UK Sustainable Development Commission Supports Mega-Barrage
by Sami Grover, Carrboro, NC, USA on 10. 8.07
Back in July last year, we posted on the deep divisions among UK environmentalists over a tidal barrage across the Severn Estuary. On the one hand, many climate change campaigners were pointing out that this could provide between 5 and 10% of the UK’s energy needs through a clean, renewable and predictable source (minus the embodied energy of building such a project of course). On the other hand, conservationists and those concerned with biodiversity were incensed at the potential loss of unique wetlands and wildlife habitat (the Severn Estuary has one of the highest tidal ranges in the world). Now the UK’s Sustainable Development Commission, a government advisory body, come out in support of the scheme, but only with some very strict conditions, including creating new habitat and ensuring public financing. The full report can be read here. Meanwhile, the commission’s chairman Jonathon Porritt, explains in a blog post over at the Guardian why his organization has chosen to wade in [sorry] on the side of constructing the barrage, albeit cautiously:
“Steering through these positions, the SDC took a "conditions-led" approach. What are the deal breakers that might kill off this deal? Is it feasible in engineering terms? We believe it is. Is it feasible in financial terms? We believe it is, though not without big strings attached. And can it be done in a way that is completely compatible with those EU directives? We believe it can, even though there will be significant environmental impacts.Achieving consensus on this was not easy. If the price to be paid for a barrage includes the demolition of the habitats and birds directives, then on no account should such a proposal proceed. But we strongly disagree with those who argue that a Severn barrage cannot meet the tests for compliance with the directives. The most important of these, once "overriding public interest" has been demonstrated, is the compulsory requirement to provide "compensatory habitat" for what would be lost in building the barrage. Namely, a vast and unique area of inter-tidal habitat.
The scale and cost of that compensation package is unprecedented - and massive. But we feel it should also be seen as an unprecedented opportunity, enabling the government to bring forward ambitious habitat restoration proposals as part of the urgent need for the UK to start adapting to the inevitable impacts of climate change.”
Other environmentalists were not impressed. In another article on the subject at The Guardian, Mark Avery, Conservation Director for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, argued that even the clean energy that would be generated would come too late to halt climate change, given the initial upfront energy expenditure involved:
"Construction [of the barrage] will cause the emission of 10m tonnes of carbon. Greenhouse gas savings will be substantial in the long run, but those savings could be too late to avert the damage of climate change. It would be far better to spend the £15bn to £20bn the barrage will cost on measures that will cut emissions more quickly. The Severn estuary is an irreplaceable refuge for wildlife."
Whatever the final decision is on the Severn Estuary Barrage, it seems clear that energy efficiency should be at least as high a priority as constructing such mega-generation schemes. ::Sustainable Development Commission::via The Guardian::
To be fair to the SDC they have put the following conditions on the project
A Severn barrage must be publicly led as a project and publicly owned as an asset to avoid short-termist decisions and ensure the long-term public interest
• Full compliance with European Directives on habitats and birds is vital, as is a long-term commitment to creating compensatory habitats on an unprecedented scale
• Further investigation of the ‘environmental opportunity’ that might exist for combining climate change mitigation with adaptation through a habitat creation package that actively responds to the impacts of climate change over the long term
• Development of a Severn barrage must not divert Government attention away from much wider action on climate change.
Still it is a bit of a mega project solution to the issue. Which i agree needs big out of the box thinking - like a public rail network, banning of cars from town centes, all businesses to be carbon neyral by 2020, 30% of uk renergy to be renwable by 2020 that sort of broad thinking.
Personally I would prefer if the UK government could concentrate a little more on the micro issues- like the low carbon building project- and prove that they can get those right before launching on such a project. At the moment all three major parties have talked the talk, and every one when it comes to hard decisions have proved at local, regional and national level that they are not prepared to take the hard decisions to walk the walk.
Pete
There are alternative proposals for how to tap the huge tidal resources of the Severn Estuary. Tidal lagoons are enclosed pools sitting within the Estuary. Not only would they have a far smaller impact on inter-tidal areas (but why are we worried about these if we believe that sea levels will rise a metre or two in the next several decades?), they can also generate on both tides (incoming and outgoing), and energy generation can be much more subtly controlled (differential release and intake of water in different ponds).
The Barrage is also a more complex structure - it requires a system of locks to move freighters to ports upstream. The only thing which the Barrage is meant to have going for it is the ability to create a new roadway between Wales and England.