The Severn, and Mr Porritt...
details of his report are .
Jump to more content from this blog
About this blog
PM The evening news and current affairs programme presented by Eddie Mair.
iPM The programme that starts with its listeners. Join the discussions online and contribute ideas for a weekly programme presented by Eddie Mair and Jennifer Tracey.
The PM Privacy Commission
Read the final report of the PM Privacy Commission.
- Full Audio and Transcripts
- Hugh Tomlinson QC
- Zac Goldsmith MP
- Max Mosley
- Stephen Abell
- Hugh Grant
- Sir Charles Gray
- Alan Rusbridger
- Helen Wood
- Max Clifford
- Marcus Partington
- John Kampfner
- Christopher Graham
- Louise Mensch
- Andy Trotter
- John Mullin
- Avril Sanders Royle
- Jimmy Wales
Meet the commissioners, view the terms of reference and hear the Commission Chair Sir Michael Lyons explain his approach.
RSS feed
Email us
Listen to PM
There is a similar though smaller barrage on the Rance estuary in Brittany. This was opened in the 1960s and as far as I am aware has been generating electricity ever since.
It would be interesting to learn of the exerience with this scheme in the context of the proposed scheme.
A "conventional" concrete barrage, as presumably envisaged by Mr Porritt would certainly have an adverse effect on wildlife in the estuary, but a floating barrier that allowed the free flow of silt, fish and other forms of marine life at all times would not. This type of barrier, known as a hydraulic ram barrier, is described on the Cheshire Innovation web site.
WEB PAGE
There is a similar though smaller barrage on the Rance estuary in Brittany. This was opened in the 1960s and as far as I am aware has been generating electricity ever since.
It would be interesting to learn of the exerience with this scheme in the context of the proposed scheme.
Instead of spending huge sums of money to generate more electricity by building a barrage across the River Severn why doesn't the Government pass a law that all companies must turn off their office lighting, computers etc after 22.00hrs. Supermarkets turn off their outside lighting, street lights turned down/off etc. Stop lighting up the Houses of Parliament at night etc. We do the polluting so why does the wildlife on the Severn have to pay?
I was sorry to hear Mr Porritt so wholeheartedly support the idea of a Severn Barrage. I agree that we have to find things to which we can say 'yes' but this really isn't one of them. Were he to support the much less damaging idea of introducing turbines into the tidal channels then I would understand and be supportive ie I WOULD feel able to say 'yes'. That scheme may not be as productive in terms of power output but the feeding grounds for millions of animals would not be put at risk. Mr Porritt seems suddendy to find millions of deaths quite acceptable.
I was amazed and dismayed to hear Jonathon Porritt trying to justify the destruction of the 'unique' (his word) ecological environment in the Severn Estuary in support of another feasibility study.
Previous feasibility studies costing over £65 million have been carried out by members of the Severn Tidal Power Group, a consortium of civil engineering companies with a vested interest in promoting the project.
How much will the new study cost and who will undertake it?
A "conventional" concrete barrage, as presumably envisaged by Mr Porritt would certainly have an adverse effect on wildlife in the estuary, but a floating barrier that allowed the free flow of silt, fish and other forms of marine life at all times would not. This type of barrier, known as a hydraulic ram barrier, is described on the Cheshire Innovation web site.
WEB PAGE
Instead of spending huge sums of money to generate more electricity by building a barrage across the River Severn why doesn't the Government pass a law that all companies must turn off their office lighting, computers etc after 22.00hrs. Supermarkets turn off their outside lighting, street lights turned down/off etc. Stop lighting up the Houses of Parliament at night etc. We do the polluting so why does the wildlife on the Severn have to pay?
I was sorry to hear Mr Porritt so wholeheartedly support the idea of a Severn Barrage. I agree that we have to find things to which we can say 'yes' but this really isn't one of them. Were he to support the much less damaging idea of introducing turbines into the tidal channels then I would understand and be supportive ie I WOULD feel able to say 'yes'. That scheme may not be as productive in terms of power output but the feeding grounds for millions of animals would not be put at risk. Mr Porritt seems suddendy to find millions of deaths quite acceptable.
I didn't hear the piece - I'll listen to the link when I get more time - but certainly a concrete barrier would be an insane idea. A floating barrier would surely be easier to maintain and upgrade, never mind the fact that it allows the tides, fish, silt and submarines to move about as always. All it will do is remove a little of the energy from the tides themselves.
Michele (4): Why not do both?
As others have stated, there are many alternative methods of extracting power from the flow of the Severn to a full-blown barrage. Besides all the environmental/ecological concerns, surely a 10 mile long concrete wall would look incredibly ugly, especially given the height it would need to be to cope with the tidal range?
Besides which, surely it would also impact upon the Severn's regular tourist attraction: the bore?
As others have stated, there are many alternative methods of extracting power from the flow of the Severn to a full-blown barrage. Besides all the environmental/ecological concerns, surely a 10 mile long concrete wall would look incredibly ugly, especially given the height it would need to be to cope with the tidal range?
Besides which, surely it would also impact upon the Severn's regular tourist attraction: the bore?
-oOo-
Sidenote: bloggage alert!
3x posts - cancelled after 20 secs each (pre-empting 502 & friends)
To make use use of the massive amount of energy contained in the twice daily tidal flow of the Severn estuary, we must look at other ways than the building of the barrage. The utopian vision of a concrete dam from Barry to Bridgwater is too grand, too expensive and too damaging. We should be looking at small localised schemes that are affordable to the public sector. Research is taking place on small dams, creating lagoons that fill and drain to drive hydro-electric turbines. Development is under way on piers of hydraulic ram barriers that harness both tidal current and sea wave energy. These lower risk strategies could gradually build on their early success, attract local stakeholder investment and avoid the "either or game" described by Jonathan Porritt that is too polarised to allow sensible alternatives to be discussed.
I am appalled at the naivety of Jonathan Porritt. Does he really believes that the government will spend, probably in excess of £20 billion of public money to provide cheap tidal electricity when they have already put the National Health service into expensive long-term debt to pay for new hospitals through co-financing deals.
He then stressed the host of national and international designations on the Severn Estuary which require mitigation. This requires replacement with like for like. The area to be damaged is huge and the further cost of providing similar habitat would cost further billions. Where is there sufficient land available where could this be constructed?
Well done Eddie for the pointed questions that exposed Jonathan's gullibility.
Sir,
With regard to your interview with Jonathon Porritt on 'P.M', Mr Porritt is being disingenuous in extremis.
I am the Chairman of the Trust which owns the island of Steep Holm in the Bristol Channel. The whole island is a Site of Special Scientific Interest with many rare anSevern Barraged protected species as well as holding numerous protected military and archaeological sites. Despite Mr Porritt's statement about extensive consultation, at no time have we been consulted about the proposed barrage despite the fact that its presently proposed course will be only some 200 yards from our seabird cliffs.
We land many visitors each year, to see the many and varied aspects of the island,
but the barrage will isolate our island from our harbour. The construction of the barrage and the traffic using it will terminate the use of the adjacent cliffs by more than 100 pairs of Cormorants, hundreds of pairs of three species of gull and breeding Peregrine Falcons and Ravens, as well as causing serious degradation of other habitats (for example, a huge colony of a marine creature which is very rare anywhere in Europe in an intertidal estuarine habitat).
Mr Porritt mentioned compensation. Exactly where does he intend to build the 60 acre, 200 foot high replacement island and the new harbour for our 90 seater boat, that will be necessary for our survival?
The Government is already talking about 'fast-tracking' the barrage plans (i.e. ignoring all opposition) so we shall be aiming towards high-profile court actions in both the U.K. and Europe, with the aim of drastically altering the course of any eventual barrage. We believe that such actions are likely to be treated sympathetically from several aspects of national and international law.
Yours faithfully
Tony Parsons, Chairman, Kenneth Allsop Memorial Trust,
I suspect Mr. Porritt's compensation plans are strictly for the birds.
Michele (4 etc.) I agree. When I was little, our street lights used to go off late at night. All-night illumination is one of the costly side-effects of "Nite Life".
This is the second time of asking. First attempt was to preview only.
Y'know, if this blog worked correctly, its burden would be much lighter because there would be fewer duplicate/multiple entries and the network would have fewer messages to process. Are the Techies too busy chopping down trees to sharpen their axes?
On the plus side, it has started pre-filling my "Name" and email.
The cost of the Seven Barrage scheme is presently estimated at 15bn - so it is reasonable to assume that the actual cost will be well in excess of 20bn - and the maximum estimated output is less than 5% of UK requirements.
How many small, modern, safe, efficient nuclear plants, using tried and tested technology, could be built for the same budget and what would their output be?
Mr Porritt's hesitant and unconvincing responses in your interview last night suggest that this announcement has more to do with hurried political maneuvering in anticipation of some heavyweight green initiative coming out of the Conservative Party Conference than a well thought out policy announcement.
If it were not for the consistent opposition of Mr Porritt and other leaders of the environmental movement to going nuclear, which has been very effective over the last few decades, then like France we might be generating 80% of our requirements from this clean, sustainable resource.
Mr Porritt is suggesting that the unique landscape and habitats of the Bristol Channel should be decimated in order to appease the querulous Luddites of which he has been and is a leader. Their bigoted and emotional opposition to the use of nuclear power has caused the problem in the first place. Some environmentalists!