New Application for Hydropower Scheme at Goring Weir

[oldgit]

Agreeing that the subject can and does divide opinions, sometimes comments can be made which a poster assumes to be the consensus in a particular community ie. boaters.
This forum was choosen, no doubt among others, purely to encourage people to protest against the development,assuming that the reponse would be agreeing with the poster.
Look forward to the poster taking the time and trouble to explain his case further and in detail about the scientific or practical downside to this proposal.
Do wonder if the developer/proposer had the postcode of SL4 1NJ ,matters would be different.

 

[The Glassman]

Agreeing that the subject can and does divide opinions, sometimes comments can be made which a poster assumes to be the consensus in a particular community ie. boaters.
This forum was choosen, no doubt among others, purely to encourage people to protest against the development,assuming that the reponse would be agreeing with the poster.
Look forward to the poster taking the time and trouble to explain his case further and in detail about the scientific or practical downside to this proposal.
Do wonder if the developer/proposer had the postcode of SL4 1NJ ,matters would be different.

Many thanks to oldgit for his thoughtful - and thought-provoking response to my original posting.
I would indeed like to take the time and (it’s no) trouble to explain our many reasons for objecting to this scheme:

The most obvious objection is aesthetic - the site is in a Local Conservation area as well as an AONB and accordingly, under current rules the scheme should be shown to ‘conserve & enhance’ the natural environment and make ‘a positive contribution to the character and distinctiveness of the historic environment of the Conservation Area’. A bit of a stretch of the imagination, that.

The next basis for objection is anything but aesthetic. The Cleeve pound - as I’m sure most Thames users know is the shortest pound on the river. It is also a natural pinch-point, as the Goring Gap is where the Thames finally broke through the chalk hills and re-directed itself towards London. It is hemmed-in by the remains of these hills - and the very name ‘cleeve’ is old English for a cliff. Under flood conditions we are effectively the pointed end of the funnel through which the Thames must pass and any structure which actually or potentially might restrict this process leaves our little stretch very vulnerable. The Applicants commissioned a flood report back in 2009/10 which has not been updated since and which based its main conclusions on ‘once-in-100-year’ flood events. The 20 or so dwellings and businesses most liable were flooded twice in 2014 alone - and this at a nearer to ‘once-in-20-year’ levels. At the 100 year event levels, the existence or otherwise of the screws is academic as the river would be well above both Lock and Weir levels - and Reading would get very moist. At 1:5 or 1:20 year flood events, the placing of a 13metre blockage in the main weir is certain to increase our flood risk.

Another, again basic objection relates to noise. Living anywhere near one of these schemes (a single-screw unit rather than the three we are faced with) was succinctly described by someone in that situation as living in a very busy laundromat. There are many dwellings and a major Hotel complex situated close to the weir.

Then there is the disruption of and longer term damage to the ecology of the main weir (and the other 3 weirs too - as the scheme would absorb a very large proportion of the total flows). In a severely-impounded river such as ours - effectively a series of connected ponds for most of the year, the energy in the water passing the weirs oxygenates the water and scours the riverbed gravels for a very considerable distance downstream. This allows several major fish species to spawn and feed in the weirs. It is precisely this so-called ‘free’ energy that a hydro scheme steals. Depleted channels and areas are a common feature of around these installations. The EA has a statutory obligation under the European Water Framework Directive to improve the ecological quality of the Thames from its current moderate to poor status up to good. Their support of these schemes seems in complete contradiction of that aim.

As to funding etc., the raison d’être of the scheme relies entirely on being able to sell any power produced into the Grid at heavily subsidised rates. These subsidies are effectively paid for by the major energy firms - who promptly add it to all of our energy bills. Any ‘profit’ therefor is nothing more than a tax on the population in general. The Government has just announced a sharp reduction in these subsidies (known as the feed-in tariff) and this has already led one large scheme up North to be shelved and many others to be postponed. Even more recently they announced that they intend to axe them altogether by mid 2020’s.

This leads to a final concern... we would have an unaccountable and very tightly funded Ltd Company being responsible for a major £1.5 million civil -engineering scheme on Public Property and (as far as can be ascertained) without the significant physical and financial resources to look after it (think 2am in a big February flood) - and worse still, as and when the subsidies cease or it eventually fails/dies etc., where’s the money coming from to restore the (public) structure.

If this scheme were to be proposed by, say EDF or Centrica there would I suggest be an enormous outcry - but at least they’d be able to run it and when required, to remove it at no public cost.

What’s not to like?

And as to a scheme located in SL4 1NJ - yes, I’d oppose it if it were a large, run-of-river scheme on a main weir. Even if that might risk a spell in’t Tower!

 

[oldgit]

Blimey...The First Sensible Case against

Well considered reply to my questions and in marked contrast to the usual knee jerk reactions.
Interesting well constructed case against this particular development.
However Would be interested to know if the noise objections were more than anecdotal and exactly who provided the data on depletion of fish stocks due to flow no longer scouring river bed and making it unsuitable for egg production.
Has the EA commented on this ?
The abrupt and sudden termination of the feed in tariff has resulted in the collapse of a number of companies and the loss of many jobs,plus spreading the message to industry that a vocal minority can disrupt long term planning,however vital.
Just a warm up for Heathrow. ? :encouragement:

 

[The Glassman]

Re: Blimey...The First Sensible Case against

Thanks for the response.
1) Noise info from a couple of sources, but you might look up the complaints from residents of Osney Mill to their hydro development (NB - not the weir-pool hydro, the Mill one). There were several to-do’s about this in the Oxford Mail online.
2) As to ecological damage, the former EA fisheries expert (now ditto for the Angling Trust) Dr Alan Butterworth and Dr Richard Knowles of the Upper Thames Fisheries Consultative have both filed learned objections on the SODC website.
3) The EA say nothing. They appear deeply conflicted on these issues.
As to this ‘vocal minority’ disrupting (energy) planning - there seem to be no Energy Planning in this country at present. Unless they extract the digit very soon, there won’t be much energy to plan anyway. I wouldn’t want to be a govt minister when the lights start going out - it will be a very vocal majority then! Their blind faith in - and crazy taxation policies in support of- renewables (which they hope to get up to 15 or 20% of UK requirement by 2020) are in my view highly irresponsible.
As usual, the UK plays by the (EU) rules whilst the rest of the world gets on things. UK energy costs are amongst the highest in the world - and set to rise further due to ‘green’ subsidies - that’s what is costing real jobs.
I think I’ll go and lie down now!