A
graham
Well-Known Member
On the face of it less cost,more output and significantly less upheaval to the naturtal environment.Unless Im missing something it sounds a far better proposal.
NicM
Well-Known Member
Perhaps I am getting just a bit sceptical but you get the politicos stating that the barrage will produce one fifth of our electricity need which is no doubt higher than they will ever achieve but used to convince us all to go for the barrage and then you get the tree huggers who come up with an even higher electrical production figure for a different scheme which they will oppose if it was approved anyway.
NickiCrutchfield
Well-Known Member
Alternatively we could just use 5% less electricity each and leave the estuary alone.
Nicki
Nicki
A
Alcyone
Guest
No additonal locks with this idea either?
Csail
N/A
I reckon its a good idea..don't know much about it but sounds like a good energy plan seeing as we have the second highest tidal range in the world.
Severnman
Well-Known Member
HomersSpice Rack - Cardiff Weston scheme is advertised at delivering 5% of electrical need not one fifth and equates to about 1% of total energy needs. Industry experts question the 5%. Perhaps the most important statistic is that for 75% of the time a barrage will produce precisely zero electricity; the bottom line being that base line supply will have to come from somewhere else!
matelot
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
On the face of it less cost,more output and significantly less upheaval to the naturtal environment.Unless Im missing something it sounds a far better proposal.
[/ QUOTE ]
What you are missing is that a decent barrage all the way from Minehead to Aberthaw would generate far more, the birds (as if they matter) would migrate elsewhere and the costs will always turn out to be a multiple of the original estimate.
On the face of it less cost,more output and significantly less upheaval to the naturtal environment.Unless Im missing something it sounds a far better proposal.
[/ QUOTE ]
What you are missing is that a decent barrage all the way from Minehead to Aberthaw would generate far more, the birds (as if they matter) would migrate elsewhere and the costs will always turn out to be a multiple of the original estimate.
A
Alcyone
Guest
The Aberthaw to minehead plan is for a reef, matelot, which will be far less disturbing to the birds - the RSPB themselves have proposed it. It seems to me that something like this is going to happen, so the one with the least effect to the environment, and to water users, would be best.
A reef sounds much better than a barrage. Yes, it will cost a lot, but in comparison to nucler power stations and coal burning stations, I'd rather it.
A reef sounds much better than a barrage. Yes, it will cost a lot, but in comparison to nucler power stations and coal burning stations, I'd rather it.
graham
Well-Known Member
What you suggest is wholesale destruction of the Estuary IMHO. Im surprised you have so little regard for the natural world to make such a statement about the birdlife. /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
buster3
Well-Known Member
What will the cost be of maintain if its not a fix barrage and I think long term and short term costs should be looked at I no wild life is issue but so is the cost of power dams have been put up and the wild life is ok all sorts it self out in the end and just think how many jobs it will make not in this present down turn but the furture
PCUK
Well-Known Member
I'll go for the reef, sounds brilliant. As well as electricity it would transform the area for cruising. The West Somerset Railway would also have a booming heavy freight trade bringing in the agregate!
Sneds
Well-Known Member
Whats wrong with nuclear?
Clean, cheap and safe if operated properly.
Clean, cheap and safe if operated properly.
matelot
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
What you suggest is wholesale destruction of the Estuary IMHO. Im surprised you have so little regard for the natural world to make such a statement about the birdlife. /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
Wholesale destruction? Thats an FOE style wild overstatement as well as technical nonsense Graham. Look at it this way - are the Norfolk broads short of bird life? Of course they arent, but the broads are a large area taken from the sea just like the severn estuary would be.
For some reason the Eco freeks seem to want that nothing should ever change. Everything is always a disaster. But time after time nature adapts.
In any case I'd put human life higher up the list of importance than wetland birds
What you suggest is wholesale destruction of the Estuary IMHO. Im surprised you have so little regard for the natural world to make such a statement about the birdlife. /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
Wholesale destruction? Thats an FOE style wild overstatement as well as technical nonsense Graham. Look at it this way - are the Norfolk broads short of bird life? Of course they arent, but the broads are a large area taken from the sea just like the severn estuary would be.
For some reason the Eco freeks seem to want that nothing should ever change. Everything is always a disaster. But time after time nature adapts.
In any case I'd put human life higher up the list of importance than wetland birds
damo
Well-Known Member
"In any case I'd put human life higher up the list of importance than wetland birds"
But we aren't talking about human life here, but human convenience
But we aren't talking about human life here, but human convenience
graham
Well-Known Member
IM certainly no ECO freak.
If you can believe the government figures then a Channel Barrage could produce 5percent of the UKs power needs.
Unfortunately the peak output s would coincide with the low demand periods .This means we still need the same output available from conventional or nuclear stations to cope with peak demands.
I personally dont think the huge destruction of natural habitats is worth it for so little gain.
If you can believe the government figures then a Channel Barrage could produce 5percent of the UKs power needs.
Unfortunately the peak output s would coincide with the low demand periods .This means we still need the same output available from conventional or nuclear stations to cope with peak demands.
I personally dont think the huge destruction of natural habitats is worth it for so little gain.
A
Alcyone
Guest
I'm still fairly new here, and it is a well behaved forum, so I won't say what I might elsewhere, but there are comments on this thread that are so stunningly ignorant, it saddens me.
matelot
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
"In any case I'd put human life higher up the list of importance than wetland birds"
But we aren't talking about human life here, but human convenience
[/ QUOTE ]
Thats exactly what we are talking Damo. Unless we do something about global warming people in the third world will die. And if the lights start to go out, so will people here.
"In any case I'd put human life higher up the list of importance than wetland birds"
But we aren't talking about human life here, but human convenience
[/ QUOTE ]
Thats exactly what we are talking Damo. Unless we do something about global warming people in the third world will die. And if the lights start to go out, so will people here.
damo
Well-Known Member
At the risk of inflaming things /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif more convenience = more power requirements = environmental impacts. As an example of wasted energy leading to environmental exploitation, I saw some figures showing that if all the vehicles in the USA had the correct tyre pressure, there would be no need to extract the oil from the Alaskan Wilderness Preserve as desired by Bush and Cheney et al.
I don't understand how third world lives can be helped by a Severn scheme, which is why I suggest that it is for our own convenience, because psychologically it is difficult for most people to accept that they could reduce their own environmental footprint to achieve their energy needs.
5% of UK energy requirements could be delivered by transport efficiencies and sensible domestic insulation. So no need for the birdies to get kicked out and everyone's a winner (except for the big construction companies ) /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
I quite like the idea of a reef or barrage in some ways, especially if it has beneficial effects for leisure boating. There were strong anti-barrage arguments from the environmental lobbies prior to impounding Cardiff Bay, but that has shown what a tremendously positive effect a good scheme can have.
You don't have to be an "eco-freak" to be against some types of proposal. Cost-benefit analyses usually win in the end, and if environmental and economic costs of a barrage/reef are too high then it won't happen. Equally, if you are the knee-jerk Jeremy Clarkson type of person (ie how dare you try to stop me using lots of energy to have fun and drive as much as I like) then you must accept that there are consequences to your preferred life-style, which have to be paid for now and in the future. And those who think there are ways of avoiding that lifestyle debt are not "freaks" and certainly have a right to be heard.
All IMHO of course /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
(I just re-read your post more closely. Just to be absolutely clear, this is NOT NOT NOT a reply about global warming! It is not an argument about replacement of petro power with tidal power, but a defence of those who think that energy savings would obviate the need for a barrage, and that wildlife diversity is an important and necessary element of any kind of sensible future)
I don't understand how third world lives can be helped by a Severn scheme, which is why I suggest that it is for our own convenience, because psychologically it is difficult for most people to accept that they could reduce their own environmental footprint to achieve their energy needs.
5% of UK energy requirements could be delivered by transport efficiencies and sensible domestic insulation. So no need for the birdies to get kicked out and everyone's a winner (except for the big construction companies ) /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
I quite like the idea of a reef or barrage in some ways, especially if it has beneficial effects for leisure boating. There were strong anti-barrage arguments from the environmental lobbies prior to impounding Cardiff Bay, but that has shown what a tremendously positive effect a good scheme can have.
You don't have to be an "eco-freak" to be against some types of proposal. Cost-benefit analyses usually win in the end, and if environmental and economic costs of a barrage/reef are too high then it won't happen. Equally, if you are the knee-jerk Jeremy Clarkson type of person (ie how dare you try to stop me using lots of energy to have fun and drive as much as I like) then you must accept that there are consequences to your preferred life-style, which have to be paid for now and in the future. And those who think there are ways of avoiding that lifestyle debt are not "freaks" and certainly have a right to be heard.
All IMHO of course /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
(I just re-read your post more closely. Just to be absolutely clear, this is NOT NOT NOT a reply about global warming! It is not an argument about replacement of petro power with tidal power, but a defence of those who think that energy savings would obviate the need for a barrage, and that wildlife diversity is an important and necessary element of any kind of sensible future)
A
Alcyone
Guest
The third world will never be helped, energywise, by anything we do here. The population of the uk is around 60 million, the combined population of India and China around 40 times that, much of it developing or not developed at all. As they develop, The demand for energy in those two countries alone will dwarf anything we do, and result in huge price rises as they compete with the West for oil. The reason we will need schemes like the barage is that we will probably struggle to afford oil.
To my mind, it's simply a question of how to build such schemes with the absolute minimum impact to the environment.
You'd think, in South Wales, where we are only just seeing our outstanding natural beauty returning after centuries of coal tips and smog that we would value it and fight for it.
And that Graham bloke wants to leave it there as well, what with his wanton destruction of the fish stocks of the Bristol channel that I witnessed this autumn.......
To my mind, it's simply a question of how to build such schemes with the absolute minimum impact to the environment.
You'd think, in South Wales, where we are only just seeing our outstanding natural beauty returning after centuries of coal tips and smog that we would value it and fight for it.
And that Graham bloke wants to leave it there as well, what with his wanton destruction of the fish stocks of the Bristol channel that I witnessed this autumn.......
