Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Proposed Severn Barrage - Good or Bad?

Barrage good/bad?

  • Total voters
    14
R

RubberBuccaneer

Hedd Wyn
I'm undecided about this.

On one hand I agree with the use of tidal power.

On the other the estuary birds will suffer ( although they survive the Bay ).
It'll look grim ( I'd expect some executive flats to be built on it )
And the Severn Bore will be no more.

So overall is the plight of some birds and some surfers greater than an eco-friendly way of producing power.

You decide and I'll forward the poll to the Assembly.
 
What about these lagoon thingies that I read about on a letters page? Apparently they are just as efficient and wouldn't cause the huge disruption and eco-shit, plus they'd look good too...
 
kyser_soze said:
What about these lagoon thingies that I read about on a letters page? Apparently they are just as efficient and wouldn't cause the huge disruption and eco-shit, plus they'd look good too...
Click to expand...

I've no fucking idea...that's why I'm letting U75 make my mind up:)

SimpleBuccaneer:confused:
 
I am undecided; I like the idea of something other than Nuclear, hate the thought of great big bloody windmills spoiling our country side but then there are the ones that can be put out to sea. I don't want our wildlife to suffer by having a barrage but in the long term I think wildlife will return to the area. So I dun no, Couldn't you have put a third answer like undecided RB?

Are there any Eco friendly scientist type people out there who can help with this dilemma?:confused:
 
ZIZI said:
I am undecided; I like the idea of something other than Nuclear, hate the thought of great big bloody windmills spoiling our country side but then there are the ones that can be put out to sea. I don't want our wildlife to suffer by having a barrage but in the long term I think wildlife will return to the area. So I dun no, Couldn't you have put a third answer like undecided RB?

Are there any Eco friendly scientist type people out there who can help with this dilemma?:confused:
Click to expand...

MAke a choice goddamit!:mad:

Three people and no definate views :confused:
 
RubberBuccaneer said:
MAke a choice goddamit!:mad:

Three people and no definate views :confused:
Click to expand...


Yeh but, No but, yeh but, no but, yeh but, no but, Ummmmm Hmmmmm, Ermmm,:confused: oh go on you decide and the rest will follow:D
 
i really don't know either, even after talking to the foe bloke about it a bit as well :confused:
double edged sword imo
it would be good to be able to get that much power without pollution etc but then i also agree that the way forward is to use less not build more as already said.
tidal lagoons sound a bit better but need to know more really.
 
Col_Buendia said:
Comedy genius :D
Click to expand...

I did e-mail the Labour party before the Wales-England football match asking if they would pass a message on to Tony betting him that if we won we could have independence.

They didn't reply but as we lost and are still in the same boat I presume he's gloating now.
 
FOE suggest that:
However, initial comparisons strongly suggest that lagoons could be significantly less extensive and environmentally damaging and more cost effective and powerful than the Barrage. Lagoons would not directly impound the ecologically highly valuable inter-tidal areas of the Estuary. Indeed, lagoons may offer potentially significant wildlife habitat. Yet, lagoons would generate twice as much power per square mile impounded than the Barrage and could extract about 25 - 40% more energy from two thirds of the impounded area.
Click to expand...

They have a report from 2004 titled "A Severn barrage or tidal lagoons? A comparison" available as a pdf here.

Frankly, I'm firmly of the belief that the government will inevitably choose the least popular, least efficient, least attractive option - it's a matter of principle with them :(
 
RubberBuccaneer said:
I'm undecided about this.

On one hand I agree with the use of tidal power.

On the other the estuary birds will suffer ( although they survive the Bay ).
It'll look grim ( I'd expect some executive flats to be built on it )
And the Severn Bore will be no more.

So overall is the plight of some birds and some surfers greater than an eco-friendly way of producing power.

You decide and I'll forward the poll to the Assembly.
Click to expand...

that would be a shame
 
I voted yes, cos it's gona come down to a choice between nuclear and more fossil fuels, and things like this, I reckon. I'd also campaign for the tidal lagoons thingy, like, but we've gotta make choices on shit like this quick, haven't we?

I totally don't understand the 'anti-renewables cos they look ugly' line of argument. Fucking stupid. People said the same thing about electricity and telephone lines but you hardly notice those most of the time any more.

Got a lot of sympathy with the folks who say we shouldn't have this cos of the ecoogical implications - but I just keep thinking of the environmental (with the emphasis on the mental) cost of nuclear, and that scares the fuck out of me too much to be honest.

There. That's what I reckon.
 
kyser_soze said:
OK, take back what I said (and allowing for FOE spin)...go with the lagoons...
Click to expand...

Tbh, I'm not madly obsessed with the birds, but it just seems to me that the lagoons will (a) create much less adverse environmental impact, and (b) actually create some new habitats for the wildlife, while (c) delivering the same or more energy without all the other negative "side" effects.

Such as the Severn Bore, which I assume to be something worth keeping, even if only for the surfing ;)

(But I really can't see how we can discount local planners' megalomania when it comes to making decisions as big as this. Willy-waving starts to factor into the decision-making process, don't you think?)
 
llantwit said:
I voted yes, cos it's gona come down to a choice between nuclear and more fossil fuels, and things like this, I reckon. I'd also campaign for the tidal lagoons thingy, like, but we've gotta make choices on shit like this quick, haven't we?
Click to expand...

No no no no no no no... you're letting yourself be blackmailed into the corner by the planners. They come up with a choice of either carbon-based energy or the barrage. But it is not as simple as that. The barrage is not the only low-carbon option, so don't fall into their trap of seizing it as the only (or even the quickest) answer to the energy question. Tbh, the more I think about it, the more inevitable it seems that the willy-waving mega-project option will be chosen by people who by their very nature are publicly acknowledged megalomaniacs :( From China to Cardiff - drowning out local voices!
 
I do see what you mean, but the debate will be polarised between renewables and nuclear, and only if we're lucky, so adding the good renewables-bad renewables debate into the mix will make it a REALLY hard battle to fight. I'm not sayingit's notworth it, just that it'll be really difficult, and I guess I was shying away from that. It's all very well sorting out our views on here, but the spectrum of opinion in the letters pages of the WM is a little different, and if you've got the environmentalists having their own argument as well as having to fend off the fossil fuel lobby, the nuclear lobby, and most politicians as well, it's gonna be confusing to get any message across.
I know that sounds like the words of a reformist capitalist lickspittle, but then, now you know my tre colours, like.

-------------

^ that's the line I just drew under the discussion, btw....
 
I did my final year dissertation on the severn barrage, can't remember much about it I'm afraid (twas a long time ago, 19 years!!, and much pharma abuse in the interim:D ). I can remember these snippets though:-

It will create shed loads of clean power.

The birds feed in the tidal area between high and low tide, the barrier will move this area and the birds will move with it. Nothing will die.

The nuclear industry do not want it to happen and will massage their figures any which way to make it look bad and themselves good. They will donate large sums of money to the government to "persuade" them against any such idea.
 
LilMissHissyFit said:
Good if the alternative is nuclear power:)
Click to expand...

That´s the problem though innit?

Best to worse imo:

less consumption meaning no new stuff needed > small scale energy production (e.g everyone has solar etc generators) > medium sized production (eg small hydro + small wind +small tidal etc) > the lagoon thingies > off shore windfarms > tidal barrage > nuke > fossil fuel

So imo the barrage is actually amongst the worst options (albeit not the very worst)

If the powers that be are framing it in barrage v nuke framework, they are hiding the real issues.:(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

editor
Cardiff Central station proposed enhancements
Replies
1
Views
352
ddraig
ddraig
editor
Cardiff Parkway station finally approved by Welsh government
Replies
1
Views
465
Plumdaff
Plumdaff
ddraig
Caerphilly Pub bans under 25s from drinking on weekend nights
Replies
19
Views
1K
editor
editor
Tankus
WTF congestion charge on Google maps for the 'diff
Replies
7
Views
841
petee
petee
gosub
Python on the Prom
Replies
0
Views
375
gosub
gosub
Back
Top Bottom