Share
Jon Excell
Editor
The Engineer
Severn Barrage back on the agenda
The news that the government is once again considering proposals to build a hydroelectric barrage across the Severn estuary is a welcome, although not entirely unsurprising development. The project seems to rear its head as predictably as the tides that this monumental piece of engineering would exploit.
The latest proposal put forward by the Corlan Hafren group (a consortium including Halcrow, Arup, Motto MacDonald and Marks Barfield) would see an 11 mile long barrage spanning the Severn estuary between Lavernock Point in South Wales and Brean Down in Somerset.
The scheme - an evolution of a design that was first developed by the Severn Tidal Power Group back in the late 1980s - would, according to its proponents - exploit the huge 14 metre tidal range of the Severn Estuary to generate upto 5 per cent of the UK’s current electricity requirements.
It’s a compelling claim. But why should a project that’s had as many false dawns as the channel tunnel finally see the light of day?
As recently as 2010, former energy secretary Chris Huhne rejected plans to build a publicly-funded barrage on cost grounds. The famously pro-renewables minister said the taxpayer could not afford to finance the £30 bn scheme.
However, MP Peter Hain, who quit government last year to champion the project, has claimed that the barrage could now be built without a penny of public money. Indeed according to reports in The Guardian and on the BBC, much of the funding for the project would come from investors in Qatar and Kuwait.
Of course cost, though perhaps the biggest hurdle to getting the barrage built, is not the only obstacle. Environmental groups remain concerned about its impact on sensitive wetland habitats, whilst, as reported in our 2006 feature on the subject, there are also concerns that a barrage could lead to the silting-up of valuable shipping channels. What’s more, there are harder to define “public acceptance” issues, which voters on our latest poll appear to think will provide a significant challenge for champions of the project.
But with confidence apparently growing that overseas investors will foot the bill for the barrage these are challenges that the engineers behind the latest proposals should be able to find a solution to.
We’re not going to hold our breath - the Severn Barrage was, after all, first proposed over 150 years ago. But the scheme may now be closer than its ever been to fruition and the way in which the government responds to this gathering momentum will say much about its stated commitment to low carbon energy.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page |
Readers' comments (51)
Brian m | 22 Aug 2012 12:59 pm
About time too! Just sad that what might be one of the most important infrastructures builds for the next 100 years will not be UK owned - sad reflection on the UK today.
Guess it frees the Government to
continue wasting money elsewhere...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Robert Harris-Mayes | 22 Aug 2012 1:06 pm
If the Government is serious about green energy then surely this is a no brainer. The power it produces is completely predictable unlike the windmills that ruin the countryside.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Paul Beaumont | 22 Aug 2012 1:18 pm
It has long baffled me why, in the quest for green energy we are not investing every penny we can find in tidal power. As Robert Harris-Mayes points out it is 100% reliable and predictable. I wonder why the oil magnates are so keen to invest? So they can continue their monopoly on the world's current energy resource maybe?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mark Gilbert | 22 Aug 2012 1:23 pm
As electricity consumers, should we not be wary of a scheme that is built with foreign money? What is to stop the investors from charging however much they like for electricity?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rod Leyland | 22 Aug 2012 1:24 pm
The projected cost of HS2 - £32.7bn Projected benefit £41.4bn - £46.9bn over six decades
Severn Barrage projected cost £30bn
Projected benefit - 5% of UK electricity requirement (plus UK based security of a large chunk of of future energy requirement.)
It really is a no-brainer. Scrap HS2 and start building a barrage!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Stephen | 22 Aug 2012 1:32 pm
About time, and as predicatble as ever. Will it happen, even though the Kuwait moneymen are on board? Will the tree-huggers be allowed to delay it until the funds go elsewhere? Amazing that a green project can be scuppered by Greens. Unless government bite the bullet and force it through I bet we will see this as the next great hope in 5 years time, just as the lights go out.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Pat Gill | 22 Aug 2012 1:47 pm
As someone involved with renewable energy for some considerable time, I welcome this news and I don't even live in the UK.
My experience though is that the same type of person who opposes wind energy will also oppose a project such as this no matter how many times in the past such a person declares that the support renewables BUT......
I really hope I am wrong BUT............
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Edwin Carter | 22 Aug 2012 1:51 pm
Is this scheme really so "green"? How much CO2 will be generated by the manufacture of trillions of tonnes of concrete that will be required? It will do irreparable damage to a unique habitat. And the foreign investors are going to want a good return. So the British countryside will be despoiled, and British consumers ripped off, all to line foreign pockets.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Richard Annett | 22 Aug 2012 1:52 pm
I really hope this project gets off the ground. It has huge implications for energy self sufficiency and green energy at that.
The environment is changing. Species are moving north at 10km per decade, so the environment in this area is in flux. It cannot be maintained. The reduced sediment load will encourage more things to live there.
The barrage will provide better flood control to this area.
Please lend it your support.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ida Ducke | 22 Aug 2012 1:55 pm
Welcome? I think not. Had the money been found when the Severn was effectively an open chemical sewer, I think objections would have been few. Now, however, after the time, effort and – yes – money that has been spent in cleaning the area and returning it to the richly diverse ecosystem is had been, then destroying again would be wrong.
I heard an interview on the radio recently in which the “For” interviewee said that the wildlife would be aided by the barrage in that it would not have to deal with such extremes of conditions. A laughable statement: the wildlife on the estuary has evolved to cope with the twice daily extremes. Since the Severn Estuary in one of a handful of places in the world with such an extreme tidal reach, many of the species are unique to the area. Have we a right to condemn them to extinction?
Consider then the migratory birds. The Severn Estuary is one of the most important staging and overwintering areas in the world. Where will the birds go (and how will they know where?) if the mudflats on which they depend are no longer uncovered? Do we understand the consequences of a population crash in a multitude of bird species? What will happen to the food and predator species in their summer breeding grounds? Can you say “ecological disaster”? Who knows how the aftermath of such an event will affect us?
I understand that we need to find alternative methods to feed our power hungry selves (guilty here too), however, I do NOT believe that humans are the most important species, nor that we have the right to annihilate other species for our own selfish needs. We do need to make changes, but we need to be mindful of all the consequences or else we are no better than our Victorian forebears: wonderful engineers who poisoned rivers and caused thousands of extinctions. Balance is what is needed.
In my opinion, one of the things that can help reduce our consumption (the Cinderella side of the energy equation) is the use of low power white goods, so that these can be powered from local and micro generation schemes. Lower distances reduce the need for HV transmission lines, and there are lower transformer losses. EV (electric vehicle) technology may be able to provide some input to this area.
Before anyone cries “NIMBY!”, I’ll point out that I live 250 miles away...only the Dukes of Lancaster and Westminster have backyards that long! ;-)
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment