tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28078378.post5244861424132349350..comments2023-10-30T11:00:05.243+00:00Comments on Bacon Butty: Case for the Severn Barrage - does it hold water?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28078378.post-49295813666311786732007-11-30T17:28:00.000+00:002007-11-30T17:28:00.000+00:00Readers may be interested to read Prof Tim Jackson...Readers may be interested to read <A HREF="http://baconbutty.blogspot.com/2007/10/severn-barrage-economic-failure.html" REL="nofollow">Prof Tim Jackson's response</A> to Clive's second posting on this subject. Tim is the Econonomics Commissioner at the <A HREF="http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/" REL="nofollow">Sustainable Development Commission</A> (SDC).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28078378.post-62616604880351396772007-10-04T08:17:00.000+01:002007-10-04T08:17:00.000+01:00Hi Matt - very good point and worth exploring... T...Hi Matt - very good point and worth exploring... <BR/><BR/>The <A HREF="http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/TidalPowerUK3-Severn_barrage_proposals.pdf" REL="nofollow">consultants' report for the SDC (p.</A> does include a decommissioning estimate. <BR/><BR/>"<I>Costs are highly uncertain but could be substantial (of the same order as constructions costs). Financing these over the lifetime of a barrage at even a low rate of assumed fund accumulation would make such costs potentially quite<BR/>small</I>" (page 4)<BR/><BR/>However, decommissioning is discussed in section 4.6.4 (page 75) and table 5.5 (page 112) gives a figure of 4.5 p/KWh (which is more than the wholesale cost of electricity!)<BR/><BR/>The SDC ignore this contribution to the costs, arguing that it will never be decommissioned. That might be more plausible if there was a permanent public road over it, but I think that is out of scope here too. Maybe they think it will work as a barrage indefinitely - I haven't yet had chance to check. I don't know how something like this would end its life, but a decaying blockage across the Severn hardly seems like a great example of sustainable development. Note that we generally do not allow dumping at sea, but the <A HREF="http://www.imo.org/Conventions/contents.asp?topic_id=258&doc_id=681#8" REL="nofollow">London Convention</A> that governs these thing does allow dumping of "<I>Vessels and platforms or other man-made structures at sea</I>"<BR/><BR/>Worth noting that although nuclear decommissioning and waste costs are high, they don't much affect the project economics of nuclear power stations (5-10% of the NPV) because they mostly arise at the 'back end' and are therefore discounted to quite small sums. Nuclear economics are dominated by construction costs and financing, time of construction and the 'load factor' achieved once up and running.Clive Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15614056019814665135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28078378.post-29082361864026059202007-10-03T09:55:00.000+01:002007-10-03T09:55:00.000+01:00Costs of maintenance and dealing with waste (inclu...Costs of maintenance and dealing with waste (including decommission) must be included in a comparison of energy options. As far as I know this hasn't been done. Nuclear is hellishly expensive regards waste as we all know.<BR/><BR/>Matt<BR/>www.environmentdebate.wordpress.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28078378.post-8880489238953716252007-09-27T20:28:00.000+01:002007-09-27T20:28:00.000+01:00Greetings Mr B, and many thanks for doing my intel...Greetings Mr B, and many thanks for doing my intellectual homework for me. Anything which makes more time for beer is good.<BR/><BR/>However, I'm just back from the Labour Party Conference - where any arguments as rational as this were dismissed with a wave of the hand as the bleatings of a bunch of nay-sayers and bird lovers.<BR/><BR/>Because Government are setting the terms of the debate, your argument, beautifully constructed thoug it is, won't cut ice. In short, Shouty Wicks and Scary Hutton have the NGOs by the short and curlies. They won't move onto this ground at all when challenged (I tried).<BR/><BR/>So, the tactical question is, how do we get the economic point across, when Government have chosen to promote the barrage on emotional and totemic grounds, rather those of rational policy-making....<BR/><BR/>your friendly Bird Girl.RuthieDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10804979951556175557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28078378.post-9590219588405793302007-09-24T23:07:00.000+01:002007-09-24T23:07:00.000+01:00Thanks for these views...On the resonant frequency...Thanks for these views...<BR/><BR/>On the resonant frequency point: I'll have to admit this is beyond me, but you are right that tidal power works not just by rising and falling sea levels, but by big waves that bulge upwards as they hit shallower water. But I guess what matters is the resonant frequency of the body of water on the seaward side of the barrage which includes Bristol Channel and Irish/Celtic sea - and that is a very large body compared to the water on the other side of the barrage. I found this <A HREF="http://gyre.umeoce.maine.edu/physicalocean/Tomczak/ShelfCoast/notes/chapter05.html" REL="nofollow"> article on tides in estuaries</A>. There's a mention on page 7 of <A HREF="http://books.google.com/books?id=TAose4g7vjoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=subject:%22Barrages%22&ei=4zH4Rq-NF5nApALZrrHQAQ&sig=2ponjCSyDg-OJ2-q9Ii7WkuzKuI#PPA7,M1" REL="nofollow">Tidal Power by Clive Barker</A> of modelling done on the Severn to estimate changes in tidal amplitude and the conclusion seems to suggest no problem. But hey! That's what they said about the wobbly bridge between the City and Tate Modern.<BR/><BR/>On clean: well it's a very large mass of concrete and steel and a big disruption to a sensitive important habitat...<BR/><BR/>Inspirational? Imaginative? I don't really think so - one of the key challenges is to find ways to reduce carbon at the lowest cost - that way we can convince others to do it and show that it. The realy elegant solutions in climate change are the ones that save money as well as greenhouse gases, and these measures are the <I>only</I> hope for mobilising international action.<BR/><BR/>On the 'just get on with it' point... I do have some sympathy for that one. But I think the answer is to get on with doing something else rather than succumbing to the allure of mega-projects.Clive Bateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15614056019814665135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28078378.post-29982607220570823582007-09-24T19:09:00.000+01:002007-09-24T19:09:00.000+01:00Good question, Captain Flint, and I agree that it ...Good question, Captain Flint, and I agree that it needs an answer. <BR/><BR/>Clive's economic analysis seems credible, and as much of it goes over my head I have to bow to him - cautiously - on that. <BR/><BR/>However, the Severn Barrier does have a few advantages that Clive has not reviewed here:<BR/><BR/>1. It's 'clean', relative to the horrendous unknowns of (more) nuclear power. That's not just a nice thing in itself, it also means less delay.<BR/><BR/>2. It could be inspirational, if used properly as a symbol; though equally it could become a dangerous anasthetic if people assume that they don't have to bother about anything else 'because the Severn Barrier will solve global warming'.<BR/><BR/>3. An imaginative and uneconomic (yes!) project on this scale would be a powerful statement to developing nations who think we aren't doing anything serious - anything that might cost us economically. A project that even people installing AC systems in Delhi might have heard of, might have more impact on global warming in the long run than any other contribution we could make. <BR/><BR/>4. It seems to be a definite project that could be making a contribution in ten years time. Are we sure that the more financially prudent solutions acceptable to the moneybags will be off the ground by then? Or will we still be discussing the most economic options with a view to the possibility of one day thinking about beginning to...<BR/><BR/>Still, Captain Flint's question needs an answer. Money may be an illusion, but tides are not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28078378.post-45223743901389834662007-09-24T14:36:00.000+01:002007-09-24T14:36:00.000+01:00Sound economic analysis, Mr Bates. Is suspect that...Sound economic analysis, Mr Bates. Is suspect that any moves towards the construction of a Severn Barrage is more likely to be motivated by a desire on the part of the government to be seen to be doing something than by a carefully reasoned economic and environmental study of the wider issues.<BR/><BR/>And Clive is right to say that environmentalists who oppose nuclear power on the basis of economics must surely apply the same standards to this scheme. Let's hope the SDC agrees.<BR/><BR/>There are far cheaper ways to avert carbon emissions, but they aren't nearly so sexy and glamorous as this; look at the cost per tonne of carbon displaced, and the answer is clear.<BR/><BR/>I've got another concern, not related to economics or environmental impacts. The beauty of the Severn Estuary for tidal power depends on its resonant frequency - this is more or less the same as the period between successive high tides, and the reason why the tidal range is so impressively high. The frequency totally depends on the topography of the area, i.e. the shape of the estuary itself.<BR/><BR/>But if someone goes and builds a ruddy great wall across the basin, they will fundamentally change its shape and therefore its resonant frequency. So the Severn Estuary with a tidal barrage might conceivably end up with a considerably smaller tidal range than at present, which will in turn alter the economics of power generation.<BR/><BR/>Has anyone looked into this? My physics isn't good enough to do the sums myself.Captain Flinthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14564322840998458487noreply@blogger.com