bristol channel barrage

It's not just the birds. Early studies on fish mortality rates through turbines show a >95% kill rate. This means that the genetically distinct salmonid species in the Wye and the Severn would be extinct in a couple of years. The salmon fisheries are worth around 10 million a year, which is small compared to the cost of the barrage, but will have a big impact on the people who derive their living from the rivers.

If the prof you heard a talk from is the civil engineering guy from Swansea or Cardiff, then you ahould know that he has a vested interest in the barrage going ahead.

One of the more interesting proposals is the impoundment approach. Depending on where these are sited, they can provide flood defence as well as energy, and would allow flow of commercial shipping and migratory fish. The impoundments outlined in the recent news wouldn't do much for flood defence though.
 
You are quite correct Deepjoy. Professorship sponsored by Halcrow who have a bit of a vested interest. Some of the modelling proposed is also suspect. Nice clean shiny model tank in Cardiff Uni. It is known that movement of siltation is different to that of sand - it can be up to eighty times 'stickier' and it is further known that very little modelling has been done on that basis. It's a big call for someone! Google pics of the Petitcodiac for before and after pics of what happened in Fundy. Locals are now persuing removing this 'causeway', indeed Canadian scientists are somewhat incredulous we are persuing this old hat technology - and they have the greatest tidal range at their disposal. We really do need to explore every option with regards to utilising the potential of the estuary to generate power but the barrage aint it! Whatever the outcome may it never be a politician's epitaph!
 
Cant say that I'm bothered about the effect on fish or birds but your refernce to the Bay of Fundy and Canadian comments is more interesting. Can you expand on that a bit? Are the comments coming from those with a vested negative interest or is there real science behind them? Real that is, not the sort of guff that Greenpeace peddle.
 
Matelot, there are those out there who are better qualified than me to comment on effects on flaura and fauna. As I've said in the past on this subject you are either with them or against them. Nevertheless it is still an interesting position to take that you are not bothered about the effect on birds and fish but hey ho - your environment as well as mine. However even the SDC report 'Turning the Tide' cautioned on issues such as biodiversity etc. You ask for evidence - google yourself for before and after pics of the Petitcodiac issue otherwise I will try and find a link for you. There - the issue was the massive siltation that took place DOWNSTREAM of the barrage. They are actively looking at removing it.
 
On the subject of electricity generation, it seems to me that sea-bed turbines would be far more efficient, less costly and have less impact on the environment and if they were placed all the way down the estuary there would be no lull in the power generation due to the high and low tide.
 
Apparently the Severn Estuary is not best placed for tidal stream technologies - there are preferred options elsewhere. Hence the tidal range shortlist. I agree with your sentiment though PCUK.
 
The whole thing is a bad idea. I am in no way expert, or even know anything much about it, but by turning off lights in rooms with no one in them, keeping the freezer full, not having a hundred household items charging or on standby and wearing warmer clothes indoors we can REDUCE the requirement for energy and not need to kill a mighty estuary.
All my opinion only.
BTW it has just started snowing.
 
not necessarily, you can get acceleration effects through narrow passages, e.g Ramsey sound where they're considering putting a tidal turbine.
 
I agree with you entirely Nicki . Its too high a price to pay for 5% of our electricity needs. Apart from the destruction of such a huge area of natural habitat how long will it take to balance the massive carbon footprint of the project itself.

One thing is for certain the final cost will be double the estimate and conventional or nuclear power stations would still be required to cover the low output times from the barrage which unfortunately due to the tidal cycle will coincide with the times of highest demand.
 
Sorry folks but tend to disagree

If we are going to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels we have take some bold steps. The Lavernock barrage is not without many problems, least of all will be can it be built on time or budget, but we will need to think big and put in a range of different solutions including wind, wave and tide. There are alot of ifs to be answered before I could give it a thumbs up though

It does raise some interesting boating points though, good and bad

I actually like the idea of the tidal basins as being less intrusive as a barrage
 
We may have to take bold steps Elza Skip but we don't have to play havoc with nature to go green. The government has already on record in stating that it is capable of meeting its renewable obligations without building a barrage. And everything has a price. Note the cost has now gone up to beyond 20 billion and that's before the serious studies get underway. That's a lot of brass for a structure that will produce precisely zero electricity for 75% of the time.
 
[ QUOTE ]
The government has already on record in stating that it is capable of meeting its renewable obligations without building a barrage. .

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they will achieve the targets in the same way they have done so far, by allowing energy using British industry to shut down. We're exporting our carbon emissions to China. Trouble is, how are we going to pay for our imports like our power stations?

8 billion £ payments deficit last month
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

O
South Coast - Cheap boating option
4 5 6
Replies
108
Views
3K
jon and michie
jon and michie

Share this page

Top