And another thing about that dam...

Tweet There’s a good reason why all the mockups and impressions of the proposed Severn Barrage show a road across the top.  Although the scheme’s proponents talk about the barrage itself being entirely privately financed, it is unlikely that the barrage would ever be built without the public sector financing that such a road requires.

In theory, it could be a rail link rather than a road link –  a 21^st century alternative to the Severn Tunnel would surely be worth having.  The proposed barrage is really in the wrong place for that though – the alternative (smaller and less environmentally damaging) Shoots Barrage would be much better placed to form part of HS3 – Wales’ link to the European rail network.  So road it would be.

That of course means connecting it to the M4; and I do wonder whether any of the proponents has really looked at a map to consider the implications of a four or six lane highway between Lavernock and the M4.

Assuming that little problem could be overcome, it also raises the question as to how such a road would be funded in practice.  For reasons which escape me, and which seem to defy logic, most, if not all, of our elected politicians seem to be wedded to the idea that road tolls are a very bad idea unless the road crosses a stretch of water, in which case they become a very good idea.  So much so that two parties (Labour and Plaid) are now in favour of using roads-which-cross-water as a source of taxation revenue to fund other projects.

It’s probably reasonable to suppose therefore that any new road crossing would be funded by tolls and that those tolls would have to be set at a higher level than the tolls for the existing crossings – the proposed bridge is, after all, considerably longer than either of the existing crossings and more expensive to build in consequence.

Using the logic applied when the second Severn Crossing was opened, we can’t really have a situation where the crossings are priced differently, since few people would then use the higher-priced crossings.  So I think we can assume that all three crossings would be priced at the new higher level – and that such tolls would continue for the foreseeable future, rather than being reduced (or even abolished) at the end of the current contract period.

So how much of a leap is it really to say that those politicians and others supporting the Hain barrage are, in effect, also supporting not just the retention of Severn tolls but increasing them to a higher level and maintaining them at that level for the indefinite future?

The dam with a hole

Tweet Just when it was starting to look as if the whole scheme for a Severn Barrage was sinking rapidly – so much so that the MP for Hafren Power Central Neath was starting to foment trouble elsewhere (How could the Labour Party ever think it could win any elections without his advice?), up pops the Western Mail with a front-page banner headline claiming that the barrage scheme has been “boosted” by the engagement of a number of major companies. The paper thinks this is a big story apparently – although not quite big enough to depose rumours about managers of Welsh soccer teams being enticed away to Everton from the very top of the front page.

I wonder whether it’s really that big a story – is it saying much more than “companies sign contracts from which they expect to make a profit”? The paper merely tells us that the companies have “been engaged” to assess the project; it tells us nothing about the commercial terms of engagement. One assumes that they’re expecting to be paid for their work; and companies accepting paid work for profit tells us little about the viability of the scheme itself.

It’s possible of course that I’m being too cynical here, and that they’re doing work for nothing at this stage in the hope of a bigger payback later. It’d be a gamble if they were.

The Western Mail has become something of a cheerleader for this doomed project. Its editorial tells us that “the environmental advantages of building a barrage are demonstrable”, but gives us only that half of the story which fits that particular narrative.

To read both the story itself and the editorial comment, one might conclude that the only opposition to the scheme comes from the owner of Bristol Port; and that as he is a donor to the Conservative party his concerns can be dismissed with no further consideration.

Not only do the environmental arguments for the barrage not stack up, but neither do the economic ones. This barrage will only ever be built – regardless of what its proponents say – if there is a massive investment of taxpayer funding; even if it is disguised funding. It is no coincidence that all the drawings and artists’ impressions of the scheme show a bridge over the top of the barrage.

Hafren Power have been, in fairness, clear from the outset that they would not provide that bridge, nor build the higher and stronger barrage which it would require. That is something that we would have to pay for, but since no one seems able to conceive of a barrage without a road on top, public involvement would be inevitable.

I’d lay odds that the risks and rewards will end up being shared in the usual fashion between the public sector and the private sector – the public sector (all of us, effectively) would get to share the risks amongst ourselves, and the sponsors of the scheme would get to share the rewards amongst themselves.

Sixes and sevens

Tweet I was somewhat surprised to see the story in last weekend’s Western Mail about Dafydd Wigley giving his support, albeit conditional, to Peter Hain’s pet project, a barrage across the Severn estuary.

The “if” stated by Dafydd (satisfying the environmental objections) is a mighty big one, of course.  It seems to have been more than a little underplayed in the newspaper’s report, which gave a rather more positive spin to his support for the barrage.  Properly evaluated, it’s hard to see how that ‘if’ can amount ultimately to anything other than opposition (although of course Hain himself seems to believe that all of the environmental objections can be overcome by deregistering the Natura 2000 habitat, and pooh-poohing the other objections).

Still, it was clear that ‘in principle’, Dafydd was now supporting the building of a barrage.

The story does rather reinforce once again the fact that Plaid’s energy policy is all over the place.  To summarise:

• On nuclear energy, the party is formally opposed, but any member who disagrees is free to campaign in favour; and a significant proportion of the party’s elected representatives seem to fall into that latter category.
• On wind energy the party is formally in favour, except that all those members who disagree are free to oppose every single proposal to actually build any turbines, and do so with vigour.
• On tidal power the party is in favour of lagoons around Wales instead of a barrage, but it now seems that members are free to support building a barrage instead if they wish.
• On gas, the party is opposed to the negative environmental impacts of building gas power stations, but is not opposed to actually building and operating the stations in the first place.

In summary, the party appears to be formally committed to a future based on renewables, as long as its members are free to oppose all proposals for renewable installations and to support any non-renewable proposals.  Effectively, and regardless of the formally-adopted policy, Plaid's policy on energy is now whatever it's local representatives say it is, and varies from constituency to constituency, depending on what might be attractive to local electors - an approach to policy which is almost indistinguishable from that of the Lib Dems.

Energy policy is central to any coherent environmental policy – Wales needs leadership and direction, and is not getting it from any party now.  Plaid used to provide that leadership, but has moved a long way from its position in the 1970s and 1980s.

The company's representative

Tweet The report published earlier this week on alternative proposals for exploiting the generating capacity of the Severn estuary is a welcome one.  It claims that a cheaper and less damaging approach than a large barrage across the estuary might even produce more electricity in total – and it would certainly have the potential to spread the generating capacity over a longer period rather than concentrate it at the times that the tide is most favourable.

It doesn’t compare like with like, of course; it is including the use of wind turbines in the estuary as well as tidal and wave turbines.  And I don’t know whether the claim that it will produce more power than the barrage will actually stand up to detailed examination.  Both this proposal and the barrage proposal itself still have too many uncertainties surrounding the final designs to evaluate that thoroughly at this stage.  At the very least, however, a rational approach would be to put this alternative on the table for more detailed analysis.

It was disappointing, though hardly unsurprising, to read the response of our former Secretary of State, Peter Hain.  ‘Dismissive’ would be something of an understatement.  Yet again, it looks as though his commitment to one proposal and the company backing it is over-riding any ability to look at the issue objectively.  It continues to surprise me that there has been, apparently, so little concern within the Labour Party at the extent to which such a prominent figure is now acting first and foremost as the parliamentary representative of a commercial organisation. It's surely not what he was elected to do.

When is an interest not an interest?

Tweet

Last week I commented on the meeting between Peter Hain and David Cameron at which Hain was attempting to enlist the Prime Minister’s support for the building the Severn barrage.  I still have my doubts about the whole proposal, and there was a column in the Sunday Times this weekend written by Charles Clover (hidden behind their paywall I’m afraid) which he also expressed a number of reservations about the proposal.

I’ve also expressed my concern about the way in which an MP elected to serve the people of his constituency seems to have decided that he will, in fact, spend a large part of his time and energy using his influence, and campaigning, on behalf of a private consortium seeking to develop a major infrastructure project.  In that context, Clover’s article included the following sentence “He says it will bring him personally no benefit – although his wife, Elizabeth Haywood, is an adviser to the company”.  If this is indeed true, it puts rather a different gloss on Hain’s claim about the lack of a ‘personal’ interest.

Barrage isn't only possibility

Tweet I'm uneasy with the idea that an MP should be able to set aside other responsibilities in order to become an advocate for a private company proposing a specific development project, even if it's true, as Hain claims, that he’s not being paid (although denials of any potential post-Parliamentary paid office haven't been so conspicuous to date).  I can imagine what the reaction of senior Labour figures would be if a Tory MP were to behave in a similar fashion.

And given Hain's previous invective against the baby-eating Tories, and against anyone who dares so much as to give said evil ones the time of day, the rather chummy way in which is seeking to enlist Cameron to the cause has a certain irony to it.

There is a danger, naturally, that those who have seen Hain's occasional rather nasty side will instinctively oppose anything with which he is associated – and there’d be a certain poetic justice about that.  The scheme does, however, deserve to be considered on its merits, although personally I remain sceptical. 

I don't doubt the claim that it could produce up to around 5% of the U.K.'s electricity needs.  That has to be subject, however, to the same caveat that opponents of wind farms invariably raise – the electricity produced will not necessarily be available to coincide with peak demand, depending on the times of the tides.

Certainly the proposal to generate on both the flow and the ebb tides is a step forward from the previous proposal to generate only on the ebb.  It's still subject to periods of low or zero generation, however.  That's why I'm still inclined to support the alternative of a series of tidal lagoons or tidal flow turbines around the coast, making use of the different times of high tide to generate a smaller total – but more consistently available – amount of power.

It's claimed that the latest proposal will do less damage to the ecology of the upstream Severn than the previous proposal.  Perhaps; but the detail behind this assertion is notable by its absence to date.

My third reservation concerns the costs.  The claim currently is that the barrage could and would be funded entirely from private sources, provided that the price of the electricity produced is guaranteed.  That sounds plausible for the electricity generating barrage itself (although it's worth noting that providing similar price guarantees to wind has been used as a reason for opposing wind turbines), but is it the whole truth?

All of the illustrations that I've seen show a barrage with a road link, rail link, or both running across the top.  There's a logic to doing that, but it significantly increases both the height and the cost of any barrage.  I somehow doubt that those costs have been factored in to the claim that the barrage will be privately financed, which would mean that we're only getting a partial truth.

Hain has a certain ability to generate PR and hype, but his assertion that the barrage “should be backed by all those serious about tackling climate change” is in line with his usual approach to politics, which is to make bald assertions and then attack the motives and integrity of anyone who disagrees with him.  It will take more than that to convince doubters such as myself.

Hain's legacy

Tweet

Seizing hold of a single major issue, and dedicating time to pursuit of that issue, is in the finest tradition of parliamentarianism in the UK, and if Peter Hain had stated last week that he was going to dedicate the rest of his parliamentary career to championing a switch to renewable energy, I’d be forced to seriously reconsider my opinion of him.  That isn’t quite what he said, however.  I don’t expect to be eating my non-existent hat for a while at least.

Rather than pursuing a commitment to the adoption of renewable energy, he is committing himself to a single scheme being promoted by a single consortium, and his statement seemed to suggest that the attraction of that scheme is more to do with the size of the investment involved and the number of jobs created (albeit temporary) than with the energy generated.  Indeed, the fact that it would produce green electricity seemed to me to be almost a bonus rather than being core to the scheme.

I think he’s backing the wrong horse of course; whilst I support the exploitation of the tidal energy in the estuary, I think that there are better ways of doing that than building a giant barrage with all the environmental impact that would have.  That isn’t my main concern about his action, however.

I also rather suspect that the viability of this ‘private sector’ scheme is in reality highly dependent on the public sector coughing up large sums in order to build the barrage higher and run rail and/or road links across the top of it.  But that isn’t my main concern, either.

There is a fine line between campaigning for a particular outcome on the one hand and becoming a parliamentary spokesperson for a particular company promoting a particular scheme on the other.  And it seems to me that he’s in real danger of crossing that line.  MPs are not employed to promote the interests of specific private companies through their parliamentary activity; and that’s my main concern about his statement.

To date it has been claimed that he has no paid position with the consortium concerned, and I have no reason to doubt that.  There is, though, a long and not very honourable history of politicians helping companies whilst in office and reaping their rewards at a later date; cynicism is often, sadly, justified.

Hain is, by his nature, something of a bruiser.  He seems to have difficulty seeing an issue without wanting to disagree vehemently with someone else about it.  But he would probably actually achieve more – and leave a more worthwhile legacy behind him – if he turned his attention from the specific to the general, and tried to build a consensus around that.

Hustings #7

Tweet Back to Carmarthen for last night's session - 'Ask the Climate Change Question', organised by the RSPB. Can't say why, exactly, but it didn't seem to have the same spark as some of the other sessions we've had - hope we're not all becoming jaded. One more to go, in Tenby next Tuesday.

Good range of questions again tonight. One was on nuclear power - no real surprise. Nick Ainger inevitably drew attention to the fact that my position doesn't accord with that of the party leader. Can't blame him for trying, but once again, I can only point out that Plaid makes its policies democratically, and I am promoting the policy agreed by the membership and reiterated in the manifesto.

There was also a question on the Severn Barrage. The Lib Dem and I both argued against the large barrage. Nick Ainger wanted to see the outcome of the studies being conducted before coming to a conclusion. Not an entirely unreasonable position to take - pity I didn't find the opportunity to point out that that puts him at odds with his leader, given that Hain wanted to include a firm commitment to the barrage in their manifesto.

The Tory, Simon Hart, could only say that he didn't have a clue what his party's policy is on the issue. Honest answer, but a little bit surprising given that energy policy was always likely to feature in a debate about climate change.

Visions and diatribes

Tweet Sadly, Peter Hain's essay on the economy yesterday read more like a pro-Labour and anti-Tory diatribe than a serious contribution to discussion of the way forward for the Welsh economy.

His assertion that he is determined to progress the Cardiff-Weston barrage will only add to the concerns of those who believe that the decision has already been taken on largely political grounds, and the feasibility study looking at the environmental impact of this and other schemes is mere window-dressing.

The commitment to the South Wales LCEA is encouraging, certainly, as are the jobs being created in Chepstow and Ynys Môn.

My biggest concern with what there was of an economic vision, however, is whether government - at all levels - is really managing to struggle free from the idea that the way forward for Wales is to compete in global markets and start looking instead at a re-localisation of the economy. I detected no sign of that, just a continued concentration on large schemes and competitiveness.

Ebbing and flowing

Tweet Yesterday's announcement, effectively confirming that the largest scheme for harnessing the tidal power of the Severn estuary is still the front runner, was disappointing, to say the least. Sometimes, there seems to be something of an obsession in government with having dramatic single big 'solutions' to problems, rather than an acceptance that a range of smaller schemes might actually be a better approach.

Clearly, the tidal range of the Severn estuary makes it a prime candidate for harnessing the power which is available there, but I remain unconvinced that a dam across the whole estuary is the best way of doing that, not least because of the environmental damage that such a barrage would itself cause.

One of the problems for those of us who advocate more use of renewable energy is the potential variability in the supply. The advantage of tidal power, of course, is that it is almost entirely predictable – tides ebb and flow in a regular cycle. But that predictable cycle includes two high tides and two low tides every day, and that means that, for any scheme harnessing tidal power, there will be, to a greater or lesser extent, peaks and troughs in the flow of water (and therefore the power generated) each day.

However, around the coast of Wales, there is a 5-hour range in the time of high tide. A series of smaller tidal schemes around the coast would produce less electricity in total, but there would be a more constant supply. Of course, the flow of the tide is not as powerful in every location, which makes the Severn estuary a good place to start implementing tidal technology. But if we want to use renewable sources of energy as a replacement for base load, isn't maximising the use of that tidal range a better option than a single large scheme, which means that we would still need other sources to meet base load when the tidal flow is at its lowest?

Dams and Bridges

Tweet The logic of putting a new Wales-England link along the top of any barrage as part of a single engineering project seems at first sight to be obvious, as was highlighted in the Western Mail last week. I'm not convinced, however, because the two things are responding to two very different needs; and the arguments surrounding the two are very different.

I am not at all convinced about the building of a barrage across the Severn in the first place, and never have been. (I remember back in the 1970's calling it an idea which didn't hold water. Poor joke, I know, but at least the South Wales Echo used the press release.) The environmental damage done by such a barrage will be significant, and the carbon cost of construction will be enormous. Tidal lagoons, on the other hand, will be far less damaging in environmental terms, and are likely to produce electricity at a cheaper unit cost, even if the total amount of electricity produced might be lower.

So I hope that no barrage will ever be built - which is why creating a dependency between such a barrage and a new crossing looks like a major mistake to me.

I am not convinced of the need for a new road link across the Severn estuary either, but I am absolutely convinced of the need for a new rail link. The Severn Tunnel is expensive to maintain, and the near continuous maintenance works make it a bottleneck on the rail network, frequently causing delays and diversions. And as long as the rail link eastwards from South Wales depends on the Tunnel, our capital city will never be linked into the European high speed rail network. The tunnel needs to be replaced, and we should be planning for that now.

Continental Europe is surging ahead with a modern high speed rail network. Plans exist to link the continent from North to South and from East to West with new additions to the high speed lines. Whilst the rest of Europe has spent the last 30 years investing in rail, the UK has been fragmenting and privatising the railways in the name of right wing dogma; and instead of being used to fund investment, UK government subsidies to the rail industry have effectively gone into paying dividends to shareholders.

There are plans in existence stretching to at least 2020 for investment and expansion on the continent, and in the UK, we have... well, no plans at all to expand high speed rail beyond the link from London to the Channel Tunnel, just vague, empty discussions. We need to bring the railway network fully back under public control, and we need an imaginative and bold plan to extend the high speed network across the UK. A new rail crossing of the Severn has to form part of that.

As far as Wales is concerned, the high speed network certainly needs to reach the ferry ports – and why not plan for a north-south link as well? Expensive – certainly, and tremendously so. It will take many years to bring to fruition. Our European neighbours have all recognised the advantages, and have had the imagination and courage to make that infrastructure investment, but we are already 30 years late and haven't even started.

Against that background, linking the future of South Wales rail links to the barrage creates an unnecessary dependency, and is just a recipe for further prevarication.