# Proposed Severn Barrage



## Geri (Sep 30, 2007)

What do people think of it? Will it ever happen?

I think it will look awful and there is no knowing what it will do to the ecology of the area. It makes me upset just even thinking about it.


----------



## chymaera (Sep 30, 2007)

Geri said:
			
		

> What do people think of it? Will it ever happen?
> 
> I think it will look awful and there is no knowing what it will do to the ecology of the area. It makes me upset just even thinking about it.




Personally I doubt it will ever happen. The enormous amount of building materials would be difficult to source for delivery by sea. Road transport would just not be an option due to the expense.


----------



## Giles (Sep 30, 2007)

Wouldn't it provide a massive amount of environmentally-friendly electricity though?

The French built something like this years ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rance_tidal_power_plant

Although on a smaller (but still impressive) scale.

Tidal power is way better than solar or wind energy as a "renewable" energy source because it is reliable. 

There is a suggestion that one of the bigger proposed barrage plans could generate as much electricity as three new nuclear stations, around 6% of Britain's energy needs.

Giles..


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 30, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> Personally I doubt it will ever happen. The enormous amount of building materials would be difficult to source for delivery by sea. Road transport would just not be an option due to the expense.



What makes you say this?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Sep 30, 2007)

chymaera said:
			
		

> Personally I doubt it will ever happen. The enormous amount of building materials would be difficult to source for delivery by sea. Road transport would just not be an option due to the expense.



I hear tell that there are motorways connecting Bristol to the rest of the country.  Building materials could be sourced anywhere in the world where it was cheapest, perhaps from multiple sources.  Bristol also has one or two docks it is rumoured.

As for another comment about it being ugly, that is a matter of having a good design.  The only problem I can see would be the Severn Bore.  It might lead to power surges in the generating plant.   But I expect there is control gear available to deal with that.


----------



## chymaera (Sep 30, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> What makes you say this?



Stating the bleeding obvious to be honest. If every cubic metre of material is to be delivered onsite by road the project is a non starter due to cost.
Straight from quarry to site by sea is many many times cheaper.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 30, 2007)

Are there feasibility studies that say this?


----------



## mauvais (Sep 30, 2007)

Interesting reading about Rance. I've been there plenty of times - in fact we once drove back and forth over it about four times when lost  but I never knew it was the first of its kind.

Frankly I doubt this country has the stomach/willpower for such 'grand projects', but I would like to see it happen.


----------



## Geri (Sep 30, 2007)

But what about the birds? 65,000 birds, just ruin their habitat just like that?


----------



## baldrick (Oct 1, 2007)

I think it's a shame that landmark green energy projects clash with environmental concerns.  i think there was going to be a big wind farm in the Lake district iirc?

i think something similar to what's proposed is badly needed, but it shouldn't come at the expense of rare habitat, i feel quite strongly about that.  It will do nothing to encourage people to support green energy if they see beautiful and delicate environments ravaged.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if it happens.  There's a lot of money at stake and i'm sure the government will be in favour


----------



## Giles (Oct 1, 2007)

I think that a barrage like this is both less ugly and more useful than any number of "wind farms". Wind farms don't generate that much power, and because they only work at all when it is windy, they are no use at all in terms of providing baseload power.

They are only useful when used in conjunction with other bigger and more solid power sources that do the real work, like coal or nuclear power stations. 

Or tidal dams / hydro systems.

If we don't stop producing CO, the poor old birds habitats will get f***ed anyway as the sea level rises!

Giles..


----------



## editor (Oct 1, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Are there feasibility studies that say this?


No need - it's a *Tobyjug fact!*


----------



## baldrick (Oct 1, 2007)

Giles said:
			
		

> If we don't stop producing CO, the poor old birds habitats will get f***ed anyway as the sea level rises!
> 
> Giles..


absolutely, but we don't have to destroy their habitats in the process do we?  

the severn estuary isn't the only place where we can harness tidal power.


----------



## llantwit (Oct 1, 2007)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Are there feasibility studies that say this?


There aren't any feasability studies at all yet. I think there's a report coming out sometime now that will advise on a feasability study being given the go-ahead on this. It's still very early days.


----------



## llantwit (Oct 1, 2007)

I was talking to a few people about this recently, and was told some quite astonishing things.
The first being that the amount of stone that'll be needed to construct the thing is about the same amount of staone as is contained in the Malvern Hills. That's a lot of stone. And I'm only guessing, but I doubt the govt is about the quarry the entire Malverns - which means that the environmental impact of this quarrying will be outsourced abroad somewhere. Then the expense (in terms of money and CO2 emmissions) of shipping it all to the UK will be massive. This is without considering the amount of sand that'll be needed to produce the concrete for the dam - we're already over-dredging of the coast of the UK - are we just gonna say goodbye to the coast?
The second is that it will destroy around 60% of a certain kind of protected wetland in the area (can't remember exactly what the guy called it), so the ecological price will be huge. One reason the project might not go ahead is that under European law there has to be a certain percentage of compensation for destroyed protected habitats like this, and it's gonna be impossible to re-create this wetland envrinment anywhere else, and therefore impossible to come up with adequate compensation.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 1, 2007)

FOE report on using lagoons instead of a barrage

Previous energy review

History of barrage proposals dating back to 1849


----------



## llantwit (Oct 1, 2007)

Nobody knows if it can be succesful, yet, either. The one that's been done before like this is, which is being used as the model for this one if you like, is only *one tenth* the size of it! I think it's the French one that Giles mentions above.

I think there *have *to be more sustainable smaller-scale options. Some people (Friends of the Earth amongst them, I think) are calling for tidal lagoons. They sound like a good idea to me. But the govt. won't go for this because they don't offer mega-contracts to the Balfour Beaty's/Costain's of this world.

ETA: Cheers KS - I'll take a look at those links.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 1, 2007)

HELLO! CHECK THE LINKS ON MY POST!



> But the govt. won't go for this because they don't offer mega-contracts to the Balfour Beaty's/Costain's of this world.



Well they do - there's just as much work involved, it's just not a humoungous single object, it's a collection of littler ones.


----------



## llantwit (Oct 1, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> HELLO! CHECK THE LINKS ON MY POST!


You mean the post that appeared while I was writing my last post? THAT WOULD INDEED HAVE BEEN CLEVER OF ME!!!


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 1, 2007)

Interesting comments on the interested parties on the wiki item:




			
				wiki said:
			
		

> It has been suggested that powerful construction industry based vested interests are the main force behind Severn Barrage proposals. Clearly, any project with a budget of several billion pounds will rouse numerous vested interests both for and against it. However, in order to understand where the vested interests might lie, it is necessary to see the wider picture. The alternative to any Severn Barrage would probably be three nuclear power stations; and these are huge facilities that would have to be built by someone - the same construction industry that stands to gain from the barrage. Friends of the Earth state that their proposals for "lagoons" would require 20 times as much construction material as the Barrage to build, and so should be even more desirable for the construction industry if driven by vested interests. In the end, the vested interests of those wanting the Barrage built will come up against the vested interests of those who do not want it built; and these include not only bird protection and environmental groups, but also the nuclear and oil industries.



So it seems that the FoE proposal is even more materials hungry - altho the point that's of most interest is that this one project could generate the leccy of 3 nuke stations...


----------



## llantwit (Oct 1, 2007)

I've heard it said that the alternative would be 3 nuclear power stations before. Why's that the only alternative? I don't buy that at all. It's a very politically expedient alternative for the government, isn't it?
Interesting on the vested interests, though.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 1, 2007)

What other alternatives can you think of then llantwit?

3 coal/gas burning power stations
About 10,000 windmills
All the doleys in the South West on a giant treadmill

In terms of 'green' proposals, after construction and running is taken out, 3 nukes would be the greenest option (look at France - 3/4 of their leccy is from nukes and they've got piss-easy CO2 targets to reach) - after the barrage.


----------



## llantwit (Oct 1, 2007)

The treadmills. Definitely.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 1, 2007)

At the end of the day if people want to use leccy it has to come from somewhere - ultimately, the eco-damage that this would create can be mitigated in some way (RSPB et al are always very good on saying things shouldn't happen, less useful on finding solutions that don't involve X or Y project not going ahead) and ultimately a barrage will be less damaging over the 100 years it's projected to be operational than 3 nuke stations, coal and gas etc - that's the kind of timescale these things need to be looked at.


----------



## llantwit (Oct 1, 2007)

How about the tidal lagoons, though?
They never get brought up by politicians, although the newspapers usually quote FOE in these stories.
I've heard some say there's not enough research into them, but that doesn't really wash. I bet the research would be far less expensive than even the feasibility study for the Dam prject.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 1, 2007)

AFAIK there are a couple of sim studies on the lagoons done, but no one has ever looked at doing them on this scale before - and they'd also be using new tech as opposed to the barrage which uses existing tech/skills (was slightly depressed to note in the cons column on wiki the UK doesn't have a suitable skills base to build this...) and is really a question of upscaling existing engineering...


----------



## llantwit (Oct 1, 2007)

The labour questions will be huge on this, too. There may well not be enough indigenous labour power to build the dam, which means that foreign labour will have to be brought in. The unions will have to keep an eye on pay, conditions, and saftey stuff.


----------



## spacemonkey (Oct 1, 2007)

The severn barrage would be the biggest construction project ever undertaken in the UK. The costs are quite staggering. In 2002 the total the total estimated capital cost of the barrage, which had been put at £8280 million in 1988, was updated to £10-15 billion. Also, bare in mind these estimates exclude interest on borrowed capital accrued during the course of construction. 

Rance has been very successful in France but the two are on completely different scales. Rance is 240MW, whilst some estimates for the severn barrage are as high as 8.6GW!  




			
				llantwit said:
			
		

> The labour questions will be huge on this, too. There may well not be enough indigenous labour power to build the dam, which means that foreign labour will have to be brought in. The unions will have to keep an eye on pay, conditions, and saftey stuff.



The STPG (Severn Tidal Power Group) have estimated the peak number of workers at 35,000, which would make Weston-Super-Mare an interesting place to live for a while.


----------



## Giles (Oct 1, 2007)

If it can be done, it would, on its own, significantly reduce the UKs CO2 output for power generation. Maybe meaning we could retire some coal and natural gas power stations. We will almost certainly have to build some new nuc. plants though.

I don't see why people have such a problem with nuclear plants. France use loads of them, and because they have had to do so (having no significant coal or gas reserves) they don't see it as controversial at all.

Giles..


----------



## llantwit (Oct 1, 2007)

Giles said:
			
		

> I don't see why people have such a problem with nuclear plants. France use loads of them, and because they have had to do so (having no significant coal or gas reserves) they don't see it as controversial at all.


I find it staggering that anyone could make a statement like this about nuclear power. 
I also find it incredibly difficult to believe that you don't know why people have a problem with nuclear power.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 1, 2007)

Aye, and they're pretty much leccy generation independent. If I was Dave 'Call me Dave' Cameron I'd be focussing on energy security as a big scare issue, that could call on a wide variety of old Tory warts...buying gas off the russkies, self-sufficiency while still protecting the green&pleasant land, something big being built (return to the UKs engineering prestige, Victorian vision and energy)

I would like to see what the estimated tons per kw/h estimate, taken over the predicted initial lifespan of the barrage and the lagoons, would be, since ultimately that's how you work out how green any given source is...


----------



## Giles (Oct 1, 2007)

llantwit said:
			
		

> I find it staggering that anyone could make a statement like this about nuclear power.
> I also find it incredibly difficult to believe that you don't know why people have a problem with nuclear power.



Well, it won't be too long before coal and gas become too expensive to use in quantity for power generation, and/or are deemed too polluting of the atmosphere. 

We *may* be able to slightly reduce demand (or stop it going up much further) but most people in the UK *will not accept* the drop in lifestyle standards that would come from a REAL reduction in electricity usage.

Windmills and solar panels can help but we still need electricity when its cloudy and not windy.

Which leaves nuclear. Nuc stations don't pollute much compared with burning oil, gas or coal and provide power all the time. France makes three quarters of their power from nuclear. They have over 50 nuclear power stations. We have managed not to need as many due to coal and gas, but not for much longer, I suspect.

There is also the "energy security" issue: What happens if we depend on gas or oil from abroad, and it is suddenly unavailable due to conflicts etc?

Giles..


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 1, 2007)

> We *may* be able to slightly reduce demand (or stop it going up much further) but most people in the UK *will not accept* the drop in lifestyle standards that would come from a REAL reduction in electricity usage.



If everyone in the UK bought their housing up to a decent level of insultaion, adopted all of the currently recommended energy saving guidelines suggested by the government, demand would drop by between 15 and 25% according to the Energy trust, so it's more than 'slightly'reducing demand...and that's before you get into stuff like condensing boilers, local mixed-generation and other micro-generation projects...

Can the UK fuel itself without nukes...well no one really knows, and whomever actually delivers an answer would be slated by the side they come down against...

TBH my problem is not with nuke stations per se, it's the govt trying to do it on the cheap, and the fact that no-one as yet knows what to do with the waste long term...


----------



## llantwit (Oct 1, 2007)

Do you work for the nuclear industry Giles?

As you know, Uranium doesn't grow on trees. It lives underground, and takes lots of energy to extract. In the future it's likely that the extraction process (itself quite environmentally destructive) will take more energy than it creates.   

More important than this is that supply is finite. The more we mine as nuclear power use increases, the quicker it'll all run out.

And lastly, but perhaps most importantly, there's the 'what to do with the waste' problem. Which is monumental. Absolutely fucking huge. And, like KS says, there's no satisfactory answer.

http://www.theecologist.org/archive_detail.asp?content_id=627


----------



## Giles (Oct 1, 2007)

llantwit said:
			
		

> Do you work for the nuclear industry Giles?
> 
> As you know, Uranium doesn't grow on trees. It lives underground, and takes lots of energy to extract. In the future it's likely that the extraction process (itself quite environmentally destructive) will take more energy than it creates.
> 
> ...



I have never worked for any part of the nuclear industry.

Breeder reactors are very very efficient. We should build some new ones of these. They make their own fuel.

The waste problem is not insurmountable, and the physical volumes of high and medium level waste are not that big. Find somewhere quiet and not prone to earthquakes, and build a huge stone or concrete structure (maybe like a modern pyramid) and put it inside, with suitable signs around to tell people to keep out.

The French make 74% of their power from nuclear energy and have been doing so for decades. They fully intend to carry on doing so. 

Quoting "The Ecologist" at me does not change my POV, really. They *hate* nuclear power on principle, so their writings on the subject are hardly likely to be objective. 

People are not going to regress en masse to a simple-life, low-tech, low energy lifestyle if that means giving up their creature comforts, unless they absolutely have to, are they? The ratchet won't turn backwards.

Giles..


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 1, 2007)

> People are not going to regress en masse to a simple-life, low-tech, low energy lifestyle if that means giving up their creature comforts, unless they absolutely have to, are they? The ratchet won't turn backwards.



I see you ignored what I said about energy efficiency then? There are some bodies who suggest that with widespread changes to the way we consume energy we could keep consumption at today's levels for the next 20-30 years - and a 'low energy' lifestyle doesn't necessarily mean going back to rubbing sticks together for fire, what it means is people being more frugal and most importantly, aware of what they're using (houses with water meters use up to 30% less than homes that don't have one; same goes for people on metered gas/electricity too...start metering consumption again I say...


----------



## Giles (Oct 1, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> I see you ignored what I said about energy efficiency then? There are some bodies who suggest that with widespread changes to the way we consume energy we could keep consumption at today's levels for the next 20-30 years - and a 'low energy' lifestyle doesn't necessarily mean going back to rubbing sticks together for fire, what it means is people being more frugal and most importantly, aware of what they're using (houses with water meters use up to 30% less than homes that don't have one; same goes for people on metered gas/electricity too...start metering consumption again I say...



What do you mean "start metering consumption again"??? When did people ever NOT have meters for electricity and gas?    

We could (and probably will) insulate houses better, but it won't be enough.

If prices go up a lot then (some) people will be forced to be a lot more frugal, others still won't care.

Giles..


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 1, 2007)

Then you charge people on rate of consumption as well - effectively if someone is really extravagant in their energy use you don't let them have off peak discounts, based on their useage patterns, any energy saving stuff they've had done etc - that way you get to soak the worst users.

And I mean returning to PAYG for everyone - actually having to spend on a weekly/monthy basis makes you a lot more aware of what you use then simply being told '200 units for £100' on a monthly/quarterly bill.


----------



## big eejit (Oct 1, 2007)

spacemonkey said:
			
		

> which would make Weston-Super-Mare an interesting place to live for a while.


Now that's a much more impressive feat than building a barrage across the Severn!


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 1, 2007)

35,000 workers...now, how many of them would require *ahem* services?


----------



## spacemonkey (Oct 1, 2007)

big eejit said:
			
		

> Now that's a much more impressive feat than building a barrage across the Severn!



*boom tish*  

This thread has veered away from Tidal Power/Severn Barrage....


----------



## Giles (Oct 1, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Then you charge people on rate of consumption as well - effectively if someone is really extravagant in their energy use you don't let them have off peak discounts, based on their useage patterns, any energy saving stuff they've had done etc - that way you get to soak the worst users.
> 
> And I mean returning to PAYG for everyone - actually having to spend on a weekly/monthy basis makes you a lot more aware of what you use then simply being told '200 units for £100' on a monthly/quarterly bill.



That is silly and unfair. 

Things have a price: a loaf of bread, a KWh of electricity, a litre of petrol. 

How on earth will you administer some system based on "rate of consumption"? 

Someone's "rate of consumption" is going to be higher if there are more people in their house or flat, or if they are home more of the time, and need more heating (like pensioners), etc etc. More consumption does not necessarily mean they are being profligate.

To do this fairly you would need another load of intrusive bureaucracy to work out each household's "entitlement" so you could charge them more for using above this amount. People don't want more bureaucracy, or more officials nosing around their lives telling them what to do.

And busy people do not need and would not choose to use token or prepayment meters, when they can just pay a quarterly bill by direct debit. Why would anyone choose this?

It wouldn't be popular.

Giles..


----------



## deeplight (Oct 22, 2007)

Tidal lagoons in the severn are a must build if we are really serious about building a sustainable future. 

If the friends of the earth are satisfied with the environmental impact then it surely at least warrents a deeper look, though admitedly they too have their own agenda.

Sustainability will not be achieved in time for us all without big commitments like this being made right now.


----------



## llantwit (Oct 22, 2007)

deeplight said:
			
		

> If the friends of the earth are satisfied with the environmental impact then it surely at least warrents a deeper look, though admitedly they too have their own agenda.


Everyone's got their own agenda - but FOE are fairly upfront about theirs, and it's a difficult one to argue against, imo.
Unless you know about some unspoken FOE motivation?


----------



## lapwing (Oct 29, 2007)

Giles said:
			
		

> Things have a price: a loaf of bread, a KWh of electricity, a litre of petrol.
> How on earth will you administer some system based on "rate of consumption"?



Personal carbon quotas maybe?
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/uk/individual/pca/index.htm


----------



## lewislewis (Oct 30, 2007)

Huge projects like this are always quite attractive due to the scale, but this dam would cause unwarranted environmental destruction, and would remove the huge potential for tidal lagoon power along the Channel.
They are also talking about putting a road or rail link along it. It would cause massive disruption to the local areas like the Vale of Glamorgan and whatever is on the English side. I'm not 'nimbying' out I just think tidal lagoons are a more viable alternative.
Everyone I know thinks that this is a government cop out- a huge project that makes the government look like it's doing something about climate change. The real steps that must be taken like insulating homes, changing car engines, tidal lagoons, are far less exciting than a massive tidal barrage across the River Severn.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 30, 2007)

Tidal lagoon, even FoE estimate, would use about 80% more materials than just the barrage...it's also unproven technology (admittedly so's a barrage on this scale, but at least the basic idea is proven to work), so it's a much, much bigger risk.

I agree tho - the government should be organising and subsidising a nationwide building campaign to install condensing boilers, double glazing, cavity and roof insulation etc...


----------



## llantwit (Oct 30, 2007)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Tidal lagoon, even FoE estimate, would use about 80% more materials than just the barrage...it's also unproven technology (admittedly so's a barrage on this scale, but at least the basic idea is proven to work), so it's a much, much bigger risk.


Gota ref for that? Genuinely curious. I was assuming that the lagoons would take less materials - the barrage will take loads of stone and sand.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 30, 2007)

It's in the link I put up on the first page I think...


----------



## llantwit (Oct 30, 2007)

Will check again, ta. Didn't read it all that closely.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 30, 2007)

It's on the chart at the bottom of the FoE document...

Wall length for the lagoons is 95 miles against 9.8, 200mn tons of aggregate against 13mn...according to FoE numbers the lagoons would be about 20% more efficient and 60% cheaper per kw/h...it's far more efficient on capacity factor...what's interesting is that they don't include a whole life carbon cost for either project...I suspect that over the 120 years they'd probably even out - that 200mn tons, plus associated transport&construction...I don't think it's as clear cut as simply saying 'Lagoons would look prettier'


----------

