ...

Backing for Severn barrage power
Senior politicians in Wales and Westminster say a £15bn plan to build a barrage across the Severn Estuary could help solve the growing energy crisis.
First Minister Rhodri Morgan and Welsh Secretary Peter Hain have backed plans for a barrage over the Bristol Channel.

The consortium behind one proposal says its 10-mile project would bring as much energy as three nuclear power stations.

Environmental groups fear a barrage over the estuary would destroy a unique and world-famous eco-system.

The Severn has a tidal range approaching 14m, the second highest in the world.


The Severn Tidal Power Group (STPG), a joint venture between six power engineering and construction firms, estimates this can be harnessed to generate up to 6% of the electricity for England and Wales.

The group is proposing a barrage across the estuary from Lavernock Point, near Cardiff, to Brean Down in Somerset.

The scheme is different from one put to councillors in Somerset on 1 March by a Neath businessman.

The Welsh Assembly Government has now decided to submit its recommendations on the idea of a Severn barrage to the UK government's Energy Review next Tuesday.

Both Mr Morgan and Mr Hain have said they see a barrage across the Severn as one solution to the UK's energy crisis.

Ecology

Roger Hull, of the Severn Tidal Power Group, said the barrage would take six years to build and could be generating power as early as 2017.


He said: "It's a proven technology. This is a big application because, of course, if you want to generate a lot of electricity, you need a big project to do so.

"It's definitely a good way of producing this predictable, renewable power that does not produce any carbon dioxide at all. So it's very climate friendly."

A tidal barrage has operated at La Rance, near St Malo in Brittany, since 1967.

But environmentalists claim a Severn barrage would adversely affect the ecology of the estuary, even ending the Severn bore.

Tim Stowe, of RSPB Cymru, said the 80,000 waterfowl - including dunlin and redshank - which the society estimates use the estuary as their winter feeding grounds would have to go elsewhere or perish.

He said: "The impact can only be negative on the birds that use it. Once you have built it, you cannot take it away."

The UK government is examining all forms of sustainable energy. It is aiming to generate 20% of Britain's energy needs using renewable energy sources, such as the wind and tides, by 2020.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/wales/south_east/4927744.stm
 

cap n chris

Well-known member
The bloke who is planning this project was f*cked around by the planning department a long time ago. He knows that any proposed plans require, by statute, a considered response from planning departments.

His plan is spurious, designed to occupy the bastard planners in meetings forever and at major expense. He is a wise man with a vengeful streak. I say good on him.
 

AndyF

New member
cap 'n chris said:
His plan is spurious, designed to occupy the bastard planners in meetings forever and at major expense. He is a wise man with a vengeful streak. I say good on him.

hmmm, but it is you and I (taxpayers) that are paying for that wasted time...the planners are just doing their jobs. Vengence is great, but inflict it on the right person!
 
D

darkplaces

Guest
something has to giveway.

All the green people keep saying we must have natrual power (sun,sea, etc) and yet propose something that generates a decent amount and its rejected by the greens. The greens IMHO underestimate the ability of wildlife to self repair. Just look at the area about Chernobyl, despite radiation once humans have stopped messing with it its turned into a wild place.

Nature thrives in Chernobyl
http://ranprieur.com/crash/naturechernobyl.html

So yes while building the thing wildlife will suffer, once its up and running wildlife will return.

I also like wind turbines in windy areas, but they dont produce much, but its a start and with time they will get better.
 

cap n chris

Well-known member
To produce 20% of UK power by windpower requires 95,000 wind turbines. I can just imagine the Greens trying to get that agreed!
 

Roger W

Well-known member
And where do you put 'em all? They have a horrendous visual impact on the scenery, play havoc with bird life, and as far as I can tell require quite a bit of infrastructure in the way of foundations, access roads, etc.

A small wind turbine on a farm or a caving club hut to provide power for that site is one thing, but a hillside full of the things...
 
A

andymorgan

Guest
I can see a few problems arising due to the recent devolution of Wales. The Welsh first Minister says it is ok, but the other end of the barrage would be in England where he has no juristriction... (although maybe he has if he is an MP in the commons).

c**tplaces said:
So yes while building the thing wildlife will suffer, once its up and running wildlife will return.

Yes, but the wildlife will be different as the habitat is different.
 

pisshead

New member
andymorgan said:
c**tplaces said:
So yes while building the thing wildlife will suffer, once its up and running wildlife will return.

Yes, but the wildlife will be different as the habitat is different.

and also the new habitat will be far less diverse and therefore far less 'friendly' for fauna. This attitude is not at all constructive, Darkplaces.
 

cap n chris

Well-known member
But the fauna will be monster giants with seven legs and five heads and will breath-fire and eat people! Even the hamsters will be huge, dangerous and craving the blood of people! It'll be great. I can't wait. :wink:
 

Peter Burgess

New member
But the fauna will be monster giants with seven legs and five heads and will breath-fire and eat people! Even the hamsters will be huge, dangerous and craving the blood of people! It'll be great. I can't wait.

Hinkley Point Power Station already creates those doesn't it?
 

nickwilliams

Well-known member
cap 'n chris said:
But the fauna will be monster giants with seven legs and five heads and will breath-fire and eat people! Even the hamsters will be huge, dangerous and craving the blood of people! It'll be great. I can't wait. :wink:

Have you been avoiding your medication again?
 

Ship-badger

Member
Anyway, to get back to the original question, it would have implications for Otter Hole. Either we would no longer have any access, or perhaps we would have improved access. Without detailed information that's all I can say.
There was an article in our local paper last week about an alternative scheme, which was to construct large lagoons in the estuary. These would fill up at high tide, then the flow from them as they drain could be used to generate power. It wouldn't have the devestating effect on birdlife that the barrage will have, so it might be a better way of achieving the same result.
Personally I doubt that any of it will ever be built. But who knows?
 

martinr

Active member
Ship-badger said:
......to get back to the original question, it would have implications for Otter Hole. .....

The surfers aren't best pleased:

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article359644.ece

".....Steve King, who broke the world record for the longest continuous surf ride on the river earlier this month, reacted with dismay to the news...."

Is that the same Steve King as in CSCC?
 

Hughie

Active member
I would imagine a rise in sea level would have a similar effect to both wildlife and Otter Hole ........
 

Rob

Well-known member
Hughie said:
I would imagine a rise in sea level would have a similar effect to both wildlife and Otter Hole ........
...and i think the possible climate changes due to global warming would mess species around considerably more.
Surely a tidal barrage would not have that drastic effects, i mean it only slows down the rate of change of the tide, it doesn't flood any extra land does it?
 

Peter Burgess

New member
Surely a tidal barrage would not have that drastic effects

It doesn't flood any more land, but it does keep large areas of mud flats under water which denies huge feeding grounds to water fowl. There would also be consequential changes to other wildlife. Large numbers of migratory birds would be affected which means consequences for the wildlife in other countries. When we mess with the environment, we can never really know what the total impact is that we make until afterwards. In general terms, however, the bigger the project, the more serious the impact. What do you think the barrage would be built with? Probably the closest natural material to hand. Mendip limestone is my guess. More quarries etc etc.

If we want to do something useful, how about cutting down consumption? Then we might not need to build barrages and the like on such a scale.

BTW, What happened to the hot rocks geothermal projects once proposed for places like Cornwall?
 

Hughie

Active member
Rob said:
Hughie said:
I would imagine a rise in sea level would have a similar effect to both wildlife and Otter Hole ........
...and i think the possible climate changes due to global warming would mess species around considerably more.
Surely a tidal barrage would not have that drastic effects, i mean it only slows down the rate of change of the tide, it doesn't flood any extra land does it?

No, I wasn't implying that any extra land would be flooded due to a barrage being built. I was trying to suggest, as you, that if these ideas aren't given due consideration, on the grounds of a small (comparatively) environmental cost, then the cost of the national & global implications become huge. Having said that, obviously one barrage in one tidal estuary wont make a whole heap of difference. If the figures are right and there is potential to generate the equivalent of three nukes then, in my opinion, it has to be considered.
There are many downsides though - sure the current ecology also has to be considered - as Peter said - a good chunk of the Mendips would disappear into it. Also the future of Bristol as a port would be in doubt. However there are many coastal cities, including Bristol, that would become somewhat soggy if global warming continues.
Cutting consumption is an excellent idea - probably not one our political lords and masters really adhere to - consumption usually means spending that results in taxation.

Chris - only a third of my fields are likely to get flooded in the near future -and they're rented! Also they're also in an ESA, SSSI and Ramsar site which makes them comparably unproductive. So as sea levels rise these environmental areas will gradually be lost - to us and it's current flora and fauna.

Food for thought - in 50 years time the global demand for food is predicted to have trebled. I think our descendants will have a different view on the environment then. Watch the Brazilians 'slash and burn'. Sorry - off topic.
 
Top