MPs recommend Regen SW's plan for Severn marine energy
The proposal to build a Severn Barrage has been rejected by MPs who say it's 'no knight in shining armour for UK renewables'.
The Energy and Climate Change Select Committee said Hafren Power's £25 billion plan failed to make a robust business case or answer serious questions raised over its economic and environmental effects.
The Committee's ruling does however recommend exploiting marine energy from the Severn in a way recommended by Regen SW, the independent renewables consulting agency which said a Severn energy authority should be established and a number of differing technologies should be tried as stepping stones to a major project.
The Committee concluded: "Alternative options for exploiting Severn tidal resources also exist. Stronger public governance of these resources would offer the opportunity to develop alternative technologies and strengthen the evidence base before building a large-scale facility."
But Hafren today says it will press on. Tony Pryor, Chief Executive, said: "The report is unhelpful and frustrating - we all know we have a lot more work to do and we will do it.
"The Government has already told us it is not against the barrage and we are determined to press ministers and officials to engage fully. We believe the environmental and economic issues can be solved with everyone working together."
The proposal to build an 18km fixed tidal barrage across the Severn estuary between Brean in England and Lavernock Point in Wales has been controversial from the start.
Hafren claimed the bi-directional turbines would generate 5% of the UK's demand, or enough to power 3.4 million homes, at a levelised cost of £48 per megawatt-hour.
Although construction of the barrage would be privately financed, Government support would have been needed for about 30 years through Contracts for Difference or a similar mechanism.
MPs said they do not believe at this stage that the barrage would be competitive with other low-carbon technologies and that Hafren Power had failed to answer the serious environmental concerns, including how it would comply with EU legislation.
They added that concerns from industry, in particular the surrounding ports, have not been fully addressed and the impact on jobs and growth remains unclear, as does the overall employment and socio-economic benefit when potential job losses are factored in.
The report says: "Further research, data and modelling are needed before environmental impacts can accurately assessed - especially regarding fluvial flood risk, intertidal habitats and impact to fish. The need for compensatory habitat on an unprecedented scale casts doubt on whether the project could achieve compliance with the EU Habitats Directive."
It adds that the likelihood of a high strike price over many years risks eating up an excessively large proportion of the funds available under the Levy Control Framework.
Committee chair Tim Yeo said: "We need innovative solutions to help us meet decarbonisation targets while keeping energy prices as low as possible.
"Tidal energy is a vast resource which remains largely untapped. However, tidal and marine projects must demonstrate their economic, environmental and technological credentials and their ability to gain stakeholder support.
"The Hafren Power proposal, having failed to achieve this, is no knight in shining armour for UK renewables."
He added: "While a tidal barrage could offer decarbonisation and energy security benefits, the Hafren Power project in its current form has not demonstrated sufficient value as a low carbon energy source to override local business and environmental concerns. Alternative options exist which may provide a lower cost and less damaging means of meeting our 2050 carbon targets.
"In the meantime, Government should consider a more proactive approach to managing Severn tidal resources to harness its massive tidal range in the most sustainable and cost-effective way."
Regen SW director Johnny Gowdy said: "The committee report has endorsed the views held by us, and many people both in the industry and environmental organisations, that the barrage is not the answer and we must find another way to harness the energy of the Bristol Channel to generate clean energy and jobs"
"Among several recommendations the committee calls on the UK Government to put in place a much needed governance structure. This question of governance is critical.
"it's only with support from industry, environmental groups and communities on both the Welsh and English sides of the Bristol Channel that we successfully deliver strategic projects, that's why we are supporting initiatives such as Sustainable Severn and the South West Marine Energy Park."
Peter Jones, RSPB Cymru Conservation Policy Officer: Sustainability, said: "These findings confirm everything that the RSPB has been saying about barrage proposals in the Severn. We should now move on to consider seriously alternative ways of harnessing tidal energy without doing unacceptable harm to the habitats and wildlife that it supports."
At a recent conference at UWE Bristol, organised by RSPB, Regen SW and Bristol Port, strong arguments were put forward to suggest the best way to get a sustainable Severn is to adopt a "mixed technology" approach to capturing energy. The suggestion is that a step-by-step approach to the delivery of smaller wave, wind and tidal lagoon projects could deliver large amounts of renewable energy with minimum impact on the environment.
Kate Jennings, RSPB Head of Site Conservation Policy, said: "There's a huge prize to be won. But to get where we need to be, we need government and key stakeholders in England and Wales - engineers, environmentalists, developers, businesses - working together. The RSPB will be pushing hard to make this happen."
Friends of the Earth's South West Campaigner Mike Birkin added: "This report should bang the final in the coffin for the current Severn Barrage proposal. The scheme is not cost effective and has little public support.
"There are plenty of other ways to harness clean energy on and offshore without sacrificing our wildlife and endangering homes and people with the risk of flooding."
