Take me to the river
Share
First mooted in the 1850s and revived pretty much every decade since, the idea of harnessing the power behind the world’s second largest tidal range is a seductive one.
Of all the renewable energy projects around the UK, the Severn Barrage has probably the longest history. First mooted in the 1850s and revived pretty much every decade since, the idea of harnessing the power behind the world’s second largest tidal range (15m between low and high water) is a seductive one. Now, with the idea of a variety of energy sources firmly in the policy mainstream, it seems that it might finally go ahead.
It would be good to be able to say it will definitely go ahead, but we can’t. With typical British diffidence, the Department of Energy and Climate Change has announced that it has narrowed down its options for a Severn Barrage from a list of 10 down to five, for a final decision at some unspecified point next year.
At least, we think that’s what they’ve announced. It’s difficult to be sure. Secretary of state Ed Miliband also said he ‘had not lost sight’ of some of the other options in the list of 10, and would consider their progress before a final decision.
So that’s perfectly clear, isn’t it? We definitely have five options. Or possibly we still have 10. Some number between five and 10, anyway. And the choice will definitely be between five, unless one of the others suddenly looks more attractive. What a great way to make the engineers working on the various projects feel sure they aren’t wasting their time.
The five shortlisted projects — if it can be called a shortlist — are the 10-mile-long Brean Down to Lavernock Point barrage, which will generate as much electricity as eight power stations; two options for smaller barrages further upstream, which would generate around a megawatt each; and two options for tidal lagoons, one near Weston-super-Mare and one near the Severn Bridges, which would generate 1.36GW. The large barrage is based on well-known, well-researched plans, which date back to the early 1970s; it would cost some £14bn, and has been criticised by environmental and wildlife campaigners, concerned that damming the estuary would harm wetlands and reduce bird and fish life. These campaigners would prefer the lagoon options, which fill as the tide rises, then empty through turbines as it falls, generating electricity as the water runs away.
Other tidal turbine schemes are included in the options of which Miliband has not ‘lost sight’, including a 12-mile artificial reef incorporating floating turbines. Probably the most ambitious proposal, this uses developed but unproven technology, unlike the Brean-Lavernock scheme.
What we’re wondering is, why bother with this shortlist announcement at all? Over the Atlantic, President Obama is still sniffing the fresh paint and new carpet in the Oval Office and is already sounding more serious and businesslike about non-fossil fuel energy than we are; and the UK has better tidal resources than the US. All Miliband’s announcement achieves is making it sound like the government is still dithering. If the turbine options are still under consideration, why leave them out of the shortlist? Surely that means the shortlist is completely bogus? Keep on like this, and the turbine researchers will see their funding start to ebb away like the falling tide; and some other, better financed technology will take its place. And that’ll be another technology niche that the UK could have dominated, but somehow missed.
We’re constantly reporting that the state of the UK’s energy generation is in serious trouble. We report it because that’s what we’re told, by a variety of serious people who know what they’re talking about. Here’s a chance to fill a big part of that gap, while also ensuring that engineers will have a major, well-defined, long-term project to work on through the lean months of recession. And instead, the government makes a maddeningly vague announcement that just points up its unwillingness to make a decision. What a daft idea. Take a deep breath, Ed, and make your mind up. Risk the future of the bird life on a sure thing, or put your faith in technology development. But don’t mess people around. Let’s just have a decision. As the great Al Green said in the song quoted above, put your feet on the ground.
Stuart Nathan
Special Projects Editor
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (11)
mike waring - Take me to the river | 28 Jan 2009 2:47 pm
Well, is the Minister's stance so suprising? The name Miliband says it all - hopeless pair. Mind, it could have been Balls!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Brian - Take me to the river | 28 Jan 2009 3:40 pm
We are running out of power. Nuclear won’t be here before the lights go out, wind power can’t be relied on, coal, gas and oil have their own problems. A high capacity tidal source is needed ASAP. It has to be low risk, it has to produce maximum power, it has to be reliable. This firmly points the finger to the big barrage candidate.
Mud flats and other environmental concerns? These are irrelevant in this decision. Which is more important, birds or humans? Nature will adapt. Don't forget that the mud flats will be gone anyway if global warming continues!
As a rider - Engineering solutions can only buy us time, what we need is a sustainable world population estimated to be at about 20% of current. For those who love control systems – try the calculations….and be afraid, very afraid!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Simon Bedford - Take me to the river | 28 Jan 2009 4:19 pm
Given the urgency and the potential for project drift, I suggest that the government make a decision and stand by it. Any oversites either environmental, humanitarian or civil can be engineered out, but we can not afford to spend too much more time dithering. Stop talking about it and kick something off.
Simon
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Rodger Andrew - Take me to the river | 28 Jan 2009 4:23 pm
Some of us are old enough the remember the 3 day week at the start of 1974 - we were only guaranteed electricity for 3 days, and often had none at all for a couple of days a week. All that remember the candles, the shortages, the cold (it started on 1st Jan) will not be sympathetic to the wetlands and would vote for the maximum power solution any time.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
David Oxnam - Take me to the river | 28 Jan 2009 4:47 pm
I think that any major tidal scheme will need a number of compelling factors to get it off the ground (pun intended!) and this is where Boris Johnson is missing a trick with his Thames airport. If you combine the airport with a tidal generation scheme and new flood defences for London you end up with three compelling reason to build it rather than just one!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Simon Martin - Take me to the river | 28 Jan 2009 5:52 pm
One thing is for certain, we need more power to cope with our own requirements, and not that imported from France, which is costing the consumer twice as much as it does the French consumer. Yet again we are involving politically correct, short term and narrow minded thinking, as well as the now proven lies that lay hidden under the banner of environmental issues. Its time these were omitted from the thinking of Government and the project was agreed quickly and then implemented. This would guarantee some energy to the grid and relieve the pressure on the stations working at full capacity to generate electricity
Project costs should be paid for by Government and the electricity sold off to the suppliers. This would then be able to act as a national development centre to allow any interested parties to develop and test new ideas to either improve electrical production, or to evaluate new ideas and developments. Everyone would benefit: engineers, scientists, product development schemes, and most of all the British consumer.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
peter field - Take me to the river | 28 Jan 2009 6:12 pm
There could be nothing more pleasurable than strolling out along the barrage on a warm day listening to the gentle hum of the turbines and the wildlife of the Bristol Channel. The barrage itself is a romantic engineer's dream. But no! no! no!
It will generate 8000MW for a tiny portion of time and average just over 2000MW, the utilisation factors a commercially disastrous 22%. Its output, in the form of four variable bell shaped curves on a flat 24 hour base, will be a nightmare for the local grid with swings of 8000 to zero MW. Yet all the cabling, switchgear etc has to cater for 8000MW. With Hinckley Point's 2000MW base load, the load swings on normal power plant will be cruel.
No private investors will be interested. This is just the project for Miliband using public money or our beloved "Renewables Obligation" subsidy from consumers.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Maurice - Take me to the river | 28 Jan 2009 6:44 pm
Barrages are good, lagoons are better. Tidal power is good, wave power is good, and solar good too. Combined? Excellent! So why the delay? If you have to sink foundations for barrages or lagoons why not stick up some turbines at the same time? Why only generation on exit from the lagoons? If properly sequenced with multiple lagoons you could be generating power all day or, be blessed, at times of peak demand. When not fully loaded to the grid then electrolyse a bit of water for H2 for all those fuel cells and/or feed to gas turbine or storage. The prospects are breathtaking. It is almost serendipitous that we have an economic need for infrastructure projects and we have one of the most important in the last hundred years just about to be put into play.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Andy Nichols - Take me to the river | 28 Jan 2009 9:01 pm
I have raised the problem of silting in the past and I raise it again. If a barrage is placed across the River Severn, the useful life, without having to burn fossil fuels to dredge, will be very short. Anyone living in the catchment area of the Severn will know that when it rains, the river is full of sediment. Even with the current free flowing, that sediment is deposited, which is why the river has the huge wildlife rich mudflats. A slight reduction in the flow will result in a significant increase in the sediment deposited. This has been demonstrated at Maldon in Essex where water extraction from the river has reduced the flow and it now silts up and requires regular dredging.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
G - Take me to the river | 29 Jan 2009 7:20 am
We need the MAXIMUM power from the Severn estuary. As usual with ANYTHING in overcrowded UK there is a crowd of Eco-Nimby's trying to resist it. Absurd.
If they really want to prevent this, the Eco-Nimby's should be suggesting methods of halving our human population, which is about what these islands could support according to their wishes/designs.
In the case of a complete barrier, the wild life currently occupying the Severn Estuary would re-arrange itself, and there may be beneficial effects/additional wild life afterwards.. See Institution of Civil Engineers Proceedings**
Rgds, JG, Warks.
**Severn Barrage, UK—environmental reappraisal Engineering Sustainability | Volume: 158 | Issue: 1 | Cover Date: 01/03/2005
Pps: 31-39 Author(s): R. Kirby, T. L. Shaw
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment