Stop The Severn Barrage! (1 Viewer)

Xenospiza · Oct 4, 2007

Just check out how difficult it is to get uranium into an energy source, and how little you can guarantee its safety (over the centuries), and you'll see the only alternatives away from (hydro)carbon(s) are wind, water, and solar power. I wouldn't mind seeing all of the ugly town I live in covered in a shiny sheet of silicon.... and a not-too-destructive hydroelectric or wind farm scheme is fine by me (but then I'm Dutch, so I like wind mills).

Tyke · Oct 4, 2007

scooby said:
Which is exactly why I can't dissmiss the barrage scheme without knowing a lot more about it.
Nuclear energy is probably part of the solution to limiting man made CO2 but please don't go round thinking it's safe, clean, cheap or infinite....it isn't. As for pollution it's hard to imagine anything more polluting.

I don't quite understand why concern about oil resources would lead to construction of the Severn Barrage.The latter is to produce electricity-currently generated in UK mostly by coal & gas.
My remarks about oil supply were in connection with powering transportation vehicles-road,sea & air.The Severn Barrage has no relevance to these.

Yes nuclear energy is a polluting industry-most human activities are-but what is the alternative?
France has over 50 nuclear reactors producing 80% of your electricity. You certainly had the foresight to avoid energy security problems over 30 years ago. Where does your waste go & how is it handled?. What is the safety record of the French nuclear power industry?

Colin

Barred Wobbler · Oct 4, 2007

Vectis Birder said:
No, of course it isn't the panacea for all our environmental woes, it's a stop gap but better than what we have at present (coal and oil-fired power stations).

Yes, there is a pollution issue with nuclear fuel (storage of the used stuff, for example) and uranium isn't infinite but properly managed and in properly maintained power stations there is no reason why nuclear power should be worse than anything else as regards pollution. Nothing's perfect - even wind farms are not carbon-neutral, they require fuel to manufacture and transport.

Just a note to correct a common misconception. Oil is used in only about 1% of our power generation. It hardly figures at all.

It was completely out of favour since the 1973 oil crisis. Our current generating mix (of the top of my head) is about 40% gas, 20%+ nuclear, 30% coal (most imported) and the remaining bit renewables, including hydro and some other bits and pieces.

I have some notes somewhere with the proper break-down, but I can't find them at the minute, but those numbers are near enough.

Barred Wobbler · Oct 4, 2007

Found it

UK Generation Share

2005

Type...............TWh.........%

Coal...............125.0.......34.5
Gas................134.5.......37.2
Oil.....................2.2........0.6
Nuclear.............75.2.......20.8
Hydro.................3.1........0.9
Others................2.6........0.7
Imports...............8.3........2.3
Autoproducers.....10.5.......2.9
......................362.1.......99.9

2006

Type...............TWh..........%

Coal...............139.5.......38.6
Gas................124.7.......34.5
Oil.....................2.7........0.7
Nuclear.............69.2.......19.2
Hydro.................2.5........0.7
Others................1.5........0.4
Imports...............9.3........2.6
Autoproducers....11.5........3.2
......................361.1........99.9

Isurus · Oct 4, 2007

Alan Seaton said:
Found it

UK Generation Share

2005

Type...............TWh.........%

Coal...............125.0.......34.5
Gas................134.5.......37.2
Oil.....................2.2........0.6
Nuclear.............75.2.......20.8
Hydro.................3.1........0.9
Others................2.6........0.7
Imports...............8.3........2.3
Autoproducers.....10.5.......2.9
......................362.1.......99.9

2006

Type...............TWh..........%

Coal...............139.5.......38.6
Gas................124.7.......34.5
Oil.....................2.7........0.7
Nuclear.............69.2.......19.2
Hydro.................2.5........0.7
Others................1.5........0.4
Imports...............9.3........2.6
Autoproducers....11.5........3.2
......................361.1........99.9

what's an autoproducer? I guess our twin goals are a) to reduce the figure needed at the bottom of the left column and b) shuffle the numbers round in the right column. Like Jos I am concerned at the pressure groups who seem to evaluate environmental success solely by these numbers though. I remain optimistic about our ability to meet this challenge. Things like eco-friendly tidal lagoons, urban hydro and wind and the project below continue to make me feel optimistic. Ideas like this barrage don't - they just make me feel like lipservice is being paid and damage is being done anyway in a different way.

A note on deep sea production - there is a portuguese prject launching this week called pelamis or something similar that if it works could prove rather tasty but is still very much in the test phase.

Barred Wobbler · Oct 5, 2007

Isurus said:
what's an autoproducer? I guess our twin goals are a) to reduce the figure needed at the bottom of the left column and b) shuffle the numbers round in the right column. Like Jos I am concerned at the pressure groups who seem to evaluate environmental success solely by these numbers though. I remain optimistic about our ability to meet this challenge. Things like eco-friendly tidal lagoons, urban hydro and wind and the project below continue to make me feel optimistic. Ideas like this barrage don't - they just make me feel like lipservice is being paid and damage is being done anyway in a different way.

A note on deep sea production - there is a portuguese prject launching this week called pelamis or something similar that if it works could prove rather tasty but is still very much in the test phase.

An autoproducer is a company that produces its own electricity on site, primarily for its own use.

You are right. Producing (and using) less power would be the ideal, but unfortunately it's hard to see how this can happen in a nation with a rapidly expanding population and increased demand. The other issue of course is whether any sacrifice made by a country with only about 2% of global emissions in total will have any effect that is measurable in any way on global emissions when others are expanding their industrial base at an annual rate greater than our entire consumption. I won't enter the rights, wrongs or morality of that issue, but it must be considered

SalopPhil · Oct 5, 2007

Signed, but with the feeling that we could make just as big an impact on global warming by spending the money or more easily attainable goals.

Karl J · Oct 5, 2007

Coigach said:
Ok, here's the plan. Everybody who signs this petition agrees not to fly for the next 5 years in order to cut their carbon emissions, and they agree to make energy savings of at least 5% on top of what they are already doing, to prove to the government that we are serious, and that the barrage is not necessary.

not many takers on that one !

personally i couldn't agree more but unfortunately it seems to me there are just too many people who simply don't want to hear about cutting down on energy use.

Sometimes it just makes me wonder why anyone even bothers pretending to be interested if attempts to do something are just shot down before they're even given a chance. maybe we'd be better off just accepting that the environment is b*ggered and simply get on with making our excuses ready for the grandchildren when they're old enough to ask what we did to their planet.

ColinD · Oct 5, 2007

Karl J said:
not many takers on that one !

I didn't expect that there would be :C

Sometimes it just makes me wonder why anyone even bothers pretending to be interested if attempts to do something are just shot down before they're even given a chance. maybe we'd be better off just accepting that the environment is b*ggered and simply get on with making our excuses ready for the grandchildren when they're old enough to ask what we did to their planet.

Well, I think your absolutely correct. Even if you don't accept that Global Warming exists, there is no doubt the the Planet is b*ggered, simply by over population and over exploitation. Even if the Human species still exists in 100 years time, what kind of place will it be, with a population many, many times what it is now, and the environment wrecked much more and almost non-existant. Enjoy it while you can I say.

Barred Wobbler · Oct 5, 2007

Coigach said:
I didn't expect that there would be :C

Well, I think your absolutely correct. Even if you don't accept that Global Warming exists, there is no doubt the the Planet is b*ggered, simply by over population and over exploitation. Even if the Human species still exists in 100 years time, what kind of place will it be, with a population many, many times what it is now, and the environment wrecked much more and almost non-existant. Enjoy it while you can I say.

Your image reminds me of a paperback I've had lying around for about the past 25 or 30 years. "A Torrent of Faces" by James Blish and Norman L Knight. We've been warned for years.

Ken Hall · Oct 5, 2007

signed. that makes me #194 on the list. Still, it's early days.

davids · Oct 5, 2007

Tyke said:
Where does your waste go & how is it handled?. What is the safety record of the French nuclear power industry?

Colin

The French have a similar strategy to nuclear waste management as the UK, i.e. they reprocess fuel and vitrify the highly active waste. Like the UK, they propose deep geological disposal of this waste. Their safety record is like the UKs - good.

David

scooby · Oct 10, 2007

davids said:
The French have a similar strategy to nuclear waste management as the UK, i.e. they reprocess fuel and vitrify the highly active waste. Like the UK, they propose deep geological disposal of this waste. Their safety record is like the UKs - good.

David

Good indeed for the first few decades of a legacy likely to last many tens of thousands of years.
I seem to remember there was huge opposition for deep burial in France a few years back (very little debate about nuclear energy in general). I think the French prefer to have it in storage above ground and get around to doing something with it later.
http://www.uic.com.au/wast.htm for the industry message.
http://www.newenergychoices.org/index.php?sd=no&page=mediaKit_nuclearW for the other.

scooby · Oct 11, 2007

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/01_10_07_tidalpower.pdf

sooseee · Oct 12, 2007

signed
Sue

wizard · Oct 13, 2007

yes signed and rightly so but what good will it do in the end. just look at llanishen res, it is half fenced off and only time before a plan is passed. so far they ahave been rejected but money talks and it wont be long. they just go through the all the paper work keeping everyone happy (and rich) then one day it will all be over. another housing estate will be up.

we had uskmouth done so the birds from cardiff had a place to go after they changed all that & now just as they are finishing a new public centre so all including the disabled birder can visit, the crazy powers that be want to cock up the seven.
we live in a crazy world and maybe the birds have it right..... bugger off to Africa

Colin · Oct 14, 2007

Maybe there is no answer yet to my question and the answer will come from the feasibilty study, but what will this barrage be like. Many years ago when ideas were being put forward, it seemed that it was going to be a concrete barrier to any water which stretched right across the estuary. In this barrier would be holes in which there were turbines and water would only be able to get out/in by turning the turbines and thus generating electricity. Now, I have heard that it will not be like this in total. If you think of a bridge across the estuary with about the centre span filled in and in this bit there are the said holes and turbines and leading to this bit is a deep channel, then water will flow and turn the turbines but nearer the shore where there is a conventional bridge, the tide will still be able flow back and forth, albeit with some constriction. Does anyone have any details of what the design is to be? This post is not to support the barrage or be against it but just a question as to what will be constructed should the project go ahead.

Stop The Severn Barrage! (1 Viewer)

More options

Xenospiza

Distracted

Tyke

Well-known member

Barred Wobbler

Well-known member

Barred Wobbler

Well-known member

Isurus

Well-known member

Barred Wobbler

Well-known member

SalopPhil

Well-known member

Karl J

Well-known member

ColinD

Well-known member

Barred Wobbler

Well-known member

Ken Hall

Well-known member

davids

Well-known member

scooby

Well-known member

scooby

Well-known member

sooseee

Well-known member

wizard

Well-known member

Colin

Axeman (Retired)

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread