proposed Severn barrage

[Earth Hart]

Originally Posted by nightshade

There is a film (the name of which I have forgotten) being publicised byAl Gore
which may well change a lot of peoples thinking on this subject

The film is "An Inconvenient Truth" the website: An Inconvenient Truth.
Sadly, it only tells of showings in the US, and there's a book.

[nick_rowe]

Originally Posted by Earth Hart

The film is "An Inconvenient Truth" the website: An Inconvenient Truth.
Sadly, it only tells of showings in the US, and there's a book.

I think it will be showing here soon too. I've seen some advertising for it but it doesn't mention a release date.....

On the energy debate, the ONLY sensible course of action is to focus our actions of reducing our electricity demand, as a country as a whole. It's basic, simple and easy for every household (and council, business etc) in the country to reduce it's usage by a few percent (say 10-20%). If we don't waste it then we won't need to go through the unsustainable and environmentally damaging route of building new large power stations, whether nuclear or tidal. Then let's align our reduced demand with the decommissioning of existing stations and the cleaning up of existing ones. Nuclear is absolutely not the way to go for so many reasons (local AND global). It is inconcievable that it can be successfully agued for, when pitched against improved energy efficiency. I've just finished an OU course called "Working with our environment - Technology for a sustainable future" and Energy was one of the main topics. I'm no expert but it's not complicated stuff to grasp!

We have to see THROUGH the panic, political and big business manuvouering and headlines to see the "boring" option of simply reducing demand. And we must remember this DOESN'T mean using candles instead of electric lights , that will be the tabloid headlines arguing for nuclear. It means making sensible decisions, and nothing more.

[Earth Hart]

Nick,
What do you suggest, apart from energy saving appliances, square miles of windfarms & hectares of solar pannels. Think what would be left of the wilderness, what wilderness. Without new Nuclear Power plants being built over the next 10 years and more major investment into Wave/Tidal energy production now, we could be left with power stations at the end of their usefulness & a lack of energy production that could spell a major crisis in the running of our lives all because we were afraid of the Big NP. There was a time when I was against NP but over the years I've come to know more about it. The scare stories in the media, it will lead to more bombs, Bxxxxxks!

At the moment, right now, we have to reduce not only CO2 emissions but all GHGs if we are to slow down GW. Remember, what we put out today on Earth takes about 20-30yrs. to reach the Stratosphere, aircraft get it nearly there in just a few minutes. So what is the way forward?

Am going off-line for dinner, my stomach's rumbling.

[nick_rowe]

Originally Posted by Earth Hart

Nick,
What do you suggest, apart from energy saving appliances, square miles of windfarms & hectares of solar pannels. Think what would be left of the wilderness, what wilderness. Without new Nuclear Power plants being built over the next 10 years and more major investment into Wave/Tidal energy production now, we could be left with power stations at the end of their usefulness & a lack of energy production that could spell a major crisis in the running of our lives all because we were afraid of the Big NP. There was a time when I was against NP but over the years I've come to know more about it. The scare stories in the media, it will lead to more bombs, Bxxxxxks!

At the moment, right now, we have to reduce not only CO2 emissions but all GHGs if we are to slow down GW. Remember, what we put out today on Earth takes about 20-30yrs. to reach the Stratosphere, aircraft get it nearly there in just a few minutes. So what is the way forward?

Am going off-line for dinner, my stomach's rumbling.

Nationally, yes we've proven that nuclear is a reliable source of electricity to a certain degree. The problem as I see it is that because we are dealing with a global problem, any solutions have to be available to all countries and sustainable. Are we willing to allow every country to have nuclear capabilities? Or is this not the route we want to go down? The politics surrounding Iran come to mind And if more countries use it, the issue of nuclear waste would become a much more difficult problem to solve than it is already, with proportionally more environmental hazards involved.

The other issue is "energy security". Surely it is undesireable for countries to be dependant upon imports of energy or fuel. Uranium goes all round the world before it arrives in our nuclear plants - from huge open cast mines in Australia to Germany for processing then to the Uk for use (so far as I remember!).

As with food etc, local produce is best for security and reliability, and this applies to energy as well. New building designs (like at the BedZed project in London) show how this can work in practice. Small-scale, local Combined Heat and Power stations can also offer much more efficient energy systems because they minimise transmission losses.

What I'm worried about is that nuclear power will be favoured by the government largely because it has been lobbied so hard for by the industry. We must take the LONG view and consider the true costs of our energy production and not leave a terrible legacy for our children.

Oh, yes, we must protect our precious wilderness areas, absolutely! That's the beauty of bringing the energy production closer to the populated areas that need it...

[Earth Hart]

When it comes to places like Iran, we should look at the whole picture not the little bit the media & gov put out. Latest is the report by the UN nuclear watchdog, it shows that the US dossier on Iran is mainly a fabrication just like WMD. Yes, the president of Iran has come out with some harsh words but then, look at Israel sticking two fingers up to the UN and doing what it wants to with the backing, financial, political & millitary(ordinance & delivery systems) from the US. If & when the State of Palistine is achieved then there is the likelihood for peace in the Middle East, yet the millitary industrial complex survives on war & conflict...

I whole heartedly urge you to read Jim Lovelock's book "The Revenge of Gaia". It answers a lot on energy production apart from being a very worhtwhile book for our age.

I've been to BedZed, it's great and so is CHP. All this is fine for living spaces but what about the energy needed that powers our economy.

There's no point in taking the Long view if we take a long time to act. In 20yrs it'll be too late, for by then CC will be truly irreversible. Then my Grandaughter will be 32, what are her children going to think about the fact that we did nothing at the time it was most needed? Please don't be afraid of Nuclear Power, it's your fear that blinds you to the whole picture. The fact that cancers are so low, lower than expected, that wildlife have taken over Chernobyl and are thriving, animals have been checked and show good health. In Japan, the case is the same, in Nagasaki & Hiroshima cancers are so low as to be normal. It is a shame that the Bomb came before we got into NP.

I think I'll have to put together a new thread re: The Whole Picture. It will be a bit of a rant, so whatch this space.

[nightshade]

Hi EA,that new laptop is earning its keep

[Earth Hart]

Originally Posted by nightshade

Hi EA,that new laptop is earning its keep

It sure is, nightshade. About time too. I'm glad to be here and hopefully get some things off my antlers. Just hope I can be of service.

[nightshade]

I thought it was Hern that had the antlers

[Earth Hart]

Originally Posted by nightshade

I thought it was Hern that had the antlers

He does and so does Earth Hart

[tabbykitten]

This is all a bit off topic but:

I totally agree about the US, its attitude to the UN and its support of the state of Israel. I always thought that this was a combination of big business (especially arms dealers) and powerful Jewish communities in the States.

Watched a really worrying programme on BBC2 last night with Tony Robinson (whom saints preserve) about American fundamentalist Christians and their take on the Book of Revelation. These groups are actively working towards a literal Armageddon as it is seen as a Biblical prophecy.

I am very pro Palestinian. Naturally don't agree with things some Palestinians do, but I have had some close acquaintance with Palesinians living in Britain and the stories they tell make your hair stand on end.

I have also met many, Iraqi and Iranian women through voluntary work in the UK. The vast majority of them feel that all governments hide the real truth to serve their own purposes.

I'm not quite sure where this post is leading other than to support my political stance. I tend to be very wary of ANYTHING that is proposed - especially in terms of solving the energy crisis.

[Earth Hart]

Originally Posted by tabbykitten

This is all a bit off topic but:

I totally agree about the US, its attitude to the UN and its support of the state of Israel. I always thought that this was a combination of big business (especially arms dealers) and powerful Jewish communities in the States.

Watched a really worrying programme on BBC2 last night with Tony Robinson (whom saints preserve) about American fundamentalist Christians and their take on the Book of Revelation. These groups are actively working towards a literal Armageddon as it is seen as a Biblical prophecy.

I am very pro Palestinian. Naturally don't agree with things some Palestinians do, but I have had some close acquaintance with Palesinians living in Britain and the stories they tell make your hair stand on end.

I have also met many, Iraqi and Iranian women through voluntary work in the UK. The vast majority of them feel that all governments hide the real truth to serve their own purposes.

I'm not quite sure where this post is leading other than to support my political stance. I tend to be very wary of ANYTHING that is proposed - especially in terms of solving the energy crisis.

Personally, it's not straying from the topic, which when it come down to it, is about energy production. In dealing with this we have to look at it globally as a whole not just one little bit. The Petro-dollar & the USA are taking the Earth to a point of NO RETURN, at least for a thousand years or more, and in their haste they have forgotten who come after.

There is no humanity in the Bush Administration,. Look at the way they dealt with Katrina, the US has its own Environmental Refugees, they still have over 25000 families still without homes, water, power and sanitation a year + after the event that devistated New Orleans. I can feel a rant coming on, so I'll leave before I get going. I don't want to loose my head, it's the only one I've got & there's a lot to be done.

[Mr Mag00]

apart from energy saving appliances, square miles of windfarms & hectares of solar pannels.

this above really ticks me off! why are people still talking about square miles of mind farms and hectares of solar panels when there is very little discussion of micro generation we already have vast areas of roof on domestic, industrial of commercial buildings. why take more countryside miles from where the power is required, put wind turbines on industrial estates. I can t be bothered to type anymore tired to much correction required, you get the drift.....

[nightshade]

Mr magoo I agree with you there is no necessity to take up more
of our precious countryside with the monstrosities that are thrust
upon us it is sad that more money is spent on wars to keep short
term oil than it would take to give most of the country solar panels
or build some efficient low waste nuclear stations

[nick_rowe]

Originally Posted by Earth Hart

When it comes to places like Iran, we should look at the whole picture not the little bit the media & gov put out. Latest is the report by the UN nuclear watchdog, it shows that the US dossier on Iran is mainly a fabrication just like WMD. Yes, the president of Iran has come out with some harsh words but then, look at Israel sticking two fingers up to the UN and doing what it wants to with the backing, financial, political & millitary(ordinance & delivery systems) from the US. If & when the State of Palistine is achieved then there is the likelihood for peace in the Middle East, yet the millitary industrial complex survives on war & conflict...

I whole heartedly urge you to read Jim Lovelock's book "The Revenge of Gaia". It answers a lot on energy production apart from being a very worhtwhile book for our age.

I've been to BedZed, it's great and so is CHP. All this is fine for living spaces but what about the energy needed that powers our economy.

There's no point in taking the Long view if we take a long time to act. In 20yrs it'll be too late, for by then CC will be truly irreversible. Then my Grandaughter will be 32, what are her children going to think about the fact that we did nothing at the time it was most needed? Please don't be afraid of Nuclear Power, it's your fear that blinds you to the whole picture. The fact that cancers are so low, lower than expected, that wildlife have taken over Chernobyl and are thriving, animals have been checked and show good health. In Japan, the case is the same, in Nagasaki & Hiroshima cancers are so low as to be normal. It is a shame that the Bomb came before we got into NP.

I think I'll have to put together a new thread re: The Whole Picture. It will be a bit of a rant, so whatch this space.

I haven't read this book yet, so thanks for recommending it - i will read it soon. I hope to be "converted" but it will take some doing ! I must admit though I'd read the opposite about chernobyl, that the generations of birth defects were continuing at a high rate... I forget how many thousands are currently affected but it was very high. It was an unbelievably horrific event that mustn't happen again and I don't see how increasing the number of nuclear stations can possibly reduce this risk. But, anyway I will read the book because as yet I haven't read a pro-nuclear argument from a non-business/government person. I'm very interested to hear how the advantages and disadvantages are weighed. Again I'm mean against just reducing energy use. "Electricity efficiency" can become a boom industry as soon as electricity is more accurately priced to reflect it's actual impact on the environment during production.

Just to get back to the proposed Severn barrage, I think it is a feasible way to generate a lot of reliable power, but the project would most likely end up being an extortionately expensive mistake, dogged by difficulties and unacceptably severe local environmental end ecological damage. By the way, has anyone calculated the amount of "embodied energy" that would make up the barrage? I.e. the mining and transportation of building materials, the fuel used during construction? I've no idea what it would be but would bet it is a collosal figure and one which is often forgotten about when discussing big building projects. My view is that this cost and energy would be far better utilised in education about reducing our total electricity demand as a country, then there would be no need to build the barrage. The economy will continue to grow through technological developments, it's just that these will increasingly focus on saving electricity. It's a huge, difficult problem though , particularly when the governments of most nations don't show any real mettle when it comes to the global environment.

[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.

[nightshade]

If America got is finger out and cut CO2 it could at least buy a little time
I have seen that a group of industrialists are trying to force the issue

[xestop1]

Tabby...this is a bit of a delayed reaction...


When you say success on what terms are you rating this. Of course commercially a lot of money has been made and Cardiff as a City has thrived around this development. Unfortunatley this is at the expense of the wildlife within the estuary area. Long gone are the tidal mud flats for the feeding birds. Now to stop the pond going stagnant air is artificailly pumped into the water from massive pipes, using god knows howuch energy...just a thought. Sahme that it has come to this. Not very sustainable is it?

Originally Posted by tabbykitten

I was down in Cardiff Bay last weekend. That whole development does seem to have been a success, despite the scare mongers.

I've also visited Yorkshire recently and the wind turbines on the moors certainly don't add to the environment. I also saw the huge cross country gas pipeline that was being dug. Apparently it will not be detrimental to the environment but the cost was out of this world.

We just have to accept that cheap renewable energy is a necessity but I will always be concerned about safety factors on nuclear waste and accidents in power stations

[tabbykitten]

Cardiff Bay and success - mostly in terms of redeveloping a run down area. I agree with you about the problems with oxygenating the water, there is also a massive prob with some sort of japanese mussel, inedible apparently but develops rapidly in areas where there is minimal tidal flow.

In terms of the mud flats that the feeding birds depended on, I understand that flocks are now to be seen further along the coast, down past Penarth, towards Newport and along the Severn estuary.At the moment anyway. There is also a long standing plan to drain a large part of the Gwent levels - to build a new M4 - which would wreck a large area of wetland (and also affect remaining mud flats).

What it boils down to is that continued building projects of all sorts in the name of progress just have to be looked at with a wider environmental picture.

[xestop1]

"Gwent levels" development -

Originally Posted by tabbykitten

Cardiff Bay and success - mostly in terms of redeveloping a run down area. I agree with you about the problems with oxygenating the water, there is also a massive prob with some sort of japanese mussel, inedible apparently but develops rapidly in areas where there is minimal tidal flow.

In terms of the mud flats that the feeding birds depended on, I understand that flocks are now to be seen further along the coast, down past Penarth, towards Newport and along the Severn estuary.At the moment anyway. There is also a long standing plan to drain a large part of the Gwent levels - to build a new M4 - which would wreck a large area of wetland (and also affect remaining mud flats).

What it boils down to is that continued building projects of all sorts in the name of progress just have to be looked at with a wider environmental picture.

[Charles Halliday]

Sorry - I don't have the time to through this whole thread, but can anyone advise me if there is a petition, campaign or lobby group set up yet. I know the RSPB and FoE have expressed concerns about the recent sustainable energy report 2007 that says it should go ahead...

[JennyS]

Sorry, know its a bit off thread, but picking up on some earlier posts here does anyone still remember Chernobyl?

a non polluting, safe energy source like nuclear power. unless you are another victim of the continued campaigns of misinormation against nuclear technology.
We need energy, we need low carbon generatation, we need a reliable source thatwill not destroy the environment. Nuclear can meet all these requirements.

Ok, so the wildlife might well be returning there (to start replacing all the wildlife that was destroyed) but there are many, many, many people still suffering the effects, let alone the effects that will be suffered by generations to come.

Yes we do need a reliable source that will not destroy the enviroment, but I don't think thats an honest or accurate description of nuclear energy!

[Chiltern Chris]

I’m totally opposed to the barrage for many reasons but I can see that the government will think it’s a good idea. The Severn has about 75% of the country’s viable tidal power and with one big hit it can all be harvested, rather than mucking around with dozens of smaller schemes, all of which will require public inquiries, don’t provide much energy and virtually all destroy sites of European importance.

The decision to go ahead with the barrage or not will be decided for overarching political reasons and the wildlife issues only come into the reckoning regarding the cost of compensation habitat.

The compensation for 1400ha of intertidal habitat (a legal necessity under EU law and accepted by the Sustainable Development Commission) plus a few other bits and bobs has been estimated at approx £3 billion for the Severn barrage. The biggest problems I have with this, besides the technical feasibility are a) the present intertidal areas are sustainable as they are a result of ongoing natural processes. Any replacement habitat will need to be either need to be placed on existing freshwater SSSI – which then also needs to be replaced and b) probable be part of a limited tidal exchange mechanism which is regulated by man. Whilst this is OK in the short term, it’s unlikely to be sustainable in the long term as the site will need both revenue and capital costs to keep it going in the future. It may also need replacement in the next century due to sea level rise.

There’s also a bigger national picture here based on what’s called coastal squeeze. Many of our intertidal SPAs are situated between the sea and our coastal flood defences. Sea level rise means that unless these areas are moved inland behind the defences that they will disappear under the sea. It’s complicated but most of these areas must be moved due to EU law to maintain them in good ecological condition. Therefore, we presently have a number of authorities e.g. the Environment Agency and Planning Authorities desperately looking for compensation sites around the coast for coastal squeeze compensation sites. They are having big problems finding areas which are suitable and sustainable. Add the Severn barrage compensation requirement to the coastal squeeze list along with other barrage proposals and port developme