For whoever it was who wondered why we don't have a load of tidal barrages producing power, here's why the Severn Barrage never got built:
The distribution of estuarine invertibrates is determined mainly by salinity levels, a tidal barrage would change the distribution of salinity, and that would change the distribution of invertibrates, and that would change the distribution of the birds that feed on said invertibrates. That's Spellerberg, 1999, reference likers...
Much the same reason we haven't got at airport on the Isle of Grain.
The tree huggers haven't spotted the fact that birds can fly elsewhere.
It's probably not so much that they're unaware of the ability to birds to fly than that producing suitable habitat elsewhere would be prohibitively expensive or impossible (make another estuary?). Certainly with birds, you have a very vocal and well funded group of people against you and without an ability to predict the results of what you're doing, you can't really plan to mitigate. I suspect the lack of predictability would put off any private investor - you reasonably expect this sort of thing to go all the way to the top with the bird lobby employing a lot of experts on big £ / day to batter your experts on big £ / day, along with a bunch of lawyers with similar compensation...
We have no soundproof fence between us and the industrial buildings on the other side of the canal. This is because they would create shadow at the wrong time of day which would them stop one of those weeds that doesn't yet but might in the future grow in the canal. Why they didn't put the sound proofing on this side of the canal or stop them building the industrial stuff there I don't know.
Doki,
You are slightly incorrect.
1 The Severn Barrage is at this moment under consideration by the WAG ( and not Wives and Girlfriends either) and there is a possibilty that this will be constructed at some time in the foreseeable future - along with another 'Toll' motorway in that area to act as a Newport 'bypass' to relieve congestion on the M4.- see
And there are several pros and cons for the project - and one of so-called 'cons' would appear to be that they intend to use the top of the barrage to form a new road crossing direct from South East Wales to Somerset.
BRG
*CORRECTTION*
I'm several miles out for the motorway - I should have looked at the bloody diagram first and not worked from memory!
And there are also Cardiff, Barry and Newport docks that have to remain accessible for shipping.
Doh! it's been an odd-ball day - time for a glass of the old Jack Daniels to put the day to rest :-)
BRG
The message from "Doki" contains these words:
The problem with the tree huggers is that don't really care as much about what happens to h*mo sapiens as happens to their chosen species.
Hutchinson Ports who IIRC own both Felixstowe docks and the former British Rail port the other side of the estuary in Harwich Harbour have a plans for a big extension across Bathside mud. The payoff for the tree huggers is that they have to buy and flood a equivalent area of farmland further round Dovercourt Bay. Since they also have to bear the cost of dualing some 10 miles of the A120 that probably won't happen. 60 acres (or whatever the area is) is a drop in the ocean compared to the road cost.
The RSPCA (or some such bunch) is already wasting millions to buy and flood farmland. IIRC £5M to buy the land and a further £10M to accelerate the change from farmland to salt marsh. Too much money, too little brain power.
I know, I cannot spell Correction *AND* I've just discovered I've run out of Jack Daniels - damn!!!
BRG
In this case, they have a point. What elsewhere should they fly to?
Andy
To be honest it shouldn't be down to "tree huggers". The EIA process should ensure that such things are taken into account whether there's a vocal group banging on about it or not, although in practice it's more likely that it will get done more carefully when you have someone like the RSPB against the development. Even at a first glance, it'd clearly be easier and likely better to build an airport on farmland than on a marsh that's important to birds - you're starting with stable ground and you're less likely to suffer airstrikes. The farmland's also likely to be far less important in ecological terms, but for some reason green belt is sacred.
The message from Roger contains these words:
That should have been RSPB, the RSPCA doesn't have money to waste on such harebrained schemes.
And the total cost is £12M, not £15M. I really must try and check my facts before I post, not after the event.
Who cares? Its a few bloody birds.
You have to notify each bird individually first.
It's their money. Why should they not spend it on whatever they like? I expect there are expenditures of yours that someone, somewhere, would find reprehensible.
in their own language.
Paul Herber wrote in
Cheep joke.
put it on my bill.
The message from Huge contains these words:
Quite likely but I don't get my income via a begging bowl backed up with moral blackmail. There are far more deserving causes for charitable giving than one prepared to squander £12M on conspicuous waste.
The Govt agency (ies) who designated the site with various conservation statuses?
As far as I can be bothered to find out, it's a SSSI and there are water vole. It's not what I'd call a good idea to develop such a site (if you own a SSSi, then you are legally obliged to maintain its condition), and I find it hard to believe that there would be no other suitable sites nearby. Certainly it would be very hard to press on with developing there if there are any vaguely suitable sites nearby, given that it would have to go through EIA as it's an airport. I expect it was cost rather than an attack of tree huggers that scuppered the project.
They're a charity so can only legally spend it in furtherance of the charity's aims, failing which the trustees can (in theory anyway) be surcharged.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.