Proposed Severn Barrage
- Thread starter Geri
- Start date
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.
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..
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
Bring back hanging
chymaera said:
What makes you say this?
chymaera said:
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.butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Are there feasibility studies that say this?
mauvais
on reddit or something
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.
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.
baldrick
hmmmmm
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
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
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..
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..
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.
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.
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.
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
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
HELLO! CHECK THE LINKS ON MY POST!
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.
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.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Interesting comments on the interested parties on the wiki item:
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...
wiki said:
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...
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
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.
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.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
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.
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.
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
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
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...
spacemonkey
I Love Noodles
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!
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.
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 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.
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..
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..
