[svenrufus]

Hi all
In my continuing trawl of WAB and finding old posts, here's one from September.
A lot of debate about a lot of things has been had.

One thing I didn't see was any reference to an alternative Severn Barrage Renewable proposal. This one is not a barrage, it is a series of mini-lagoons which hold water in key areas, but do not block off the whole estuary. The construction costs are less, the quantities of materials used are much less, the energy yield - according to some studies I have looked at but it is not always clear - are in the same neck of the woods as the barrage, and it can be delivered a hell of a lot quicker. As their are several independant lagoons, there is also more flexibility in being able to hold water back for power generation at peak times than the single barrage offers. I am implacably opposed to the barrage, but I think the lagoons are an excellent alternative. There will besome ecological impact, but nowhere near the scale that the barrage would produce.

As for nuclear, I was chatting with some energy researchers at SPRU at Sussex Uni the other day and with no axe to grind, they felt nuclear was not a good option. Never mind any accident risk, waste issues etc, their view was that nuclear actually doesn't solve the CO2 problem anyway. It seems that the CO2 costs of extracting and purifying the fuel, the costs and materials used in constructing the site and the cost and effort needed to store and process waste were actually getting to the point where over the lifecycle of the nuclear power station there is almost as much CO2 from nuclear as there is from conventional fossil fuel based power.

Add to this the idea of contingency energy, which is the need for back up provision in case of failure. If a nuclear plant goes down for some reason (as many of ours are at the moment, kind of negating the supposed 20% contribution they make to our energy mix) you need conventional fossil power stations on standby to fill the gap and avoid blackouts. This is an issue that has been held up against the use of renewables - that they are not dependable and need back up which adds more CO2 to the atmosphere eve when the renewables are working. My energy researcher contacts felt that nuclear carried this risk more than renewables, so adds even more to our climate change contribution.

If we use small scale renewables (ie domestic solar, mini turbines, ground heat pumps etc) the continuity of supply is more steady, the need for back up is reduced, it is better for local economies and can be delivered in a space of a few months rather than the 20+ years that a barrage or nuclear power plant would require.

That said energy efficiency and conservation is the first step. I have just got round to getting cavity wall insulation filled. How long have I been banging on about the need for people to sort their own houses out first, and actually haven't done the simplest, most cost effective and quick returning thing myself? We all need to do our bit as well as badgering 'the powers that be' to do the right thing themselves.