Barrage plans could be on hold
CAMPAIGNERS fear the future of the massive Severn tidal barrage scheme is under threat following delays to the key studies into the impact of the project.
Speculation has been mounting that plans to harness power from the South West estuary's tidal range – which boasts enough power to generate five per cent of the UK's energy needs – are to be shelved because of the £21 billion-plus price tag and a change of Government.
-
Shelved? An artist's impression of the proposed barrage for the Severn estuary.
A recent meeting of the project's south west advisory group was postponed as reports into the economic and environmental effects have yet to be completed.
The news of this doubt will please many wildlife campaigners. Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust said destroying the delicate ecosystems in the estuary could irreparably damage habitats.
Energy Minister Lord Hunt told Parliament this month that feasibility studies would be released later this year.
Last October, The Times reported a source saying that ministers were "moving towards a political fudge". "They will say they are delaying it but in reality, the lifeline on offer will not be worth very much."
Yesterday, the RSPB's regional policy officer, Mark Robins, said: "It would be tragic if the Government's studies were going cold on a sustainable energy scheme for the Severn.
"As one of the world's hotspots for tidal energy and a wonderful wild ecosystem, the opportunity demands a progressive innovative approach that can harness the low carbon power while not sacrificing the wildlife of this amazing estuary.
"The real tragedy is with the barrage-focussed nature of the studies too date – if the last two years have got us no nearer to finding an alternative non-barrage technology – we may be left no nearer finding a sustainable tidal power technology."
The Department for Energy and Climate Change has said the government is carrying out a two-year feasibility study into whether it could support a tidal power project in the Severn estuary.
A spokesman said the study was "still ongoing", but a deadline was not formally set. As the whether it has been shelved, she said: "Not at the moment. Especially not at moment. The next government might want to put it at the heart. It just depends."
11 Comments
View all
by Rachael C Louise, Glos
Tuesday, April 13 2010, 10:13AM
“See, even the fish are mutating!”
by Simon Henly, Eastington
Tuesday, April 13 2010, 9:38AM
“Or a Brown Trout”
by Paul, Cheltenham
Monday, April 12 2010, 11:05PM
“Hi Quedgley Guy
"The River Severn is used for Sewage Disposal ,which would mean that Severn Trent would have to come up with a different way of handling out Human Waste.( An added cost)"
Clearly saying that sewerage goes into the rive how else can you interpret "The River Severn is used for Sewage Disposal"?
No sewage goes into the river only clean water. The river is water so that makes no difference. In fact the treated water is probably cleaner that the existing river!
I understand your dislike of the barrage, but to bring in sewage into the argument is just a red herring.”
by Simon Henly, Eastington
Monday, April 12 2010, 6:04PM
“Surely the answer is in something like the undersea turbine in Strangford Lough, Northern Ireland. This scheme uses something similar to a wind turbine but underwater and does not dam-up the estuary allowing electricity generation from a guaranteed tidal source and does not massivly amage the natural habitat. Everybody happy!”
by Kay Powell, Tredworth
Monday, April 12 2010, 5:40PM
“The barrage was a bad idea from the start, so I am glad that it may not go ahead.”
by Quedgeley Guy, Quedgeley
Monday, April 12 2010, 4:02PM
“Paul,where have I stated that Sewage is not treated before being sent downriver?
My point is that there are extra costs to putting a dam across the Estuary.
Sewage,Dead Animals,Farm Chemicals,Pollution from Ships and more will create a Foulwater Lagoon if the Estuary is dammed.
There are International Issues as well.
The Estuary contains more than one SSSI and is recognised worldwide as a precious resource.
I've never said that Tidal Energy should not be extracted,only that there are better ways to do so than killing the River with a Barrage.”
by Paul, Cheltenham
Monday, April 12 2010, 1:57PM
“Quedgeley Guy,
Are you suggesting that Severn Trent pump untreated sewerage into the river?
My understanding is that all waste is treated before being put back into the river, in fact it is illegal to pump untreated sewerage into a river.
Last year Thames Water was fined more than £15,000 for allowing raw sewage into a river in Oxfordshire, killing hundreds of fish.”
by Quedgeley Guy, Quedgeley
Monday, April 12 2010, 11:19AM
“There are plenty of other ways of using tidal energy that don't involve a Dam.
A Barrage would also have eternal costs as it would need maintenance as would the River.
The River Severn is used for Sewage Disposal ,which would mean that Severn Trent would have to come up with a different way of handling out Human Waste.( An added cost)
Other Barrage installations use what they call Sanitation Ships (an added cost) to remove pollutants.
We tinker with our river at our own risk.
Reduction of electricity use would more than cover the power produced by a Barrage and is easier to achieve.”
by hilary, ledbury
Monday, April 12 2010, 10:31AM
“Good news if it means that eventually one of the several alternative, less damaging, equally productive, schemes available will get the consideration they deserve. So far they've been virtually ignored.”
by Carl Merry, Slimbridge
Monday, April 12 2010, 10:07AM
“Quite agree. Barrage technology totally wrong for the Severn. Google the Petitcodiac in Fundy to see what happened there. I attended many workshops regarding the feasibility study and with regards to effects on navigation and sedimentation build up - there isa high degree of uncertainty in the modelling. That's not acceptable in a multi billion pound project.”