ENERGY Secretary Chris Huhne paved the way for a new power station at Oldbury but shelved plans for a Severn barrage for at least five years.

I'm glad to hear that the severn barrage has been shelved - its very expensive and in fact would destroy beautiful and valuable estuary ecosystems (pictured) and some land on either side too. [Interesting to read in the story below that my MP Dawn Primarolo thinks the barrage is actually a green idea - she's never understood what green action means].


The pro-nuclear stance of the Govt is wrong however because nuclear leaves an extremely expensive and extremely toxic legacy of nuclear waste for future generations. Its very much the wrong technology choice, with the prospect of large delays and cost overruns too.

While we are so very wasteful and inefficient with our energy use how can we justify building any kind of power station?

ENERGY Secretary Chris Huhne paved the way for a new power station at Oldbury but shelved plans for a Severn barrage for at least five years.

Unique ecology of the Severn Estuary

John Tanner’s letter dismisses the impacts of building a huge barrage across the Severn as inconveniencing an unnaturally large bird population (‘Setting the record straight on the Severn barrage’, Open Lines, February 5). Bridgewater Tory MP Iain Liddle-Grainger implies a similar sentiment by saying ‘…build a barrage, to hell with the RSPB’ ( ‘Make your minds up’, Post, February 5). What an ill-informed and ill-considered response they give to this complex issue. They should have more respect for the natural world.

The Severn Estuary supports very important habitats. Its ecology is unique. Strong protection under international law exists for such environments and rightly so. Building a huge barrage from Weston-Super-Mare to Cardiff would have very significant impacts on the estuary, its wildlife and landscape. Implications for navigation and flooding are also serious.

Its not just green pressure groups that are expressing grave concerns about a huge barrage and calling for serious consideration of tidal lagoons, tidal stream turbines or a tidal reef. Government bodies like the Environment Agency and Natural England are worried too. They think that a barrage has many implications, including legal ones. They too feel there should be serious consideration of less damaging ways of tapping the Severn's tidal energy.

Tidal energy from the Severn Estuary: Yes...but not at the price of estuary destruction!

The Severn Barrage issue is in the news, with the shortlisting of five tidal energy options. Its a mixed picture, with some good and some bad sides.


Lots of talk about tidal energy and not enough debate and action on having a proper energy strategy. A correctly prioritised energy strategy would put energy efficiency top of the list - why not insulate all homes at no cost to the occupiers (such a scheme quickly pays for itself in saved energy, and thus lower bills, and rapidly reduced carbon emissions)??


Its good news that tidal lagoons will be considered. They offer large amounts of affordable and renewable power at low environmental cost to the estuary.


Its bad news that tidal reefs/fences are not on the list (though they will apparently get money to develop the idea). They too promise lower impacts.


Its even worse news that the Brean/Weston-Super-Mare to Cardiff barrage is on the shortlist. Its environmental impacts are huge and amount to destruction of the estuary. This fails the EU Directive on Habitats and Birds.


More here: http://www.stopthebarrage.com/

Make the right energy choices!

Green energy policy is first about efficiency and conservation, including funding free insulation for all homes (details here) which has the major advantages of avoiding means testing and maximising energy (and money) saving. The health, security, comfort and quality of our lives would all be much better for it - and the energy security of our country! We of course favour renewable energy sources like wind, solar and tidal power in general terms too. Getting a proper overall energy strategy is vital if we are to have the right emphasis on the right kinds of technologies in the right places eg Greens reject a Barrage across the Severn in favour of other tidal energy technologies like tidal lagoons and tidal stream turbines. Greens in the South West and in Wales are supporting the Stop the Barrage Now campaign, which has launched recently, and I'm very happy to be doing the liaison with this campaign for the party.

Environment Agency boss bashes barrage

Powerful opposition to a huge, fixed Severn Barrage from the new man in charge on the Environment Agency (reported here). Lord Smith (Labour's Chris Smith, formerly in the Blair Cabinet as Culture, Media and Sport Secretary) talked of the barrage: destroying fish stocks; wrecking bird habitats; threatening beautiful coastlines; causing many people to be evacuated; having major environmental downsides. Well said Chris! Former Environment Agency boss Baroness Young feels that a barrage across the irreplaceable estuary habitat could set a precedent, leading to similarly protected sites across Europe being at risk. Well said again! What worries me is that none of this is really news - these things were being said twenty or more yrs ago but it has not stopped people in Govt and others of various political persuasions from favouring a barrage!! This is only the environmental aspect; there is a huge and powerful energy strategy, technological and economic case against too.

Severn barrage: not cost-effective (now there's a surprise - NOT!)

The Frontier Economics report into the Severn Barrage is damning ('Severn barrage is the costly option', Bristol Evening Post, 12 June). Statements like 'the barrage is one of the most expensive options for clean energy generation there is' and 'Considerable new evidence would be needed to make a large barrage in the Severn estuary an attractive option' mean that its simply not cost-effective when compared to the range of clean, green energy sources that can be used, including some that could be deployed to harness the tidal energy from the estuary. This should be no great surprise considering the massive, resource intensive and time consuming civil engineering exercise needed to get the barrage, in contrast with the rapidly developing field of new renewable energy technologies. Yes to renewable energy, including tidal energy, but lets have the most appropriate technologies deployed according to a properly planned, cost-effective energy strategy.

I've been plugging away with this message on the barrage for some time now! (see here for a whole string of postings with this very message about the dodgy economics of the barrage in them).

Barrage: more reports needed after the...er...report has been completed

This story is a great illustration of why huge civil engineering projects like the Severn Barrage can probably never be an effective and efficient way to tackle climate change or our energy security needs (Barrage - 'we need yet more research', Bristol Evening Post, 23 Jan 08). They are extremely expensive, complex, and time-consuming - and the expenditure of money and time begins with the compilation of report after report, after report...which in the end may lead us, at great expense, nowhere, as it has in the past. Why aren't we focussing in big-time on the most cost-effective and prompt option - energy efficiency and conservation - since the waste of energy is currently even worse than the waste of water through leaks and poor habits!!

Barrage might hinder 'green port' development

A powerful contribution to the public debate on the severn barrage/tidal energy from the Bristol Port Company today. They are concerned that barrage plans are not commercially viable, would cause real environmental problems and would hinder their plans for a deep water dock .

They claim that a deep water dock would cut lorry journeys (and thus carbon emissions) by allowing goods to be delivered closer to towns/cities.

I see their point about a barrage hindering the potentially 'green development' of the port.

Energy policy: go 'sexy' or go sensible??

A lot of very good points on the tidal energy debate are made here by Roger Crudge. I would add that we also must not forget that energy efficiency and energy conservation are the greenest, most cost-effective and most rapid way to fight climate change and build energy security because it lowers demand.

Many elected politicians seem to prefer to associate themselves with a big, sexy civil engineering project, probably linked to an awful lot of profitable (possibly unsustainable) ancilliary development, than with the most sensible energy option.

Inaccurate, unbalanced Evening Post story on major tidal energy report by the Sustainable Development Commission: Why??

Todays Bristol Evening Post story about the Sustainable Development Commission’s report into the barrage and tidal energy, released yesterday, is inaccurate and unbalanced. It chooses to focus in on one small part of the major report, tidal lagoons - just one alternative to the barrage - omits several key points emphasised by the Commission, and doesn’t even get the number of pages right (it actually has more than ten times the pages stated in the story). Accuracy and balance are obviously valued qualities in a good news story, doubly so for a major and complex issue like the barrage.

For the record:

1. The Commission emphasise that the barrage would have to meet tough tests to be considered a sustainable, green project. Not mentioned in the story.

2. The report states that the barrage would have to comply with environmental legislation protecting the estuary. Not written about by the Post.

3. The report emphasises that very large scale compensatory habitat creation should be seen as an opportunity. Not a dicky bird in the story on this though.

4. The report says that going for tidal power should not result in ignoring the dramatic reductions in our energy consumption, increased energy efficiency and decarbonisation of our energy supplies, that are needed. No coverage of this vital point though.

The Post’s story does cover the Commissions view, challenging the government position, that any barrage project should be publicly led and owned – perhaps the key economic issue – but does not put this in what should be its proper place, at the head of the piece, instead putting it in the middle.

What’s more, the story’s main line, that tidal lagoons are considered no better than a barrage by the Commission, is not based on an accurate reading of their report. Their report in fact says that not enough is currently known about the practicalities of tidal lagoons to make firm decisions, so pilot work should be done on them to find out more.

Informed readers following this issue may be wondering why comments from barrage sceptics, like the RSPB and Green Party, accurately included in the story, broadly welcome a report apparently criticising one of their more favoured tidal energy options! This is because the RSPB and Green comments reflect the report accurately and the Post’s story does not.

Dose of realism from the Sustainable Development Commission in its tidal energy report brings us back down to earth

The Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) report released today represents a good dose of realism for the government on the tidal energy issue, after it decided to announce an investigation into 'the Severn Barrage' in the middle of a party conference where it would gain maximum publicity and green 'kudos' - not the most balanced start for a major project.

The SDC says that the barrage must pass tough tests to be considered sustainable. Quite right.

SDC comments should be very broadly welcomed because they bring us back to properly weighing up the alternatives, in the context of energy strategy as a whole, which should have energy efficiency as its leading concept.

Getting the assessment of technology right: Severn Barrage or other tidal energy extraction methods for instance

Its now emerged that alternatives to the 10 mile long Severn Barrage proposal will also be examined as part of the 'barrage' feasibility study. This is good news, though its a concern that the big barrage, and all the profit-loaded development that comes with it, is what is obviously being favoured - boosting renewable energy supply and energy security, with minimal impacts should surely be the uppermost consideration. Interesting that Labour's Cabinet Minister for Business...John Hutton chose to announce the barrage study in the middle of a party conference, getting lots of media coverage and 'green' kudos, instead of waiting for the Sustainable Development Commission to report (which it will this Monday!!).

Its vital that we get the technology assessment right, to establishment the proposal with the best combination of benefits, especially renewability, security and low impact (they could do a lot worse than seeking OU advice !). The assessment should, for all alternatives, look at: cost-effectiveness now and on into the future; technical capabilities and limitations; impact on the economy and working lives now and on into the future; impact on the natural environment and other system environments now and into the future.

I'm strongly of the opinion that we are far too 'energy generation obsessed' and are seriously under-investing in far less sexy but much more sensible energy efficiency and conservation. This, as the cheapest, quickest and most effective way to fight climate change, by orders of magnitude, should really be the basis of energy policy.

Massive potential for overspend building a 10 mile barrage

We cant build the Redland Green local secondary school to budget. Bath's spa project was three times over budget and six yrs late. Wembley Stadium was massively delayed and cost nothing like original estimates. Ok, each project had their own particular problems, but even so who thinks that we can build a 10 mile long Severn Barrage on time and within its estimated £15 billion (£15,000,000,000) budget? As with many big projects it wont just be private money that's involved - there will have to be local and national government involvement.

We really should ask whether investing in a huge barrage is the most effective and efficient way to spend money becoming greener. How many millions of houses could be made ultra energy efficient within months with spending on this scale, massively cutting carbon emissions? Private and public money going into the barrage isn't available to spend elsewhere, on what could be better projects.

Severn barrage: outmoded, overpriced, destructive

Great letter on the Severn Barrage issue in todays Bristol Evening Post from Redland's Carl Turville, opposing barrage support given by Bristol West Lib Dem MP Stephen Williams. The points against the big barrage project are true and very telling indeed, though I'm not so keen on the opening jibe or as confident as the writer about the intentions of Russia I have to say (so lets build up our energy security).

The big barrage is indeed outmoded and overpriced as well as destructive. New energy efficiency and renewable technologies are rapidly coming along that are better. They are often homegrown.

It is vital that we harness the best and most appropriate technologies - they wont destroy wild, green places that need protection.

Severn Barrage wont help to stop 'threat from Russia' for many yrs!

The principle of investing in renewable energy sources in part to diversify supply and build energy security is an excellent one. Many people, Greens in particular, have been calling for such investment for decades. Unfortuneately it hasn’t really happened on any significant scale, despite the fact that we seem to be increasingly reliant on fuels like gas and coal from abroad.

Liberal Democrat MP for Bristol West Stephen Williams is, however, talking out of his hat by giving the 10 mile long Severn Barrage proposal as an example of enhancing energy security worth highlighting. Supposedly this is a renewable energy development that will ‘help to stave off power supply threats from Russia’ because ‘Putin is starting to use energy supply as a weapon against Western Europe’ (‘Barrage will stop threat from Russia’, Bristol Evening Post, Sept 17th).

As an absolutely massive civil engineering project the Severn Barrage will of course take many years to design, approve, construct and get into full operation and so cannot offer us any increase in energy security until it is. So - contrary to the headline and Stephen Williams words - it wont stop the threat from Russia, which is happening right now and in the critical decade to come (perhaps even as we construct our barrage if we ever got round to it)!

On these grounds the barrage cant help us fight climate change for some time either – in fact because of the many tonnes of concrete, steel and fuel used in construction it would add to climate change until the carbon free energy production makes up for it. Yet science tells us that the coming decade is the most critical one for fighting climate change and establishing better energy security.

To build our energy security (and fight climate change) more rapidly what we really need, and what Stephen Williams should be highlighting, is a very much larger energy efficiency, insulation and conservation program, sufficient to significantly lower energy demand, combined with the introduction of 'feed-in tariffs' to boost domestic 'micro-generation' of energy. These policies work faster, are truly green, and along with the introduction of individual carbon allowances, annual emissions cuts of nine per cent, plus investment in renewables generally, represent the next generation of low or zero carbon energy strategies.

Tidal Energy from the Severn - Small is Beautiful

Its good to see the Severn Barrage issue covered in the Bristol Evening Post (‘Barrage Fans in Severn Heaven Now’, May 22) but why is the debate currently so narrowly focussed? I was disappointed to read about ‘the scheme’ discussed as if the only way to extract the energy is by going for the well publicised ten mile barrage.

Many agree that we have a fantastic natural, renewable resource here that we can and should harness energy from. However, its seems that we still have not acknowledged that the scale of a development is often a key feature of whether it is green or not. Have we forgotten that famous green book ‘Small is Beautiful’ by EF Schumacher?

The huge scale of the ten mile barrage means huge costs and significant potential for costs to spiral due to the unforeseen technical problems and time delays that so often arise on such projects. If we in the UK cant build Wembley Stadium on time and within budget can we expect to build a £14 billion, ten mile long barrage as originally intended?

Yes, a feasibility study into tidal energy from the Severn is a very good idea but it would be very short-sighted not to study other energy extraction methods such as tidal lagoons and tidal stream turbines (already being researched off the Devon Coast) at the same time. If we don’t get the technological assessment method right we could be missing out on the scheme that best combines effective and efficient energy generation with minimal environmental impacts.

Let's protect our wetlands !!

World Wetlands Day is coming up soon, on Friday 2 February. The Convention on Wetlands, sometimes called the Ramsar Convention, was adopted on that day in 1971, in the Iranian city of Ramsar. All sorts of organisations, particularly green ones, have taken advantage of having a World Wetlands Day to raise public awareness of the value of wetlands and the importance that should be attached to their protection from development. One possible threat to wetlands in the region is the Severn Barrage of course.

Our wetlands include: the ponds in our gardens and parks as well as naturally formed ones; rivers like the Avon, Severn and Frome; reedbeds; and bogs. A very large variety of plants and animals live in these habitats which are prized by nature lovers and seekers of leisure and recreation. They are very important for our bodiversity as well as fulfilling a key role in storing flood water. Vitally now that climate change is bringing more weather extremes, wetlands reduce flooding in built-up areas.

Climate change is now a reality. Rising sea levels, warmer, drier summers, stormier winds and wetter winters are features we are seeing. Wetlands soak up water like sponges, allowing it to drain away into the ground in a controlled way in times of flood risk. As a result less reaches our towns and cities, where it can be very damaging. Wetlands are a buffer between the sea and inland development - absorbing the storm energy and acting as a storage area for high tides.

Wetlands protect areas where people live. A lot of work has been and is being done to restore drained and damaged wetlands. New ones are being established across the UK including restoring traditional ‘washlands’, putting the bends back in straightened-out rivers, and creating large areas of reedbed, which act to clean polluted water. 400 hectares were produced by the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust alone in 2004/5.

Greens feel that valuing wetlands is the right thing to do for future generations and appeal to people to continue to support their rivers, ponds reedbeds and bogs. They are often of high aesthetic value because of their form, appearance and beauty. They are highly valuable ecosytems, benefitting both human and non-human life. They are often used for education and training so their value to learning is high. Wetlands are a good source of relief from toil as providers of spare time interest. Wetlands are very good for the economy because of the protection from damage they offer, and the leisure and tourism money they can bring in.

Severn barrage - sustainable power?

It may seem odd, at first thought, that a green like me would be against a major renewable energy proposal such as the Severn Barrage, but I am. Dont get me wrong though, I am strongly in favour of making the best use of the renewable energy available due to the very large rise and fall of the tide in the Severn Estuary, just not by building a huge barrage across the whole estuary.

Why am I against the barrage idea? What method of extracting energy am I in favour of?

The barrage would be a vast civil engineering project, consuming vast resources. The financial costs alone would be enormous - more than £10 billion. A huge project means huge impacts, particularly environmental ones (the estuary is very rich in bird life and ecolgically speaking is very productive). There could also be huge economic and social costs because such projects are often plagued by huge cost rises due to delays and unforseen problems. Even if there were no delays it would take a long time to build it, but we need to become more efficient and renewable now!

The idea of building tidal lagoons in the estuary to extract tidal energy is a much better one. Tidal lagoons would not cut across the whole of the area. They may well have a postive impact on biodiversity and would not destroy bird habitats. Lagoons could be built a few at a time, each one having a much shorter construction time than a huge barrage. More lagoons could be added, over time, spreading the financial costs and risks.

The issue of being in favour of renewable energy in general terms does not mean being in favour of every single proposal. Its very important to back the project that has the best combination of social, economic and environmental benefits. In the case of tidal energy from the Severn I believe 'smaller is more beautiful' !