Energy and Climate Change CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by South and West Transport Action Group (SEV68)
Introduction
1. The Parliamentary Energy and Climate Change Committee call for evidence on proposed Severn Barrages invitation, is herewith gratefully acceded to.
2. An important BBC Wales News Report of 5 November 2012 is titled “Scrapping Severn Crossing tolls would boost economy.” Insertions in the direct contexts are indicated by [ ].
3. It reveals Wales “First Minister Carwyn Jones said control of the Severn bridges should be transferred to the Welsh Government in 2018.”
4. It continued “Mr Carwyn Jones said he wanted [in parallel with the Select Committee] to talk to the UK [Cameron] Government, about what happens when the concession ends [2018], with one option being that full control of the tolling regime is handed over to the Welsh Government.
5. He [Carwyn Jones] said it would be “unacceptable” for the UK Government to retain the income from the tolls, as it would create a “strong perception that drivers coming into Wales were being charged—directly or indirectly—to fund Department for Transport spending in England.”
6. I [Carwyn Jones] want to work with the UK Government [and presumably the Select Committee(s)] to achieve a situation where decisions ... [in which] there are a number of options available [for the future including a key option transforming the Second Severn Crossing into a barrage, like at La Rance, St Malo, Brittany, France].
7. “[Although] it is too soon to say what the best situation [advocated here optimally as a multi-purpose barrage on the immediately adjoining seawards side of the Second Severn Crossing] would be.”
8. The Department for Transport said it regularly met [including on its parallel responsibilities for Climate Change reductions by 80% before 2050] the Welsh Government, and that conversations about the future [hopefully adequately implementing the barrage advocated herewith] of the Severn Crossings would continue.
An Outstanding Severn Barrage
9. The important insertions above highlight the option of transforming the Second Severn Crossing into a barrage by “filling in the gaps.” This would follow the model barrage configuration of La Rance barrage; by setting in train five key elements of a multi-purpose barrage directly adjoining the line of the Second Severn crossing.
Generally, it is essential that fill to the barrage is derived from South Wales colliery waste, especially Aberfan with the remainder left after 1966. This is to be brought by rail to the Severn barrage construction sites, and used preferably as larger not powdery aggregate. Please note all South Wales collieries are now closed. Barrage power is predictable, like navigators know of tidal flows.
10. Key element one is double-acting pump turbines as at La Rance. These generate the cheapest electricity currently in France. This is because debt incurred to build La Rance has been defrayed from large-scale “renewable” power output cumulatively from “free” water. This is especially so because double acting pump turbines allow tidal predictable electricity output to be retimed to coincide more with peak usage.
11. Key element two is a rail crossing on the line (but slightly seawards to avoid the piers) of the Second Severn crossing. The Severn Rail Tunnel would continue to be maintained as it would still be used, particularly where the locks for shipping to Sharpness and Gloucester etc were open to navigation and the barrage route closed.
12. The Second Rail Tunnel of 1886 is only 25 feet in diameter, and is not large enough to carry hi-cube and newer larger freight containers. The Severn Tunnel forms part of a key Trans-European Network rail corridor to Southern Ireland, via Fishguard. It thus merits supplementation by a Severn Barrage; both to power the railways renewably, and to allow hi-cube and newer larger freight containers to reach South Wales and Ireland; without a lengthy diversion, like road in 1966 Severn Road Bridge times, via Gloucester.
13. When the Severn Bridges Act 1992, was in its House of Lords Bill stages the writer, on behalf of the Railway Development Society Severnside, petitioned Parliament. Although the described future situation was clearly foreseen in a precognitary way, unfortunately the petition was rejected. Five days afterwards, there was the Severn Tunnel Rail Accident of 7 December 1991, 20 years ago. Although, fortunately, no one was killed, still today only one train is allowed in the tunnel at a time; and capacity on an intended to be electrified main line is seriously limited.
14. Readers are asked to make note there is a small railway (for inspection etc) within the structure of the Second Severn crossing. Somewhat similarly there are standard-gauge railway lines used mainly for cranes on La Rance barrage.
15. Key element three includes the locks, within the co-ordinated sluices, turbine channels, and fish passes. As highlighted in paragraph 11, the locks would be sufficient to accommodate shipping to Sharpness and Gloucester. However, a more suitable course of action would be to buy out and cease through compensation Sharpness Docks traffic. This would mean less lock use, and also smaller locks would suffice.
16. The locks could potentially impound fresh (potable) water in connected reservoirs. Thus the locks could impound an essential element of a wet west to dry east water transfer grid network.
17. Key element four is the road crossing. From the scenario above less lock use also means less disruption to the new Severn Barrage road crossing. The new road crossing would serve both for maintenance and to service the barrage itself with its facilities. It would not be competitive with the Second Severn crossing.
18. Key element five extends the basic thrust of elements one and three. A Severn Barrage at the “English Stones” between Studbook and Pilning has been intended since 1933. It was a major interwar regeneration project under the aegis of Lieut Colonel J A Moore-Brabazon MP, who later became Lord Brabazon of Tara after becoming Minister of War Transport in Winston Churchill’s Second World War Government.
19. The 1933 Brabazon barrage included a high-head reservoir for pumped storage power at Trellech in the Wye Valley. This is not-on today for scenic reasons; so the high-head adjunct is moved to Hafodyrynys near Pontypool, with both east and west dams. A canal would link the lower Severn north of the Severn Barrage to the River Usk, followed by pipelines to Hafodyrynys. The scheme would resemble the existing Dinorwig high-head pumped storage scheme in North Wales near Snowdon.
20. The Government’s 2010 Severn Barrage studies, mainly examined a Cardiff-Weston barrage, costing about £34 billions. However, it also studied a “Shoots” barrage at the English Stones, on the historic line since the 1933 Brabazon barrage in paragraph 18. This Pilning to Sudbrook alignment is parallel to the Severn Rail Tunnel of 1886.
21. There is a DECC/DEFRA letter about Severn Barrages to the European Commission of 18 October 2010, that concludes the scheme option of “a “Shoots” barrage [is] also potentially feasible.” In the letter’s final paragraph it is set out “In this context, we [the UK Government] would very much like to discuss the findings of the feasibility study [including the “Shoots” barrage] with the [European] Commission.” This DECC/DEFRA letter is appended at the end of this report.
22. “Potentially feasible” greatly understates the need for the Severn “Shoots” barrage in contributing to the, parallel in 2008, Climate Change Act 2008 key target to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 80% not later than 2050.
23. La Rance barrage, at St Malo, Brittany, France has generated substantial (240 Megawatts installed capacity), non-carbon, non-polluting renewable, cheap, sustainable hydro-electric power since 1966. For some unknown reason La Rance barrage is always classed as unfeasible. This may reflect relict Napoleonic disdain, ranged against the upcoming bicentenary of the Battle of Waterloo in 2015. Otherwise the range of unfeasibility attitudes may just mean at the other end of the spectrum, ignorance through no knowledge of speaking French. The Welsh language context is a good parallel—Does anyone in the Committee speak French or Welsh?
24. It is highlighted La Rance barrage is entirely feasible both now, and for as long as approaching a half-century. So the corollary argument expressed here is that perpetrators of the “potentially feasible” canard are trying to mislead the Committee and Parliament; and it is feared that they may be knowingly or unknowingly in the pay of the nuclear industry.
25. Thus, this contribution maintains that a Severn Barrage parallel to the Severn Railway Tunnel of 1886 has been entirely feasible since 1933, and its original devising as a road/rail/barrage power structure.
Severn Estuary Power and Crossings, from Interwar to the Present
26. What has happened since then? Firstly the road crossing is discussed. Please remember there was none before except ferries, transit through the Severn Railway Tunnel on specially adapted wagons, or a long detour via Gloucester.
27. So, 33 years after the Brabazon barrage was devised the first road crossing came to pass instead as the Severn Road Bridge of 1966. It is of two lanes each way, as a dual-carriageway.
28. Sixty-three years afterwards the second road crossing came to pass as the Second Severn Crossing of 1996. It is of three lanes each way, making 10 lanes in total for the two joint road Severn Crossings.
29. Secondly matters of power. The 1933 Severn barrage had a capacity of 800 megawatts in generation terms. Just over this capacity (about 1100 Megawatts) was in fact provided in four nuclear power stations on three sites.
30. Berkeley, of 1962, had a capacity of 200+ megawatts. It began decommissioning in 1989, after a life of 27 years. £3 billions to £4 billions is allocated towards this.
31. Oldbury of 1969 (magnox) had a capacity of 350 megawatts. It closed recently after a life of 41 years. £3 billions to £4 billions is allocated towards this.
32. Hinkley Point had two nuclear power stations. Hinkley “A” was a magnox station of 1966 and closed in 200?, after 30+ years generation. Hinkley “B” is the only remaining operational Severn Estuary nuclear (AGR) Power Station. It is of 1976, and is megawatt capacity. In December 2012 it received a life extension from 2016 to 2023. £3 billions–£4 billions is allocated towards each of the “A” and “B” stations.
The Importance of Decommissioning costs
33. The three closed and decommissioning Severn Estuary nuclear power stations have cost £x millions (adjusted for inflation). They will cost £3 billions to £4 billions each to decommission safely. Please see the paragraph 38 conclusions.
The importance of Nuclear Decommissioning Costs
34. Hinkley Point “C” is proposed by EDF/Centrica. It will cost more than £10 billions plus twice £3 billions to £4 billions to decommission. This is a total of £16 billions to £18 billions, about half that of the £30 billions to £34 billions, of the Cardiff to Weston Severn Barrage.
35. Taking out investment over-optimism, and noting carefully the 41 years longest life of Oldbury nuclear power station among its ilk; The Energy and Climate Change Select Committee is asked to bring forward two endeavours by asking suitable questions to participants.
36. The primary question is, how with only a 40 to 60 years’ lifespan at maximum, Hinkley “C” can defray the total multi-billion building, operating, and decommissioning costs safely? There are stated to be “no” Government subsidies towards nuclear decommissioning.
37. A parallel question is, if we are paying multi-billions for the so-called safety of society through invisible decommissioning, would this not be much better spent in the endless life (including programmed returbining) of Severn Barrage(s) causeways; to protect cities and major towns against flooding—which is both a Climate Change impact and a severe, visible risk.
38. The Energy and Climate Change Select Committee are asked to note that half the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) budget is spent on decommissioning costs. As above the £73 billions to £100 billions future cumulative cost means £3 billions to £4 billions per nuclear power station. This is calculated by dividing out 73–100 by the 24 or so open and closed nuclear power stations in existence.
Furthermore at least three of the five Severn Barrages key elements have been proved essential by the test of time. It would have been comprehensively better, if an integrated major project such as the Severn Barrage had emerged interwar. In the USA, the similar Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Major New Deal Roosevelt anti-Great Depression project did emerge. In the opposite in Britain we were left with an unsustainable archipelago of components, cumulatively costing far more.
New Deal, Roosevelt Returning to Severn Estuary Crossings Aspects
39. Returning to the paragraph 26 context on what has happened since the 1933 devising of a road/rail/turbine power Severn barrage at Pilning to Sudbrook; the rail crossing aspects are now considered.
40. The original 1933 Brabazon barrage there, included a railway crossing. However in 1960 the Severn Railway Bridge of 1879 at Sharpness to Lydney was hit during fog by oil barges; and this bridge was lost through suffering demolished spans. When the Severn Tunnel was closed for maintenance etc; the alternative crossing became Gloucester in 1960, for not just large loading gauge trains (see paragraph 12) but all traffic.
41. On 16 July 2012 there was the announcement of BBC Wales “Railway electrification to Swansea and South Wales valleys welcomed” after “The UK Government agreed last year (2011) to electrify the line as far west as Cardiff, and had faced heavy lobbying to extend the investment to Swansea.”
42. Mark Barry, a business consultant who wrote the South Wales [valleys] metro report, told BBC Radio Wales “It is probably the most significant investment in Welsh rail since the Severn Tunnel was opened” [in 1886].
Powering the Future South Wales and wider railway electrification
43. Returning to paragraphs 12 and 19 it is necessary to comprehensively plan the powering of the cumulative South Wales and wider railway network. Paragraph 12 specifies the necessity to power the railways renewably from the advocated Severn barrage in a co-ordinated way. Paragraph 19 moves the 1933 Brabazon barrage high-head pumped storage reservoir from Trellech in the Wye Valley to Hafodyrynys west of Pontypool, in the eastern part of the South Wales Valleys.
44. The latter will be both splendid regeneration, and in direct keeping with the thrust of the South Wales valleys mid-2012 focus of electrification.
45. The previous Government issued “A New Deal for Transport”—The Integrated Transport White Paper (ITWP), CM 3950 of 1998. The ITWP page 43 paragraph 3.26 foresaw such a “railway renaissance” in the UK.
46. The ITWP page 14 paragraph 1.28 highlighted:
“We [the previous Government] will put greater emphasis on listening to transport users [such as SAWTAG herewith]—there will be a New Deal for the public transport passenger. ... Through investing in technology, we [the previous Government] will improve the speed [of Severn Barrages provision] and efficiency of customer [electricity] services provided by Government [DECC/DfT/DEFRA] agencies.”
A New Deal
47. The New Deal for the public transport passenger (above) is specified in ITWP page 16 paragraph 1.33 (BOX). There are four main indents that apply to the Severn Barrages/Severn Railway Tunnel context highlighted herewith.
48. “More and better trains.” Firstly more trains overcomes the Severn Tunnel Annex F page 162 Rail Network pinch-points [bottlenecks] listed in paragraphs 12 and 55—60 inclusive herewith.
49. Secondly in the 1.33 BOX there is “a stronger voice for [SAWTAG in the role of] the passenger.” The Select Committee is requested to carefully consider the amalgam of the “New Deal” representations.
50. Thirdly “better interchanges and better connections” are required both in and between South Wales and England.
51. Fourthly and finally” enhanced [railway] networks” require the herewith advocated Severn barrages. This is also given at paragraph 2.45.
Stewardship
52. Continuing in the ITWP, at page 16 paragraph 1.34 it is stated:
“We will be more effective in our stewardship of [water] natural resources, and are determined to build from the historic turning point of the special United Nations’ Conference at Kyoto [Japan], where the developed countries agreed to legally binding targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
53. Going to the ITWP, at page 16 paragraph 1.36 there are three important indents. These are:
“a major effort to reduce greenhouse gases” [by building the advocated barrages through Select Committee support]
“greener, more fuel efficient vehicles through [renewably electrified trains powered from the advocated barrages].
“better stewardship of the nation’s cultural and [water] environmental heritage.”
54. Continuing in the ITWP in brief note form only. 2.20:
“Support regeneration [by Severn barrages] and the vitality of urban and rural areas.
2.25:—”Respond to the challenge of Climate Change so as to reduce use of non renewable energy sources,” or put more simply—by increasing use of renewable energy sources such as barrages.
2.52:—”The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution [RCEP—see at their Eighteenth Report—paragraph 8.85] has produced two comprehensive reports on reducing transport’s impact on the environment ... key influences on [ITWP in] ... reducing greenhouse gas emissions.” In 2.52 BOX, at the end “public transport—targets to encourage more use of public transport.”
The Severn Tunnel Bottleneck
55. Further requirements are given in ITWP page 43 paragraph 3.30 where “Other operators [such as Great Western Trains] are constrained by infrastructure pinch-points [bottlenecks such as the Severn Tunnel as highlighted herewith in paragraph 12 and 13] that are already operating at or close to capacity.
56. ITWP pages 43 and 44 paragraph 3.31: sets out Railtrack [now Network Rail] has identified [the Severn Tunnel as a] bottleneck on the rail network together with possible solutions (see map at Annex F). [It is essential in forwarding] investigating the sufficiency of:
committed plans to deal with bottlenecks on the network [at the Severn Tunnel].
committed projects to renew and develop [through the announced electrification via the Severn Tunnel of] the network.
committed plans to meet the requirements of freight [both from Bristol Container Port, and providing a Severn Barrage route for hi-cube large Containers—see herewith at paragraph 12].
57. ITWP page 99 paragraph 4.29 commences with:
“We [the previous Government] need to take a strategic, network-wide view of the development of the railway ... [and consider, from the second indent] whether Railtrack [now Network Rail] is doing enough to facilitate the progressive [integrated Severn Tunnel and Severn barrage crossings to and from Wales] improvement in passenger services and facilities, and increase in the number of rail passengers, consistent with Government policy.”
58. Paragraph 4.29 continues, in the third indent, immediately after “Government policy” to consider the following. “Evidence of bottlenecks [as set out in Annex F page 162 at the Severn Tunnel crossing] on the rail network and the action [Severn barrages as advocated and required] to tackle them.”
59. ITWP pages 99 and 100 paragraphs 4.30 to 4.35 inclusive contain the following key words: 4.30 with 1.34, see herein at paragraph 52.
railway stewardship obligations.
Few firm commitments to deliver significant [Severn crossings] improvements across the [England/Wales] railway network.
60. 4.31—additional funds aimed at supporting new [railway] investment proposals.
4.32—addressing capacity constraints at key infrastructure “pinch-points” [Annex F page 162 for the Severn Tunnel to Bath] on the existing rail network.
4.35—disposal of railway land [in 1998 was] suspended. [Also their] “use for transport purposes in the foreseeable future—[has] ample opportunity to bid for.”
Planning in 4.165—”Better protection to those sites and routes (both existing and potential) which could be critical in developing [railway] infrastructure to widen transport choices such as .... for water transport.
The Questions
61. Ten Questions are put by the Energy and Climate Change Committee. Question Four asks—what lessons can be learned from the successful development of La Rance tidal barrage in France and other tidal projects? An immediate lesson is that a picture of “La Rance in operation” at the start of the “call for evidence” would have been far more valuable than a supposed weir picture wasting water. At the end of each Question, cross-references give the other paragraph references to the Questions and points involved.
62. Question 1—what contribution could the Cardiff-Weston Barrage make to (a) UK energy security and (b) climate change objectives? It is not the purpose of this report to criticise the Cardiff—Weston barrage save in two respects. The first, is concerning the cost of £30 billions—£34 billions, as against a fraction of this—significantly under £10 billions for the “Shoots” barrage, between Sudbrook and Pilning parallel and above the Severn Railway Tunnel of 1886.
63. The second respect is the influences of a Cardiff-Weston barrage on the Port of Bristol. The “Shoots” barrage is above Bristol on the Severn Estuary and will not have the deleterious effects described in Question 5 here.
64. The Cardiff–Weston barrage will supply 5% to 6% of total UK generating capacity. It must be fitted with the best in the world La Rance barrage turbines. Therefore double acting pump turbines, as in Question 4, are essential. This will enable more than ebb generation operation, with requisite pumping to more nearly align operation with peak electricity demands.
65. In these ways both barrages will obviate a great deal of otherwise gas imports for example from Russia; and oil imports from the Middle East including oil from a steadily depleting North Sea.
66. The latter may become separately Scottish after the 2014 referendum on separation with regard to oil prices already currently being at historically high levels of 110 dollars a barrel; this will serve to act as a continued spur to railway electrifications. (See paragraphs 11, 12, 41—43, 53, 54, and 56)
67. Severn Barrages add to energy security in two ways. Firstly they harness home, “free” water, and contingent on this require a causeway containing turbines, sluices, locks, roads, railways and water supply infrastructure.
68. Secondly they utilise the Severn’s second highest tidal range in the world. The Severn is second only to the Bay of Fundy, Canada; where there is a test tidal turbine at Annapolis Royal. They efficiently derive electrical energy from tidal flows. This is key regeneration, like in the 1930’s when the USA’s recovery from the Great Depression was eased by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) hydro-electric schemes of the New Deal. Please see paragraph 38.
Climate Change
69. The Climate Change Act 2008 requires 80% reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by 2050. One of the few ways of satisfying these criteria is barrages.
70. As the Queen gave the Royal Assent to the Climate Change Act 2008, and foreshore intertidal areas are owned by the Crown, it is vital barrages go ahead to alleviate Climate Change commensurately. Following the Queen’s Speech introducing the Energy Bill, this context is a vital recommendation for the Energy and Climate Change Committee to make.
71. Similarly barrage joint infrastructure of turbines/railways/roads are an essential recommendation for the Committee to forward. It is asked that such routeways become integral with barrage causeways; as they were historically, in the Brabazon barrage proposals of 1933.
72. Attention is drawn to barrages both alleviating Climate Change and powering Cardiff and Bristol metros, besides the electrification of the Great Western Railway main lines. There is a direct further outstanding contribution potentially for railways, if they are constructed in one operation integrated with the barrage causeway.
73. This does not have to be on top of the barrage causeway. Thinking laterally, it will be in January 2013 the 150th Anniversary of London’s Metropolitan Railway of 10 January 1863, the first underground railway system in the world. A few years later part of the system was integrated with the construction of the Thames Embankment, a quasi lateral barrage. The railway—another first—was under the Embankment from the City to the then new Parliament at Westminster, and supported by Government finance.
74. Question 2 asks what risks and opportunities could it pose with regard to flooding in the Severn Estuary, and how might any risks be mitigated?
Flooding
75. The Severn Barrage(s) could potentially be the Bristol Region and part of South Wales (chiefly the eastern part) Thames Barrier, as at London.
76. London and the East of England’s coast suffered fatalities and severe damage, during extensive flooding on 31 January 1953, following a tidal surge.
77. Three decades later in 1982, the Thames Barrier began operation, to stop flooding in central London. It is believed that some of the Thames Flood Embankments—and not necessarily the Embankment of paragraph 73—are not sufficiently high if the Thames Barrier is overtopped, with Climate Change derived sea level rises and surges.
78. On 13 December 1981 there was a similar to 1953 storm surge, but in the Severn Estuary. There had also been in 1607 a greater surge, that may even have been a tsunami.
79. The Energy and Climate Change Select Committee are also currently examining: the future of nuclear power. Evidence has been given regarding Hinkley Point C proposed nuclear power station of EDF. One of the main concerns is post the sea change of Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power stations explosions of March 2011, where 5.5 metres high sea walls were substantially overtopped.
80. In Japan a tsunami substantially overtopped the Fukushima 5.5 metres high sea wall defences, and three nuclear power stations there exploded. All the population has been evacuated from an extensive area inland; and not allowed to return.
81. TEPCO, the Japanese utility company owning Fukushima has only been prevented from going bankrupt by multi-billions subventions by the Japanese Government. In all it is a multi-faceted disaster, resulting from sea walls not being high enough. In the aftermath most of the Japanese total of 53 nuclear power stations are still closed for failings to be remedied.
82. At Hinkley Point “C”, EDF have told the Committee their sea walls will be below the 1607 Severn Estuary tsunami levels of paragraph 78. Also, they talk of £370 million limits to EDF finance of decommissioning, a minuscule amount of the average which is £3 billions to £4 billions from paragraphs 34, 36 and 38.
83. The importance of Climate Change related sea level rises has been shown by Hurricane Sandy’s disastrous flooding of New York, inter alia. President Obama’s manifesto related to this, and it was a key influence in his re-election.
84. The day of reckoning may or may not be on a hundred years return flood. When Energy and Climate Change Select Committee MP’s sign off their Report on the future of nuclear power just make very sure you are not hoodwinked by EDF. Marine Transgressions of the geologist, like time and tide wait for no man.
85. As the Committee is responsible for Climate Change, and it well knows, Hinkley Point is both on the coast and low-lying; so it is subject to the gamut of the Climate Change repertoire. TEPCO, in Japan, were warned of this similar context and ignored it, becoming practically bankrupt and bankrupt of ideas. At Hinkley Point the warning of paragraph 82 is likely to reverberate similarly.
86. There is a National Policy Statement for Nuclear Power Generation (EN1-EN6 etc). However, there is not one for Barrages as yet, and the Committee should request its immediate production, with the incorporation of its worthy Energy and Climate Change context.
87. Question 3—what risks and opportunities could it pose to wildlife and habitat in the Severn estuary, and how might any risks be mitigated?
88. A brief answer is in two parts. No doubt the other interest groups concerned will try and persuade the Committee. This report will confine itself to two brief points.
89. The Energy and Climate Change Select Committee is asked to strictly apply the theme of the NPPF and the Major Infrastructure Projects recent revisions. This new approach vetoes overly concentrating on wildlife and habitat, and the strong national interest is to prevail.
90. A new wildlife and habitat area was provided at Newport—Uskmouth/Nash for the implementation of the Cardiff Bay barrage. Unfortunately the latter did not have essential turbines, and the Committee should advise the Wales Government that it should.
91. Question 4—What lessons can be learned from the successful development of La Rance tidal barrage and other tidal power projects? Much of this has already been set out previously in paragraph 9 to 19, 23, 24, 61 and (here) 91 to 94.
92. The writer is pleased to see the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee recognise La Rance barrage as successful. The Wikipedia parallel entry is enclosed which shows La Rance to be the cheapest power in France. The writer has also been told this both times, on each of visits to La Rance barrage. A quick rule of thumb on power outputs notes the La Rance barrage has 240 Megawatts (MW) from 24 x 10 MW, 5.3 metre diameter turbines. It has a basin size of 24 square kilometres, so the quick calculation is 10 MW of power from one square kilometre of basin impounded size.
93. The Committee is requested to call a witness from EDF on La Rance barrage. This must not be Vincent de Rivaz, as he is not impartial, being overly pro-nuclear. The best expert witness would be a Champion—someone in the senior echelons at La Rance barrage speaking through an interpreter, with translations such as at European Union meetings of Heads of Government (As EU meetings at St Malo 1998).
94. La Rance was built as a smaller version of a potential larger Chausey barrage, further to the north. In this way the thrust of this report is greatly for a Severn Barrage at the “Shoots,” English Stones alignment, parallel to the Severn Railway Tunnel of 1886. This would then be like:
La Rance is to Chausey.
This Report is to Cardiff-Weston.
95. Question 5—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?
96. This is answered for ports and aggregates, by way of cross-referenced to previous paragraphs 9, 11, 15 and 56. It is most important to realise that the Port of Bristol is unaffected by the preferred barrage line of this report.
97. The two metros powered by renewable hydro-electricity, catalysed on both sides of the estuary will be a boost to local employment and access to main centres. It will also be a stimulus to the regional communities.
98. Penultimately, it is proposed that the ex-Oldbury nuclear power station cooling water tidal lagoon in the Severn Estuary be fitted with turbine(s) to regenerate renewable hydro-electric power.
99. Question 6 is answered previously, in Economic terms at paragraph 9 to 18, 20, 21, 25, 33, 34 and 38. The Energy and Climate Change Select Committee is also directed to their predecessor Business, Innovation and Skills Committee 2008 companion report on the cost of Nuclear Decommissioning.
100. Question 7, 8 and 10 are not tackled, because of the severe constraints of time and resources.
101. Question 9—Are there other proposals for tidal power projects in the Severn estuary currently under consideration? The short answer is yes, the “Shoots” barrage parallel to the Severn Railway Tunnel of 1886. The entirety of this report is written from the scenario of this alternative barrage. Thus, rather than reiterating many paragraph numbers; it is hoped readers will understand the broad general thrust of this report.
102. Finally there should be several further proposals for tidal power projects in the sub-estuaries of the Severn estuary, including turbines in the Cardiff Bay barrage, as highlighted at paragraph 90.
103. There is not one sizeable low head hydro-electric turbine in all of Britain. The Energy and Climate Change Select Committee must put this right as soon as possible; by bringing in La Rance barrage double-acting pump turbines to Britain. This would do the UK a major service in the renewable, non-carbon, anti-climate change action fields of research.
December 2012