Talk:Severn Barrage

message: Please add older projects, by year.
Also, the details of the STPG plans are all in those links. Expand on them with generic pictures...I will if I ever get time!
Fig 13:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other barrage projects

message: A lot has been said of the amount of power that would be produced - around 2000-8000 megawatts - but with little if any scrutiny of these numbers. The numbers and the studies should be produced here to add to the debate and allow scrutiny. Tidalenergy 05:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the DTI report . Fig 09:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My question is ... Can you please present it here? Not everyone has access to these as you obviously do. Tidalenergy 21:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Did I mention that you should read the Government's Department of Trade and Industry Report (here ) and the Government's Sustainable Development Commission Report (here )? Sorry, I just wasnt sure if I had said that to you already, was it 10 or 15 times? Fig 10:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ENERGY PRODUCED

message: Any Severn Barrage proposal needs to consider
1) Impact on European protected species and habitats. You cannot replace an ecosystem like the Severn. The site is designated for what is there now, not what might emerge after the works are finished. You cannot mitigate for destruction. 
2) Where will the building materials come from? Do we want to hollow out the Mendip Hills just to drop them in the river?
3) Water levels are likely to rise inside and outside the barrage requiring considerable investment in flood protection. This is because the flow of the water in and out of the estuary will be constricted and slowed so the water will back up thus raising water levels.
4) The impact on the viability of Bristol Port needs to be considered.
5) Many of the factories alongside the Severn eg Avonmouth discharge effluent into the river. The Environment Agency have guaged and licenced these discharges against the current very active tidal regime. Any change to that regime will inevitably lead to a reassessment of those discharges potentially impacting negatively on the viability of those works.
: Both the STPG proposal and the Shoots Tidal Barrage proposal obviously did these things or they wouldnt have been taken seriously by government - and the results are in their documents. Are you saying that you think these things should be discussed in the wiki page? If so, they can be "lifted" out of the documentation; the only problem I have with that is that they are very complex issues and would make the page huge - isnt it better to refer people to the documents themselves to read all that? Fig 10:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You claim that these justify your argument but are unable to be produced AND if they are would be difficult to be understood due to the complex nature of the issues. This is not a clear reference to the project going ahead.If the issues are complex then the project is by virtue of the complex issues leslikely to proceed as these complex issues need to be addressed. I for one have not seen the document and find it a cop out that difficulties with lifting it and complex issues only restrain the debate and do not support your comments. In a free and fair discussion ALL the facts should be produced. Saying you don't have time to do so is lame when you seem to have plenty of energy to support your opinions. The old saying put up or shut up comes to mind. Tidalenergy 05:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Good point and goes along with my points above about how one person with a handful of broad based information is dominating the debate, misquoting evidence and misleading the debate. Tidalenergy 05:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Environmental Impact

message: It is interesting to note that the project is to be funded by private investors not the UK government as has been stated time and again by one person.....There is one fact that is a constant in the universe even Stephen Hawkins would agree to, investors are a queer animal that wish to see return on their investment. Given there are very large question marks over the amount of power produced (numbers vary from study to study) a investor would look at this propsal as not commercially viable when there are easier and less risky venture about. If this is not going to be built by government an outlay of 15 billion for 2000-8000 meg or 2-6 meg per million does not hold attraction for private investment.Tidalenergy 05:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As is perfectly clear from the text, the investigation costing several million pounds is to be funded by the Government; the construction costing several billion pounds would be funded by the private sector. I have never said or implied that the Government would fund the construction. Fig 09:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's not what the SDC report says, it's quite clear: "the conclusion from this comparison is that both Severn barrage options are unlikely to be economically viable for private sector investment in electricity generation." (page 118) At commercial discount rates (8% to 12% range) electricity cost would be hopelessly uneconomic (8.5p to ~17p/kwh), even after CO2 pricing of competition - unless perhaps the developer was allowed to do a large amount of property development on cheap coastal farmland as a "subsidy", several new towns worth I should think. Rwendland 22:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Isnt "publicly led and privately funded" the whole principle of PFI and PPP? This is the way things are done these days under New Labour. There is absolutely no way the government will stump up £15 billion, and the SDC know that, and knew that when they did the report. They never would have suggested it was viable and worth several millions of pounds worth of further investigation if it was all based on the assumption that the state would pay the whole lot. Fig 10:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Eh? The SDC report does propose public ownership: "the SDC believes that a barrage should be publicly-led as a project and publicly-owned as an asset to ensure long-term sustainability in its design and delivery, and a fair allocation of risks and rewards. We believe that a publicly-led approach would be the best way to ensure against unsustainable ancillary development ... A publicly-led approach would enable the use of a low discount rate, justified by the long-term climate change benefits and potentially facilitated by the Government’s access to low cost capital." (pages 12-13)  Because electricity is uneconomic at commercial discount rates, proponents really have no option but go for some kind of public funding, or large scale subsidy. The economics of the barrage are much like nuclear power, only harder; very high capital costs and a long build-time before revenue is obtained, so is highly dependent on the cost of capital. Rwendland 19:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rwendland, I don't disagree with any of that; what I'm saying is that I think you need to understand the PFI could still satisfy those requirements. Schools and hospitals built with private money under PFI are not "private" schools and hospitals, they are still "publicly" owned. You might want to read Private Finance Initiative and Public-private partnership. Fig 22:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but PFI/PPP operators don't normally have access to cheap government finance, so it will work out too expensive to go forward (unless they are given extensive property development opportunities to subsidise the barrage). As the SDC says: "We do not believe it would be possible to deliver a sustainable Severn barrage through the private sector." (page 145) Rwendland 00:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: So it will be a combination of both? IMHO any investor that would invest in a project that would cost 15 billion for 2-8 gig (just exactly how much energy it would make no one seems to be able to say for sure) needs to have their head read. In a best case scenario this would equate to 2 million per megawatt. When compared to alternative (renewable technologies NOT nukes) technologies there are far better options with higher returns. In order for this to be attractive to investment it has to have a bottom line that would justify investment or no one will bother. Tidalenergy 21:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Public or private funding

message: I placed a number of edits on the disadvantages that have been deleted. This should not be the case as it was fair and balanced and not a POV.Tidalenergy 12:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As has been pointed out, these may or may not happen, but they are not disadvantages. (E.g. EIAs are good things not bad things). Also, their removal was not vandalism. Fig 19:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the points posted were not necessarily advantages or disadvantages, but some could come under the category of support or objection. A list of such items, maybe in the opinions section would add balance to the article - the job of which is to neither support no oppose the proprosed barrage. Any objection posted (or the opposite) should be backed up with an appropriate citation stating who stated it, rather than simply be one that the wiki editor feels strongly about. The same need for citations should apply to each and every advantage and disadvantage. Not one of the current advantages or disadvantages currently listed is cited, which is a major failing of the article. --Cheesy Mike 19:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I think that's fair. Some of them were partially covered already in the text; although the issue of the long-term cost for pricing wholesale electricity from major power stations is hugely complex and beyond the scope of the article, especially as the UK market is in a state of legislative flux re "Renewables Obligations" and other credits. The closest wiki comes is Electricity market. Fig 22:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism of disadvantages 

message: Hi, can anyone provide a reference for the proposal that added a massive 'cooling tower' ring-dam pumped-storage facility to the centre of the barrage ??
IIRC, it featured in 'New Scientist', but long, long before their digital archive began...
IIRC, benefits included time-shifting tidal generation to suit demand, and being able to maintain a much more 'natural' estuary environment-- Literally, you could dial-a-tide.
Also, IIRC, by 'texturing' and 'planting' (!!) outer face of the ring-dam, it could provide a protected, sea-cliff environment for puffins and other birds.
I don't recall finances beyond the peak-load savings inherent in pump-storage, but there was a comment about central 'island' that formed the root of both barrage & ring-dam being a convenient 'aerial rope-way' distance from both shores. Apparently, that would allow economic re-supply during construction. Also, the barrage could be be generating and earning while the pumped-storage ring-dam is built to full height...
Seems too good to be true...
82.42.187.185 10:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not exactly sure what you are suggesting there, but there are things that look like it in the SDC document noted below... Fig 19:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal with central pumped-storage ring-dam ?? 

message: There is a huge amount of information in the recently released Sustainable Development Commission Paper  (as you might hope from an organisation that has just spent a year examining the history of the schemes!) That information should be transferred to this page to enhance it considerably. Fig 19:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sustainable Development Commission Paper

message: Many Thanks for suggestions and links !
However, the documented pumped-storage barrage schemes seem to use low-level lagoons, not the high-level ring-dam I remember-- Think 'cooling tower'.
Perhaps the proposal was no more than that one-off article and sketch...
82.42.187.185 14:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  High-Level pumped storage scheme. 

message: The nazi's never conquered Britain... they merely bombed the heck out of it... so why is it saying that the Nazis might have thought of the Barrage...?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.72.67 (talk) 10:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, i cant find any varification of these claims and feel it should be removed (seems like a poor attempt at slander to me). Edd17 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 22:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi's? 

message: I must say that I think it untrue that "Cost of build would mean the buy back time would be considerable and the barrage may only have a finite life span due to silting up behind barrage negating the "green" element" since in the Daily Telegraph it said that "It could be in operation by 2020 and the 'payback' time for carbon cost in building the barrage was only five to eight months" see  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.99.228 (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. In fact, it's daft to say it may only have a finite life span because a) noone has ever said it would have an infinite lifespan; and b) nothing has an infinite lifespan. As for silting up, currently those opposing the barrage are trying to have it both ways. They are claiming that a) the silt will be stripped away, thereby increasing coastal erosion; and b) that everything will silt up. The reality is that most (but not all) of the suspended silt will drop out of the water when the barrage is finished, and this equates to about 12 inches of silt deposition across the estuary. What happens then is a matter for detailed computer modelling as part of the feasibility study. However, the only source of silt into the estuary once the barrage is finished would be the River Severn, and to a lesser extent the Rivers Avon and Wye. These are not major sediment rivers, by any stretch of the imagination. Fig (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disadvantages: negating "green" element 

message: The list of benefits of this scheme is largely unsourced, while the list of disadvantages seems to have no sources at all! If these positives and negatives of the scheme are reported elsewhere, provide a verifiable citation to support them, or else remove them from the page. Original research is outlawed under WP:NOR, meaning that both lists require reliable published sources for each point made. Unsourced information is unhelpful and, given the rather tedious war that happened further up this talk page, open to abuse/bias. I myself do not know enough about this topic to correct the problems I can see with this article, but maybe someone else does.  -- Matt 86.148.228.131 (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had another go at trying to reference some of the material in this article but when I got to this section I just gave up. I'm coming to support of the radical proposal, suggested above, of removing everything which is not supported by reliable sources to remove the tags & banners which are all over this article. As it is likely to get lots of hits in the new year it really isn't a good advert for wikipedia in its current state.— Rod talk 17:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that would be a shame. Most of the entries are pretty obvious and could be found in the links in the "External links" sections. The issue you are raising is not that the Benefits and Disadvantages are controversial, but simply that there are a lot of them that need referencing, which would take a couple of hours. Sadly I dont have the time to do that kind of thing these days, but it seems to me the best way to improve wikipedia is to encourage the expansion of articles rather than just deleting stuff that you dont have time to work on. Fig (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Benefits and Disadvantages Unsourced

message: I will shortly remove this section from the article (ref commented out):
:In 2006 Gareth Woodham, a businessman from Neath in Wales, submitted plans called "The Severn Lake" to Sedgemoor District Council in the name of Combined Innovations Ltd for a barrage from Brean Down near Weston-super-Mare, to Lavernock Point near Cardiff. According to Woodham, the barrage would feature 14 electricity generating turbines, a dual carriageway, a light railway, four marinas, and two lock gates to give ships passage. It would supply electricity for the whole of the South West, and according to Woodham it would cost about £650 million and take up to 20 years to complete.
:However, it is not clear how Woodham's plans, which are more ambitious than those of the STPG, could be delivered for 1/20th of the cost.
To me, this seems like recentist, given that the plan's got no formal backing (it was not considered in the shortlist stage of the SEA, for example) and most sources on the subject are self-published by Woodham, or are him essentially promoting the plan in local newspapers - although coverage is particularly light, compared with other Severn Barrage plans. (One should be careful to remove references to the place in Canada if searching.) To all intensive purposes, it seems like a pipe dream, and one really needs significant coverage in third-party sources to suggest otherwise. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 19:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Fig (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Severn Lake 

message: Regarding this section:
However, there is the question of the applicability of the term "renewable energy" to tidal power, as the root energy source is the rotational kinetic energy of the earth, which is not renewed.
Isn't this a little pedantic? Surely all 'renewable energy' could be described as non-renewable when taken on such a scale. The sun is not 'renewable', it's energy is not 'renewed' and will eventually run out, therefore solar power is not renewable by this argument. Wind power is also driven by thermal energy (ultimately from the sun), and possibly the rotational energy of the earth, and therefore not ultimately renewable. Surely this discussion should be moved to a different page - perhaps the general discussion of Renewable Energy and we can assume on this page that 'Renewable Energy' applies to energy that will remain available until the earth stops spinning, by which time we might have other problems. Timbits82 (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It should just be deleted because it's silly. Fig (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Is It 'Renewable Energy' Question

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Severn Barrage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100817004324/http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file10719.pdf to http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file10719.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060419010714/http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewables/publications/pdfs/severnbarragemainreport.pdf to http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewables/publications/pdfs/severnbarragemainreport.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060215203215/http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewables/publications/pdfs/t0900212ra.pdf to http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewables/publications/pdfs/t0900212ra.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060928085838/http://www.severnestuary.net/scosla/ to http://www.severnestuary.net/scosla
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The caption says GW signifies "million watts" ( aka MW). GW stands for Gigawatt ie "billion watts" HarryRob (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction needed to pic caption 

message: I don't like the long hyphen in eg:
Corlan Hafren—2011
Does this need any more than a space? Or a comma? S C Cheese (talk) 10:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style of dated headings