John Vidal, The Guardian 12 Jun 08;
Britain's largest environment groups have strongly rejected plans for a massive £15bn tidal barrage across the Severn that would provide about 5% of the UK's annual electricity demand and help the government meet climate-change targets.
In the first shots of what is expected to become one of the fiercest environmental battles in years, the groups, which include the National Trust, the RSPB and WWF, but not Greenpeace, have challenged the government to find cheaper and less destructive ways of generating renewable electricity from the estuary.
Britain will need to generate nearly 40% of its electricity from renewable resources by 2020 to meet its EU targets, and a 10-mile long tidal barrage with 200 turbines between Cardiff and Weston-super-Mare is widely seen in government as one of the most attractive options. Plans for a barrage have been proposed for more than 100 years.
But the coalition of 10 groups, with a membership of more than 5 million people, says a barrage would be economically dubious and ecologically disastrous. It would, the coalition says, destroy nearly 86,486 acres (35,000 ha) of highly protected wetlands across the estuary. More power could be generated more cheaply by using other green technologies, the group says.
Their report, commissioned from the economics consultancy Frontier Economics, follows a study last year by the government's environmental advisers, the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC).
The commission found in favour of a barrage on condition that it be state funded and that the lost wetlands be compensated for elsewhere. The government is now doing its own feasibility studies.
The report challenges the idea that tidal energy from the Severn would be best for Britain. "The cycle of the tides in the Severn means that a barrage would not necessarily provide electricity at peak times."
It also suggests 5m tonnes of CO2 will be emitted during construction and another 5m tonnes emitted during transport of the materials - undermining claims that the barrage would help reduce emissions.
The group says that the real cost could be much higher than the widely quoted £15bn. "This does not take into account costs of land acquisition in Cardiff and Weston or the creation of new wildlife habitats to compensate for the lost land."
The coalition also rejects the SDC condition that the barrage be built and run by the state as it would be of such national importance. This, says the report's author, Matthew Bell, would not be permitted under Treasury rules, and would not, anyway, warrant special government subsidies or other forms of public investment. Bell said: "It is hard to think of reasons for the public sector to build or operate a barrage which would not be equally applicable to many other projects and assets that sit in the private sector. Not only is the private sector more than able to finance a scheme of this scale but, even using the most conservative estimates of costs, the barrage is one of the most expensive options for clean energy generation there is."
Graham Wynne, chief executive of the RSPB, said: "There are good reasons for trying to harness the energy potential of the Severn estuary. But the estuary is truly exceptional for its ecological value. The [SDC] has already confirmed that a barrage would fundamentally change the nature of the estuary. Frontier's report shows that this exorbitantly expensive and massively damaging proposal cannot be justified on economic grounds - there are simply too many cheaper options for clean energy generation."
Tony Burton, strategy director at the National Trust, said: "The Severn estuary is a unique and valuable asset, rich in wildlife and striking landscapes. While we support strong action to tackle climate change, we need to do this in a cost-effective way and respect the importance of our natural environment. This study demonstrates that the government should consider other ways of meeting our renewable targets which make better use of public money and are at less cost to the environment."
The land that would be submerged hosts about 68,000 birds in winter, including huge flocks of dunlins and shelducks, together with Bewick's swans, curlews, pintails, wigeons and redshanks. Breeding birds feeding on the estuary in summer include curlews, shelducks and oystercatchers. At least 30,000 salmon and tens of thousands of shads, lampreys and sea trout use the estuary to reach spawning grounds in the Usk and Wye rivers. Eels swim back down these rivers to reach spawning grounds at sea and millions of elvers return in the spring.
Severn barrage cost 'cannot be justified'
Paul Eccleston, The Telegraph 12 Jun 08;
The huge cost of building a controversial barrage across the Severn Estuary to produce electricity cannot be justified, a new economic study concludes.
It would be wrong to use £15bn of taxpayers' money to build the barrier when as much power could be produced more cheaply from other renewable sources.
Conservation groups have warned construction of the proposed 10-mile barrage from Cardiff to Weston-Super-Mare would cause an environmental disaster at an internationally important wetlands site which supports a wide variety of wildlife.
But supporters, including the government's advisory group, the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC), say it could supply almost five per cent of the UK's total energy needs and would be a big step in meeting the target of 20 per cent of all energy from renewable sources by 2020.
Ten UK environment groups commissioned Frontier Economics, Europe's leading economic consultancy, to look at the economics of building the barrage and whether it would deliver value for money.
Their study concluded that it would be wrong to use public funds to build the barrage and that under current Treasury rules it would not qualify for special Government subsidies or any other form of public investment.
And a barrage harnessing the tidal power of the Severn estuary would be a much more expensive way of generating power than developing other renewable technologies such as wind and biomass.
There were enough resources in wind alone to meet the Government's target of obtaining 20 per cent of electricity from renewables by 2020 and big offshore wind farms could generate the same amount of energy at around half the annual cost of a barrage.
While wind alone could not deliver on the overall target of 20 per cent of all energy from renewables it could be met from using a range of sustainable sources.
The Frontier analysis will now feed into the Government's multi-million pound study on the feasibility of building a barrage.
The report's author, Matthew Bell, said: "It is hard to think of reasons for the public sector to build or operate a barrage which would not be equally applicable to many other projects and assets that sit in the private sector.
"Not only is the private sector more than able to finance a scheme of this scale but, even using the most conservative estimates of costs, the barrage is one of the most expensive options for clean energy generation there is."
A smaller alternative scheme is for a "shoots" barrage further upriver which would cost around £1.5 billion but it would have a capacity of 1.05GW compared to 8.6GW from the larger scheme equivalent to 4.4 per cent of the UK's total electricity needs.
The SDC study released last year said any such barrage should be publicly built and owned to ensure it was sustainable and was of public benefit.
Graham Wynne, Chief Executive of the RSPB, one of the groups which commissioned the study, said: "There are good reasons for trying to harness the energy potential of the Severn estuary. But the estuary is truly exceptional for its ecological value.
The SDC has already confirmed that a barrage would fundamentally change the nature of the Severn Estuary. Frontier's report shows that this exorbitantly expensive and massively damaging proposal cannot be justified on economic grounds - there are simply too many cheaper options for clean energy generation."
Dr Stephen Marsh-Smith, Chief Executive of the Wye and Usk Foundation, said: "Construction of this barrage would wipe out all the migratory fish including salmon and shad using the Severn estuary.
"It will be a disaster if this barrage is chosen to generate electricity when we know it isn't the best way of doing so. There are so many other options that would spare what is a unique pair of rivers and the huge rural economies attached to them."
Concern over tidal barrage cost
BBC News 12 Jun 08;
The power generated by the proposed Severn Barrage could be produced more cheaply using other green technologies, a report says.
The £15bn dam across the Severn estuary from Cardiff to Weston-Super-Mare in Somerset could supply 5% of the UK's electricity within 14 years.
But an independent report commissioned by 10 environmental groups said it was not a good use of taxpayers' money.
Campaigners have also spelt out the damage to wildlife it could cause.
A feasibility study by the Welsh Assembly Government and the UK Government into the barrage, which could stretch from Lavernock Point, near Cardiff, to Brean Down, near Weston-Super-Mare, was announced in January.
It would harness the tidal power of the estuary using a hydro-electric dam, but filled by the incoming tide rather than by water flowing downstream.
The government previously said the scale of the 10-mile barrage and the impact it could have on securing energy supplies and tackling climate change was "breathtaking".
But a report published by Frontier Economics, an economic consultancy, said the barrage would be an expensive option compared to other renewable energy and the government's renewable energy target could probably be met using cheaper green technologies.
It said: "Considerable new evidence would be needed to make a large barrage in the Severn estuary an attractive option."
The research comes after a report in October by the Sustainable Development Commission which said if the barrage was built, it should be state-funded and state-run.
But Frontier said under existing Treasury rules this would mean it would not be eligible for special government subsidies or public investment.
Matthew Bell, author of the report, said: "Not only is the private sector more than able to finance a scheme of this scale but, even using the most conservative estimates of costs, the barrage is one of the most expensive options for clean energy there is."
It is not just the economic cost that environmentalists are concerned about.
They have also warned of the "ecological destruction" a barrage could bring.
Campaigners say some 14,000 hectares of saltmarsh and mudflats would be lost through the building of a large barrage, resulting in the loss of migratory birds that nest there.
It would also hit the fish populations of the Severn, Wye and Usk rivers, which all flow into the estuary above the point where the dam would be built.
Mark Lloyd, director of the Anglers' Conservation Association, said salmon in particular would be lost.
"The salmon population of the Wye and Usk is very important in maintaining a species but also economically, the Wye and Usk rely really heavily on salmon fishing for income," he said.
He added migratory fish would be playing "Russian roulette" with the barrage's turbines at every tide.
The Frontier Economics report was commissioned by the Anglers' Conservation Association, RSPB, Salmon & Trout Association, The National Trust, The Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, The Wildlife Trusts, United Usk Fisherman's Association, WWF-UK, Wye Salmon Fishery Owners Group, Wye and Usk Foundation.
