Environmentalists react angrily to shortlisted projects for Severn estuary

Biodiversity at risk as shortlist sidelines greener options in favour of big projects, say campaigners
Alok Jha
guardian.co.uk, Monday 26 January 2009 15.43 GMT

Aerial view of the Severn crossing. Photograph: David Goddard/Getty Images
Environmentalists have reacted angrily to the government's proposed shortlist of projects for what could become the UK's single biggest renewable energy project. Campaigners are dismayed that the smaller, more environmentally friendly ideas for harnessing the power of the tides in the Severn estuary have been sidelined in favour of larger projects that threaten to destroy the local area's biodiversity.
The five projects selected by the government today range from a 10-mile barrage across the entire estuary from Cardiff to Weston-super-mare to a series of tidal lagoons on the English and Welsh coasts. The government is committed to generating 20% of the nation's energy from renewable sources by 2020 and the Severn estuary, with a tidal range of 14 metres (the second largest tidal range in the world), could make a major contribution. But set against that is the impact of large schemes on wildlife, ports and coasts.
Top of the government's proposed shortlist is the largest barrage proposal, Cardiff-Weston. It could generate up to 8GW of electricity, cost around £14bn to build and could supply 5% of the UK's electricity needs. Two smaller barrage projects further upstream – Shoots and Beachley – also made it to the short list of five. Between them they could generate around 1.65GW of electricity.
"We're talking about an extraordinary resource of tidal power which, if properly deployed, could have enormous benefits in terms of meeting our renewable energy targets and our wider climate change objectives," said the climate change and energy secretary, Ed Miliband, said it was possible that more than one project could be selected.
But campaigners criticised the proposals. Martin Harper, head of sustainable development at the RSPB said it was "hugely disappointing" that the Cardiff-Weston barrage option was on the short list. "Harnessing the huge tidal power of the Severn has to be right, but it cannot be right to trash the natural environment in the process. The final scheme must be the one that generates as much clean energy as possible while minimising harm to the estuary and its wildlife."
"The Cardiff-Weston Barrage would destroy huge areas of estuary marsh and mudflats used by 69,000 birds each winter and block the migration routes of countless fish."
Miliband acknowledged that biodiversity was an important issue and said that not tackling climate change through renewable energy schemes would pose its own risk to wildlife, through rising sea levels. "If you had water levels rising by a metre, that would have very bad effects on the Severn estuary," he said.
Two tidal lagoon projects on the coasts at Bridgewater Bay and Fleming also made the shortlist. Tidal lagoons involve retaining water along a section of the estuary as the tide comes in and then releasing it at low tide to generate electricity.
But Friends of the Earth Cymru said proposals for offshore tidal lagoons had been excluded. The group said this technology could deliver large amounts of green electricity quickly, more cheaply and with less environmental impact than the larger Severn barrage ideas favoured by government.
"Their exclusion from the government's shortlist of technologies being assessed is utterly incomprehensible," said FOE Cymru director Gordon James. "We have long suspected that the UK government has already decided on the Cardiff to Weston Severn barrage, and that this consultation process is little more than a cosmetic exercise."
Earlier this month, the Guardian revealed allegations that the government's engineering consultants, Parsons Brinckerhoff, had miscalculated the costs of a tidal lagoon project of the kind championed by FOE. The report sent by the consultants to ministers said the tidal lagoon option would be eight times more expensive than the barrage scheme and would not generate as much power, claims denied by FOE and the designers of the offshore lagoons.
David Elliott, co-director of the energy and environment research unit at the Open University, said a single big barrage was problematic in terms of harnessing energy. "It will only provide two short bursts of power each 24 hour lunar cycle." He said building several smaller tidal turbines around the coast that could operate at different times would be a better soltution.
"The fact that we've got a shortlist of five doesn't mean that we will pick one," said Miliband. "It's possible we have more than one project."
The five projects selected are those that the government's engineering consultants, Parsons Brinckerhoff, deemed to be based on the most proven technology. Not included are tidal reefs and tidal fences: the former would deploy a series of slow-moving, fish-friendly turbines over a purpose-built causeway in the estuary while the latter involves building only a partial barrier between Cardiff and Weston-super-mare. Both these proposals are acknowledged as having minimal impact on the local environment.
Miliband announced that £500,000 would be available to further develop such technologies. "We recognise there are more innovative, less tried and tested and more speculative technologies including tidal reefs and fences, which deserve a fair crack of the whip," said Miliband. "They're not on the shortlist because they don't meet the technical standards that have been rightly set."
The government will now seek further consultation on the Severn plans with final decisions on which projects would be given the green light to be made in 2010.
At the launch of the shortlist, Miliband also hinted that some funding for the bigger projects would have to come from the public purse. "We acknowledge the sheer scale of the capital cost is very challenging. However, for future generations, given the demands of climate change and given the demands around renewable energy, it would be wrong to rule [them] out at this stage simply on the grounds of cost. We are thinking here of a project that could last 120 years."