Severn barrage

[Cookie]

I was hoping to see a lesser spotted yellow wag finch on my way up the M5 before they become extinct.

Let's get some nuclear power stations built....pronto!  They don't affect wildlife much except that gulls like the warmer water, they don't put much into the atmosphere, and the waste can now be safely disposed of.  What's the problem?

(Stands back and waits for the backlash).

 

[whitelackington]

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?

This project is expected to cost ?15 billion.
We are backing just one bank RBS to the tune of ?500 billion and getting nothing for it.
The total support for U.K. banks is edgeing towards one and a third trillion,
surely we could do something more real with that sort of cash?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7906922.stm

 

[cap n chris]

The total support for U.K. banks is edgeing towards one and a third trillion,
surely we could do something more real with that sort of cash?

It's not 'cash'.

"The ?500bn on offer is a guarantee that will be paid only in the event that any of the assets default. If the money is not called on, the taxpayer will make a profit from the fee charged by the Treasury.... Government officials played down concerns about the ?1.3trillion scale of the different guarantees offered since the crisis began by claiming the majority was in the form of insurance that would not have to pay out."

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=478569&in_page_id=2&ct=5

 

[Peter Burgess]

I contend that a considerable amount of time is wasted, not just here I mean, correcting simplistic rubbish spouted by ignorant commentators who are merely in the game for soundbites, selling junk newspapers, or just because it makes them feel important. It is probably true to say that the internet has allowed more ignorant people sound like they actually know something than ever before. What makes it worse is that so many people are taken in. And when the truth comes out, nobody believes it because it is too boring. People who think its clever to fill the internet with falsehoods and misleading rubbish are the bane of our lives.

 

[whitelackington]

The total support for U.K. banks is edging towards one and a third trillion,
surely we could do something more real with that sort of cash?

It's not 'cash'.

"The ?500bn on offer is a guarantee that will be paid only in the event that any of the assets default. If the money is not called on, the taxpayer will make a profit from the fee charged by the Treasury.... Government officials played down concerns about the ?1.3trillion scale of the different guarantees offered since the crisis began by claiming the majority was in the form of insurance that would not have to pay out."

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=478569&in_page_id=2&ct=5

I personally am in favour of the scheme, it will supply a good part of our electricity needs for the next two hundred years, perhaps 5% +

It will provide good jobs for the contruction workers (little else for them to do @ the moment apart from that Olympic city thing)
It will produce electricity renewably and help prevent tsunami flooding of the levels, as has happened in the past.
It is a "real" project and not just a fantasy like the millennium dome or the Olympic city.
I think we need it.
Stick nuclear up your arse


So Chris are you actually saying that this one and a third trillion pounds is fantasy money
it doesn't exist

I was beginning to wonder where our government were finding all this money,
I was imagining Gordon with piles of the stuff under his bed.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Will this torrent of drivel ever dry up?

 

[whitelackington]

Will this torrent of drivel ever dry up?

My god,
I pity your poor wife

 

[Peter Burgess]

Why? She is an intelligent and articulate woman.

 

[Hughie]

It will produce electricity renewably and help prevent tsunami flooding of the levels, as has happened in the past.

So would a new reactor at Hinkley.

Regarding "tsunami" flooding - where would you propose siting such a barrage? It would have to be in the vicinty of Minehead/Watchet to prevent flooding of the levels. Not sure that's such an issue about flooding - the levels floods pretty much on an annual basis, sometimes several times - there's some pretty big pumps in place to deal with flood water.

 

[cap n chris]

I was beginning to wonder where our government were finding all this money

Remember: the Government can print money, issue promises/guarantees, alter/create laws which allow bankrupt companies to continue trading, and/or they can borrow from the IMF. They're the Government; they can do lots of things.

 

[Les W]

People who think its clever to fill the internet with falsehoods and misleading rubbish are the bane of our lives.

Balanced viewlackington? 

 

[Les W]

I personally am in favour of the scheme, it will supply  a good part of our electricity needs for the next two hundred years, perhaps 5% +

It will provide good jobs for the contruction workers (little else for them to do @ the moment apart from that Olympic city thing)
It will produce electricity renewably

This is all credible and good 

and help prevent tsunami flooding of the levels, as has happened in the past.

This is excellent as ideas go, let's spend billions on protecting against such a credible risk as tsunami's. When was the last one?  :-\
Why not spend loads of money on preventing earthquakes and volcanoes as well? They have happened in the past as well you know.

I fail to see how such a barrage will protect the "Levels" from tsunami's though as they are on the seaward side of the proposed barrage.  :-\
Unless you are advocating a barrage from Exmoor to Porthcawl?  :-\

It is a "real" project and not just a fantasy like the millennium dome or the Olympic city.
I think we need it.
Stick nuclear up your arse

If as you claim the proposed barrage will provide 5%+ of our energy needs, where do you propose to get the other 95% or so from?  :-\

 

[Peter Burgess]

If as you claim the proposed barrage will provide 5%+ of our energy needs, where do you propose to get the other 95% or so from?  :-\

From the nuclear stations that he has thrust into a certain part of his anatomy?

 

[Les W]

It is a "real" project and not just a fantasy

The fantasy is that you kid yourself that we can get by without nuclear. 

 

[whitelackington]

Quote from: whitelackington on February 25, 2009, 09:56:15 am
I personally am in favour of the scheme, it will supply a good part of our electricity needs for the next two hundred years, perhaps 5% +

It will provide good jobs for the contruction workers (little else for them to do @ the moment apart from that Olympic city thing)
It will produce electricity renewably

Quote Les W
This is all credible and good

Quote from: whitelackington on February 25, 2009, 09:56:15 am
and help prevent tsunami flooding of the levels, as has happened in the past.

Quote Les W
This is excellent as ideas go, let's spend billions on protecting against such a credible risk as tsunami's. When was the last one?
Why not spend loads of money on preventing earthquakes and volcanoes as well? They have happened in the past as well you know.

I fail to see how such a barrage will protect the "Levels" from tsunami's though as they are on the seaward side of the proposed barrage.
Unless you are advocating a barrage from Exmoor to Porthcawl?
http://www.safecoast.org/editor/databank/File/somerset-tsunami-of-1607.pdf
:read:
"Tsunami don?t occur in Britain ? do they? Well, yes they do, and one can strike any coast at any time."

 

[Peter Burgess]

Why don't you go and chill out, Mick, and watch some Pingu videos?

 

[Clive G]

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?

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

. . .

Take a look out of your car window the next time you're crossing the bridge over the River Severn (the old one is the best for the view) and if the tide is out then you'll see that the bed of the river consists of mud - and lots of it . . .

The point about rivers is that the mud they carry is not static, it moves, generally downstream with the current, until it reaches an obstruction . . . then it piles up in a mound and the flow of the river changes. During the period of the Thames Archaeological Survey in 1999 I filmed an Environment Agency officer on the Thames foreshore at Vauxhall describing the problems which had arisen as a result of the various encroachment of buildings along the normal course of the Thames. Mud banks build up and the navigation of the river is impeded, leading to additional problems along the traditional embankments as new currents and flow paths develop.

It seems to me that blocking the River Severn with a huge barrage or 'dam' may have short terms gains but what about the long-term effects and ultimate cost of managing the mud? It may, however, be possible to build a removable barrage along a similar principle to the Thames Flood Barrier, which has specially designed gates that open fully to allow for the automatic flushing through of unwanted sediments. But just how useful and viable might such a construction might be for generating as opposed to consuming electricity - opening and closing large gates across a distance as wide as the Severn Estuary?

At the end of it all, bearing in mind the size of any such scheme across the River Severn, what about the ongoing maintenance requirements and associated costs for upkeeping generating machinery in such an exposed position - exposed to the natural elements at a time when unusually high tides and changing weather patterns are anticipated as being par for the course?

 

[whitelackington]

I was beginning to wonder where our government were finding all this money

Remember: the Government can print money, issue promises/guarantees, alter/create laws which allow bankrupt companies to continue trading, and/or they can borrow from the IMF. They're the Government; they can do lots of things.

Well, I would very much rather have The Severn Barrage Renewable Power supply than any nuclear shite.
Why can't we have a vote on it?
After all, we live in a democratic country, don't we?

As far as our government goes, they are morally bankrupt as well as financially bankrupt,
so don't expect any decisions they come up with
to mean anything.

 

[Peter Burgess]

I was beginning to wonder where our government were finding all this money

Remember: the Government can print money, issue promises/guarantees, alter/create laws which allow bankrupt companies to continue trading, and/or they can borrow from the IMF. They're the Government; they can do lots of things.

Well, I would very much rather have The Severn Barrage Renewable Power supply than any nuclear shite.
Why can't we have a vote on it?
After all, we live in a democratic country, don't we?

As far as our government goes, they are morally bankrupt as well as financially bankrupt,
so don't expect any decisions they come up with
to mean anything.

Well I would very much rather have this sort of thing than any highly disruptive and habitat damaging Severn Barrage nonsense. Its non-intrusive and just waiting to be tapped.

 

[wookey]

The severn barage is not nonsense. It's the largest renewable energy scheme in the UK. Yes it has serious disdvantages too (which is why it hasn't been done yet), but anyone who takes a serious look at the energy and climate change situation has to admit that we need it badly. Arguing about this vs. nuclear is stupid  - we need both, _and_ a lot more wind turbines, and a lot more PV and it'll still be a struggle. Go and read 'without hot air' to get a good handle on the numbers. http://www.withouthotair.com/ (You can read it for free online as well as buy the book). The biggest problem we have is working out a way of making enough energy to live on, and preferably sutain our comfortable lives whilst emitting a tiny fraction of the current amount of CO2. And the big problem there is that coal is cheaper  than most of the other energy sources (up front), and if the lights go out it's going to be difficult to avoid falling back to that.
Here's a plea from James Hansen on why we don't want to go there: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20090215_Damocles.pdf

The problem is hugely compounded by  the hoplessly complacent attitude of most people to reducing their own energy use and carbon fotprint. How many of you have made a significant inroad in the _90%_ reduction in carbon footprint you need to do? That means you need to do a lot of stuff - serious house insulation, solar thermal DHW, cycling, electric vehicles, turn everything off, PV on the roof, move closer to work, stop flying, at least within Europe, stop driving about the place quite so much - hassle work to stop leaving everything on, become a vegetarian, stop buying crap you didin't need from china and so on. OK, you may not be up for all those things, but how about doing half of them?

It's a big change and most people are still fiddling round the edges by trying to remember to turn their phone charger off - thus producing a 0.05% reduction in their overall energy use. So go and measure your home electricity usage. Most of us can halve it easily by turning things off and getting rid of some of the most egregiously waseful devices. That's a good good start. Insulation is next. Most UK houses are appallingly insulated - fix yours. (That's what I've been doing for the last 4 weekends - not very exciting but it needs to be done). If you don't fancy biking to work then get an electric moped. Under a grand and will reduce your energy use by a factor of 40 over driving to work (and carbon emissions by a factor of 20 or so). Mine will pay for itself in less than 9 months - that's a hell of a payback.

At the more expensive end of the scale, a DIY set of PV panels on the roof now returns ~6% on investment, and it's going to get much better next year, so if you have a few grand in the bank turn it into panels instead. Much better return. If I fill my roof (8 grand) it'll cover my annual electricity use (because it's already been lowered) and I get to sell the rest and make a profit of 500 quid/yr or so.

So as well as moaning at the govt to get a serious move on in putting in low-carbon power of all flavours, get your own house in order. And start yesterday. Read this to see just how f*cked we already are: http://www.courtfool.info/en_World_Energy_and_Population.htm

Don't sit here wittering: Do something.