Government ministers have today (10 June) said that they ‘cannot recommend’ plans for a £30 billion tidal power project to go ahead, as the economic case for it is ‘not strong enough’.

The plans for the Severn barrage were first brought to light in October 2010, when the government published findings from a feasibility study into producing renewable energy from the Severn Estuary. The report looked at five different schemes, including three barrages and two lagoons.

One of the largest schemes proposed was an 11-mile fixed-tidal barrage between Brean in England and Lavernock Point in Wales. Made up of 1,026 Very-Low-Head (VLH) bi-directional turbines, the Corlan Hafren/Hafren Power Consortium (now Hafren Power) barrage was estimated of being capable of generating approximately 16.5 terawatt hours (TWh) a year on both ebb and flood tides. This would account for around five per cent of the UK’s electricity needs.

Further Hafren Power estimated that its barrage would directly generate 20,700 jobs, supplemented by a further 30,000 indirect and induced jobs.

However, former Energy Secretary, Chris Huhne, rejected the project arguing that there was “no strategic case… for public funding of a scheme to generate energy in the Severn Estuary”.

Despite this, in August of last year, Prime Minister David Cameron met with former Labour Minister, Peter Hain to discuss revisiting the plans. This triggered the Energy and Climate Change Parliamentary Select Committee (ECCC) to launch an inquiry ‘to examine the proposal in more detail and to encourage transparency and public debate’.

Report findings

In the ECCC report, ‘A Severn Barrage? Second Report of Session 2013–14, Volume I’, the ECCC found that the project had ‘failed to demonstrate economic, environmental and public acceptability’.

In particular, ministers voiced concern with:

• the ‘high level of support’ the project would need through Contracts for Difference (and would thus not be ‘competitive’ with other low-carbon technologies);
• Hafren Power’s ‘failure to answer’ questions about ‘serious environmental concerns’ over the impact of the barrage on the surrounding area; and
• the lack of clarity over the ‘impact on jobs and growth’.

Contracts for Difference

Looking at the cost of the project, the report found that although construction of the barrage would be privately financed, ‘government support would be required for approximately thirty years through Contracts for Difference (CfD) or a similar mechanism’.

Indeed, the ECCC said that though the ‘strike price’ (the price paid for electricity produced) required by Hafren Power is unknown, ‘the ability of the project to compete with other low-carbon forms of energy is in doubt’. According to the ECCC, a high strike price ‘risks swamping the Levy Control Framework (LCF), while a strike price below £100 per megawatt hour appears unlikely to ensure the project’s economic viability’.

Environmental concerns

Environmental stakeholders including the National Trust, the Angling Trust, the RSPB (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds) and the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust have ‘articulated serious concerns regarding environmental impacts’ of the barrage, with the RSPB claiming that there could be “continued erosion of mudflats at the side of the estuary for many years to come creating loss of habitat for the many thousands of wading birds that use the estuary to feed”.

Gwyn Williams, RSPB Head of Reserves and Protected Areas added: “One big worry is that in order to give investors confidence to back the scheme, government may reduce the environmental scrutiny process to a minimum, which would be a mistake.

“That’s a big risk to take with a structure that will be with us for a century or so, and the environmental consequences that could stay with us forever. It’s just too big to get wrong.”

Indeed, the report found that Hafren Power had ‘failed to overcome the serious environmental concerns that have been raised’ and that ‘further research, data and modelling are needed before environmental impacts can be determined with any certainty – in particular regarding fluvial flood risk, intertidal habitats and impact to fish’. The ECCC also warned that ‘the need for compensatory habitat on an unprecedented scale casts doubt on whether the project could achieve compliance with the EU Habitats Directive’.

Job creation and losses

Hafren Power estimated that its project would ‘directly generate 20,700 jobs, supplemented by a further 30,000 indirect and induced jobs’, with the barrage itself sustaining approximately 1,000 permanent jobs.

However, the ports in the Severn area had expressed concern that the scheme would ‘kill’ the industry, with Simon Bird from The Bristol Port Company saying that the plans would see a ‘loss of approximately two metres of depth of water upstream of the barrage’, restricting the port’s capacity and causing “erosion in terms of our [the ports’] overall competitiveness”. He added: “The loss of high water is probably a killer for us”.

Stakeholders also raised concerns that the proposed barrage would jeopardise £1.2 billion worth of investment in infrastructure, including a £600 million Deep Sea Container Terminal and two biomass power stations that have already received planning permission, and result in job losses.

Project is ‘no knight in shining armour’

The report concluded: ‘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 regional and environmental concerns. Alternative pathways exist to meeting our 2050 carbon targets.’

Tim Yeo MP, Chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, added: “Our inquiry has brought more information into the public domain and furthered the debate, but we cannot recommend the Hafren Power scheme as currently presented to us.

"We need innovative solutions to help us meet decarbonisation targets while keeping energy prices as low as possible. Tidal energy is a vast resource that 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.

“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.”

Report is “unhelpful and frustrating”

Speaking of the report findings, Tony Pryor, Chief Executive of Hafren Power 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.”

Pryor added that smaller schemes could not “harness the full power potential of the estuary and do it economically”, and said that the barrage proposal would be “much cheaper and last much longer than offshore wind farms which have high levels of public subsidy”.

He added: “Britain needs more infrastructure projects, especially power generation. Our proposal delivers in spades – up to £25 billion in private investment, 20,000 construction jobs and a further 30,000 jobs supported, and the cheapest zero carbon electricity over its lifetime.”

Read the ECCC’s report ‘A Severn Barrage? Second Report of Session 2013–14, Volume I’. The second volume of the report, which includes additional information from stakeholders, can be found on the committee’s website.