Energy and Climate Change CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Mary Page (SEV29)
1. Summary:
In the past 2 years since the Government’s comprehensive and extensive Severn Tidal Power Feasibility Study the environmental circumstances and case against the barrage has remained stable and conclusive. The call for action to install a barrage to produce energy in order to tackle Climate Change is a spurious one. We are facing the issues with Global Climate Change as we have consistently ignored the environmental harm of human activities, therefore now is not the time to ignore again the environmental cost and consequences of a large-scale barrage. Critically the CO2 content of the earth’s atmosphere has reached and passed the tipping point of 350ppm. However, other projects described as the Severn Embryonic Technologies including tidal stream technology and new wave energy projects have increased in terms of variety, technology advances and available environmental impact data from deployed test sites. In the last two years the Government has created the Catapults for bridging the gap between academia and industry and both the HVM Catapult and the ORE Catapult could provide valuable assistance to move on technologies past first concept TRL1–3 through into TRL 4–7 to enable UK companies to be world leaders in wind/wave/tidal energy.
2.1 What contribution could the Cardiff-Weston Barrage make to UK energy security and climate change objectives?
A barrage could provide the UK with a regular supply of energy that energy would be produced at the times of the tide and therefore be predictable and reliable. However, it would not necessarily be produced at the time of peak usage need as production would vary by an hour every day and move through the 24 hour cycle in the same pattern as the tides. I have seen it reported that the new Barrage proposal could provide “fifth of UK energy” although that could be a typo but it needs to be checked: 5% was the maximum generation suggested before in the DECC STPFS and that was a generous figure. To create 20% (fifth) of the UK electricity power needed it would need to produce over 70TWh/pa as UK used 368 TWh electricity in 2011 and that’s just electricity not UK’s energy usage! Compared to the original Barrage predictions of Energy Generated 15.6TWh/pa that’s an enormous jump!
There could also be a risk that with international terrorism now so dispersed, fragmented and digitised that a large scale barrage construction could become a terrorist target ether through cyber attack or by bomb threat. It is not relevant to think of it as a tool to tackle Climate Change, as CC has been caused by a consistent under accounting for the environmental impact and consequences of human activities. The construction alone would require such huge provision of aggregates and energy that in the short term which is when we need to take action to reduce emissions and energy use. It would contribute to increasing Climate Change not reduce it. The submissions to the DECC STPFS report concluded that a Barrage would increase sea level rises for up to 30cm as far as Ireland.
3.1 What risks and opportunities could it pose with regard to flooding in the Severn estuary, and how might any risks be mitigated?
The major risk from flooding upstream in the Severn is from fluvial waters coming downstream and run off from both agricultural and urban land. So the impounded head of water created by the barrage could increase the problem of flooding in Tewkesbury and Gloucester not alleviate it. It could also prove problematic for the drainage across South Gloucestershire, as there are over 40 outfalls into the Severn from that area. (Ref: DECC STPFS SGlos Council Submission.)
4.1 What risks and opportunities could it pose to wildlife and habitat in the Severn estuary, and how might any risks be mitigated?
There would be a loss of 50% of inter-tidal habitat—there is no action that could be taken to mitigate that. The RMSAR designation and the compensatory habitat that would need to be provided would be in the region of 60,000ha as it would require 3:1 ratio some 600 sq km. (Ref: DECC STPFS SGlos Council Submission.)
5.1 What lessons can be learned from the successful development of La Rance tidal barrage in France and other tidal power projects?
It depends what you define as successful. This question should be at least 2 separate questions as there is no direct connection or relation between each project apart from the over-riding point that on each there have been unintended consequences and a significant underestimation of the environmental harm and impact. The construction of the Oosterschelde Storm Surge barrier was a large-scaled and complex project and the environmental impact have been considerable. The intended sea storm surge flood prevention didn’t account for the inland flooding that has since occurred. (Ref: RSPB report http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/RSPBbriefEasterScheldtreportfinal_tcm9–240984.pdf The Bay of Fundy has a number of environmental reports and has caused coastal erosion issues up to 200 miles away http://www.bofep.org/publications.htm
6.1 What risks and opportunities could it pose to local employment and community, and how might any risks be mitigated?
In particular, what are the consequences for current ports, fishing and aggregate extraction industries in the estuary? Purely discussing this issue again is having a negative impact on Bristol Port as they are already finding it a negative attractor for long-term investment both in the docks and for their deep sea container port. This will lose jobs and economic prosperity for the city of Bristol. The other options for smaller scale balanced approach schemes as advocated by Regen SW could create long-term jobs in Bristol and all around the UK and that could be exported worldwide rather than one tidal Barrage which would be a one off and which would ultimately transfer employment from the English side of the Estuary to Wales. History tells us that cities caught on the wrong side of the “millers dams” and cut off from the sea decline and are stunted, e.g. Exeter.
7.1 Would the project require support under the proposed new Contracts for Difference mechanism? If so, approximately what level of strike price would be required to make the project economically viable?
N/A to my area of knowledge.
8.1 How does the company plan to engage and consult the community in the development of the project?
N/A to my area of knowledge.
9.1 Are the proposals in breach of EU legislation, and if so how will this be addressed?
N/A to my area of knowledge.
10.1 Are any other proposals for tidal power projects in the Severn estuary currently under consideration?
Yes Parsons Brinkerhoff have a tidal lagoon project. The Regen SW and Marine Matters report on the Marine Energy Park outlines how a balanced approach could be more beneficial and provide a win-win situation for Bristol and other potential upstream Severn Ports, the environment and still provide 14GW energy production without a Severn Barrage. The report
11.1 What could be the wider international implications of the scheme for UK engineering and UK low-carbon industry?
Government estimates suggest that we are already 50,000 engineers short of what we need to meet current industry need and it’s estimated that will be 200,000 short in the near future. The Government’s Catapult centres are going some way to enable UK based industries remain competitive in a global market but there is a huge opportunity if smaller schemes were enabled. However, great UK tidal technology companies have failed to get enough Government support to keep the innovation in the UK. In the time since the DECC STPFS both Bristol based companies, Marine Current Turbines were bought out by Siemens and Rolls-Royce sold Tidal Generation Ltd to Alstom. Both the HVM Catapult in particular the National Composites Centre (because of the properties offered by composite materials meaning potentially less maintenance and light weighting opportunities) and the ORE Catapult could be critical in enabling maximum benefit from the smaller modular tidal stream technology projects. Not that I wish to underplay the important environmental resource of the Severn Estuary as the other schemes (lagoon, fence & Pulse Tidal, reef, tidal turbine farms, kites etc) will also have potential environmental effects but because they are smaller or able to be deployed in a modular fashion that environmental impact can be properly assessed and monitored.
12. Credibility and Background Expertise
Mary Page Biography in relation to expertise and knowledge regarding Severn Estuary and proposed Tidal technologies.
My full time job is Business Development Coordinator at the National Composites Centre part of the High Value Manufacturing Catapult. My previous post 2005–11 was Political Assistant at South Gloucestershire Council.
In various places I have been opposing a solid structure Barrage but promoting new embryonic tidal energy technologies that the UK could be world leaders in for the past six years.
Past activities include:
In the run up to the Mayoral elections I finally had an opportunity to organise a briefing on the Marine Energy Park and the case against the Tidal Barrage for the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg MP and his PPS Duncan Hames MP. The assembled experts included representatives from new Tidal Stream technologies—(Marine Current Turbines), Peter Kydd from Parsons Brinkerhoff one of the world’s leading planning, engineering, program and construction management organisations, Marine life expert Dr Rob Kierle from the Marine Conservation Society, Johnny Gowdy Programme Director Regen SW, (Bristol Port were unable to attend on the day but provided a briefing note) and Environmental Activist & surfer Stuart Ballard.
I have attended every Severn Estuary Partnership event on Severn Tidal Energy in the past six years. I attended the Gloucester Symposium with John Gummer, the Institute of Civil engineers Tidal technology event and most of the DECC STPFS consultation events. In addition I’ve attended all of the Regen SW events with assembled experts over the past six years and the Bristol Tidal Energy Forum.
I’ve also heard representation from WWF, Marine Conservation and the RSPB and attended the ITN debate at Slimbridge where I likened the motives of those proposing the large-scale barrage scheme to “big boys with big toys wanting to build big things”.
13. References:
Wikipedia: James E. Hansen said that this tipping point had already been reached in April 2008 when the CO2 level was 385 ppm. (Hansen states 350 ppm as the upper limit.) “Further global warming of 1°C defines a critical threshold. Beyond that we will likely see changes that make Earth a different planet than the one we know. He has further suggested potential projections of runaway climate change on Earth creating more Venus-like conditions in his book Storms of My Grandchildren.
November 2012