Engineers accused of taking 'tidal reef' idea in Severn estuary competition

Decc rejects proposal from Rupert Armstrong-Evans but accepts very similar project from Rolls-Royce and WS Atkins
John Vidal, environment editor
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 29 July 2009 15.26 BST
The government and two of Britain's biggest engineering companies have been accused of taking the idea of a leading marine engineer who came up with a novel plan to harness vast amounts of tidal energy from the Severn estuary while causing only minimal ecological damage.
Rupert Armstrong-Evans, who pioneered renewable energy in Britain and now runs a marine engineering firm in Cornwall, spent 18 months researching the idea of a 12-mile long "tidal reef" for the estuary. His construction, planned to run between Minehead in Somerset and Aberthaw in the Vale of Glamorgan, would be cheaper to build and could generate as much electricity as several nuclear power stations without destroying tens of thousands of hectares of internationally protected wetlands, he claimed.
The idea was last year picked up by the RSPB which commissioned engineering consultant WS Atkins to assess its technical and economic feasibility. The 23-page Atkins report published in November 2008, confirmed that the idea was workable and could be as much as £2bn cheaper than a giant barrage. Professor Rod Rainey of Atkins, one of the world's leading marine engineers, who did the assessment said at the time: "We believe this scheme could be more powerful but less costly than other plans being put forward, particularly the barrage."
Armstrong-Evans's idea was then entered in a Department of Energy and Climate Change competition to find the best way to harness the Severn's tidal power and was shortlisted into the last five one month ago. But last week it was rejected in favour of a fundamentally similar design put forward by Rolls-Royce and WS Atkins.
The disputed design, which relies on a very low head of water rather than the Severn's enormous tidal range, is now considered to be a surprise frontrunner for what would be Europe's largest single green energy project. It is also politically attractive because it is more likely to appeal to the powerful consortium of green groups including the National Trust, the WWF and the RSPB, who have condemned the idea of a massive barrage.
"The government called on engineers for proposals to generate large amounts of electricity from the Severn. I spent 18 months full time devising and developing the idea, and had to raise a mortgage. This was a totally new concept in tidal power generation," said Evans. The design requires more turbines than a large barrage but Evans said it saves greatly on weight of concrete in the foundations and installation costs.
Armstrong-Evans is one of the fathers of British marine energy and has developed hundreds of hydroelectric schemes around the world. He calculates that his idea would cut Britain's carbon emissions by around 12m tonnes a year, create more than 30,000 jobs during construction and give a global lead for local manufacturing companies.
"The idea was entered in good faith into the government's competition. The Atkins proposal is the same as the one I put in. It's a dead crib. They call it a low head scheme and I call it a reef but it's the same," he said.
Armstrong-Evans yesterday accused the government of working for the two multinationals companies. "I smelled a rat when I did a presentation to the Department of Energy and Climate Change. They were fast asleep and had only two questions for me. I thought, at worst, that they would be a collaboration between me and Rolls-Royce. But I got a phone call saying I had not been selected." He was further dismayed that Rolls-Royce refused to collaborate with him.
"The reef is a completely new idea for tidal energy. I took out 16 patents but they are only as good as you are prepared to fight for. The little man does not stand a chance. I would have to keep the patents up for 15 years at least and the law is stacked against me. I filed the patents purely to show that there was something in it the idea. I was quite happy to give the idea to the nation for free."
Yesterday the government accepted that the Atkins idea developed directly out of Armstrong-Evans's reef proposal. "The Atkins/Rolls-Royce design developed out of Atkins review of the reef proposal for the RSPB. This found fundamental engineering flaws in the reef design and came up with a different plan. We have tried very hard to provide opportunities for the tidal reef proposal to develop. But, sadly we don't believe it can work or that it's right to spend taxpayers money on it. This allegation that the government gave the idea to the consortium is groundless nonsense."
A spokesperson for the RSPB said yesterday that the organisation regretted the government decision to exclude Armstrong-Evans. "It's a shame that Atkins and Rolls-Royce could not get together with Evans. The engineering community all agree that a reef idea can work. Whereas conventional barrages generate electricity by taking advantage of large differences between high and low tides, both Evans's reef and the Atkins model need only a few metres' difference to drive the turbines. The extra power is gained by using more turbines which can work for much longer periods on both the incoming and outgoing tides."
Adam Morton, head of low carbon technology at Atkins said yesterday: "I can understand how this might look. But Rupert is trying to patent the problem rather than the solution. The way in which water is used is not patentable."
"We were introduced to Mr Evans by the department of energy and climate change as part of the process. We had a brief meeting and we decided we could not work together. No disclosure of intellectual property took place," said a Rolls-Royce spokesman.