Severn Barrage refers to a range of ideas for building a barrage
from the English coast to the Welsh coast over the
estuary. Ideas for damming or barraging the
Severn estuary (and
Bristol Channel) have existed since the 19th century. The building of
such a barrage would constitute an engineering project, comparable
with some of the world's biggest. The purposes of such a project has
typically been one, or several of: transport links, flood protection,
harbour creation, or tidal power generation. In recent decades it is
the latter that has grown to be the primary focus for barrage ideas,
and the others are now seen as useful side-effects. Following the
Tidal Power Feasibility Study (2008–10), the British
government concluded that there was no strategic case for building a
barrage but to continue to investigate emerging technologies. In
June 2013 the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee published
its findings after an eight-month study of the arguments for and
against the Barrage. MPs said the case for the barrage was unproven.
They were not convinced the economic case was strong enough and said
the developer, Hafren Power, had failed to answer serious
environmental and economic concerns.
1.1 Early projects
1.2 Bondi Committee—1981
1.3 Hooker or Shoots Barrage—1987
Tidal Power Group—1989
1.6 Sustainable Development Commission—2007
Government study announced—2007
1.8 Corlan Hafren—2011
2 Economic impact
2.1 Power generation potential
2.2 Construction costs
2.3 Local impact
3 Environmental impact
Tidal lagoon alternative
3.3 Effects of different site locations
4 Trans-barrage transport links
6 See also
8 External links
There have been numerous proposed projects over the years, initially
to provide a safe harbour and more recently to generate electricity.
Thomas Fulljames's own impression of his proposed Barrage
In 1849 Thomas Fulljames, a civil engineer and the county surveyor for
Gloucestershire proposed a barrage from
Aust (now the site
of the first
Severn Bridge), a span of just over 1 mile (1.6 km).
Since this was before commercial electricity production, the first
proposals were based on the desire for a large shipping harbour in the
Severn Estuary, road and railway transport, and flood protection.
Diagram of a plan to harness tidal power on the River
1921. Caption from
Popular Mechanics Magazine 1921
No action was taken on Fulljames's proposals and three quarters of a
century later, in 1925, an official study group was commissioned. An
awareness of the large tidal range of 14 metres (46 ft),
second only to
Bay of Fundy
Bay of Fundy in Eastern Canada, led to a proposal
to generate 800
Megawatt (MW) of electricity at English Stones
and although considered technically possible, it was prevented on
economic grounds (then costing £25 million). The viability was
tested a few years later in 1931 when Paul Shishkoff, a Russian
immigrant, demonstrated a 300 horsepower (220 kW) prototype tidal
generator at Avonmouth. It included a novel mechanism for
spreading the power output over 24 hours. The full barrage was
estimated at £5 million at the time.
In 1933 the
Severn Barrage Committee Report (HMSO) from a committee
chaired by Lord Brabazon recommended that an 800 MW barrage
English Stones area would be the best option. The work
was interrupted by
World War II
World War II and then revived in 1945 when
engineers predicted an output of 2.2 terawatt hours (TWh) per
year. A further government study looked at barrage options in 1948
and estimated the construction costs at £60 million. By the time
of the next study in 1953 the estimated cost had risen to £200
In 1971 a report by Dr Tom Shaw, a tidal Power expert and advocate
proposed a barrage from
Brean Down to Lavernock Point. The scheme was
estimated to cost £500 million. In 1975 the Central Electricity
Generating Board (CEGB), published a study with evidence from Bristol
and Salford universities for the Secretary of State’s Advisory
Council on Research and Development for Fuel and Power. As this
was the era of cheap oil, the council established that a barrage could
not be economically viable unless the energy situation deteriorated
Proposed location of Bondi Committee Barrage
After just such a deterioration (due to the Iranian Revolution and
1979 energy crisis) the plans were reinvestigated by the Severn
Barrage Committee in 1981. This committee was known as the "Bondi
Committee" (after Professor Sir Hermann Bondi). The committee
investigated 6 possible barrage locations, from
English Stones at the
top of the estuary, down to a location largely at sea in the Bristol
Lynmouth in North Devon and
Porthcawl in South Wales.
It produced a major energy paper, which recommended a 10 miles
(16 km) long barrage of concrete powerhouse between Brean Down
and Lavernock Point, sluice and plain caissons together with sand and
rock-fill embankments. It would have generated 7,200 MW on the
flow of the tides (the largest barrage considered could have produced
double that power output). This set of plans was strongly built on a
few years later by the
Tidal Power Group.
In 1984 Wimpey Atkins proposed a smaller barrage at English Stones, in
the hope of creating a smaller more economically viable project that
would avoid the environmental impact of a large barrage.
Hooker or Shoots Barrage—1987
Cross section of Shoots Barrage turbine housing
This Wimpey Atkins 1984 study was criticised because it did not tackle
the issue of silting and in 1987 Arthur Hooker OBE (a former
partner of WS Atkins) in conjunction with Parsons Brinckerhoff
prepared a revised barrage proposed at
English Stones to better tackle
Parsons Brinckerhoff further updated their earlier proposal in 2006
and current estimates for this barrage (now known as the "Shoots
Barrage") would cost £1.4 to £1.8 billion to build, and generate
TWh of power per year. At the highest tidal range, it
would develop a peak output of 1,050 MW, and 313 MW output
on average throughout the year.
Cross section of embankment
The barrage would be located just below the Second Severn
Bristol on the estuary—and so much
smaller locks would be needed for upstream access to
Gloucester docks as the large ports of
Avonmouth would be
Like the STPG proposal, Hooker generates only on the ebb tide.
Construction time would be four years. It would be built of rock fill
embankment at the coastal sides (more like the proposals for "Tidal
Lagoons"), but like the STPG would be sluice caissons and turbines
with powerhouse in the middle section.
In April 2009 the Liberal Democrats produced a report called "A Tidal
Solution—The Way Forward" that backed the Shoots Barrage along with
a number of additional measures for power generation in the Severn
Estuary. In September 2009 the report was adopted by the Lib Dem party
conference as official party policy.
Tidal Power Group—1989
The £4.2 million study by
Tidal Power Group (STPG) built on
the work of the
Severn Barrage Committee, but also examined other
possible barrages, and produced another major energy paper. Its
members comprised Sir Robert McAlpine, Balfour Beatty, Taylor Woodrow
and Alstom. They concluded that the 1981 plans were the best
location for a barrage, but calculated that the power output could be
larger, at 8,640 MW during flow, or 2,000 MW average power.
This would provide 17
TWh of power per year (about 6% of UK
consumption), equivalent to about 18 million tons of coal or 3 nuclear
reactors. The cost in 1989 was calculated to be about £8 billion
(£12 billion in 2006 money—about the same as six nuclear reactors,
but different lifespan), and running costs would be £70 million per
year (about the same as 1.5 nuclear reactors).
Diagram of the STPG Barrage
The barrage would use existing technology as used in the Rance tidal
barrage in France, the
Annapolis Royal Generating Station
Annapolis Royal Generating Station in Canada
and the Netherlands sea barrages. Power would be most efficiently
generated only in the flow direction, and this effect on tidal range
would mean that the tidal extent would be halved by losing the low
tide rather than the high tide. That is, that the tide would only go
out as far as the current tidal midpoint, but high tides would be
unaffected (unless the barrage was deliberately closed to prevent
Construction in prefab caissons
The barrage would contain 216 turbines each generating 40 MW for
the 8,640 MW total. Arrays of sluices would let the tide in and
then close to force it out through the turbines after the tide has
gone out some distance outside the barrage. This deliberate building
of a head on the water builds pressure that makes the turbines more
The barrage would contain a set of shipping locks, designed to handle
the largest container vessels. Construction would take about eight
years and would require 35,000 employees at peak build time. The
minimum lifespan of the barrage would be 120 years (about three times
that of a nuclear reactor), but could easily be 200 years if decent
maintenance was performed.
The STPG appraisal concluded that the electricity generated from the
barrage would make the scheme economically viable if given certain
"green" advantages, and that the environmental impact was
acceptable. Margaret Thatcher's government did not accept this,
and shelved the plans. However, since then global warming has
radically altered the public perception of environmental damage; and
soaring oil, gas and energy costs have made the economics of the
barrage much more favourable.
The advent of renewable energy discounts favours electricity generated
from "green" sources; and in addition, much lower interest rates make
the cost of loans much lower, and long-term financing of such massive
projects is now more viable. Consequently, there have been renewed
calls for these plans to be re-appraised.
Evans Engineering have released plans for what they call a Severn
Tidal "Reef". This is a novel structure which aims to overcome the
environmental side-effects of a barrage, and can be conceptualised as
being half-way between a barrage and a tidal "fence" (a linked string
of tidal-stream turbines). The designer, Rupert Evans, had previously
worked on a tidal fence proposal, but since dismissed it as
unworkable. The reef reduces environmental impact by working with a
much smaller "head" of water—just 2 metres (6.6 ft)—thereby
reducing the impact of the structure on the estuary water and flow.
The smaller head means that the water velocity is much lower and more
lower power turbines are required. The load factor will be higher,
partly because of the generation being both ebb and flow and the total
energy output should (according to a recent report by W.S. Atkins
commissioned by the RSPB) be significantly greater than for the
Cardiff-Weston Barrage, and is in part a result of siting the
structure at the "outer"
Aberthaw line, which roughly
doubles the volume of tidal water available.
Sustainable Development Commission—2007
On 1 October 2007, the UK's
Sustainable Development Commission
Sustainable Development Commission (SDC)
published a report looking at the potential of tidal power in the
UK, including proposals for a
Severn barrage. The report draws
on a series of five evidence-based reports, one of which summarises
all the available evidence from previous studies on a number of Severn
barrage options, but focusing on the Cardiff-Weston and the Shoots
schemes. The SDC also commissioned a programme of public and
stakeholder engagement, which included a national opinion poll and a
series of local and regional workshops.
The SDC gave its support to the building of a
providing a number of strict conditions were met. These include:
Severn barrage should be publicly led as a project and publicly
owned as an asset to avoid short-term decisions and ensure the
long-term public interest
Full compliance with the EU Habitats and Birds Directives is vital, as
is a long-term commitment to creating compensatory habitats on an
Development of a
Severn barrage must not divert
away from much wider action on climate change
The SDC also raised the challenge of viewing the requirement for
compensatory habitat as an "environmental opportunity", through the
potential to combine a climate change mitigation project with the
adaptation that will be required to respond to the effects of climate
change. A publicly led project would enable the use of a low discount
rate (2%), which would result in a competitive cost of electricity,
and would limit the economic impact of even a very large-scale
compensatory habitats package.
Electricity production costs are not
competitive if a commercial discount rate is applied.
Government study announced—2007
Tidal Power Feasibility Study
A two-year feasibility study was announced in late 2007, and the
terms of reference were announced on 22 January 2008, following
the publication of the Turning the
Tide report from the Sustainable
Development Commission. This study builds upon past studies and
focuses on a variety of tidal range technologies including barrages
and lagoons, and innovative designs such as a tidal fence and a tidal
reef in the
The study, initially led by John Hutton, Secretary of State for
Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, was then led until the
2010 General Election by Ed Miliband, who was at that time the
Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.
The study aims to gather and assess evidence to enable the Government
to decide whether it could support a tidal power scheme in the Severn
Estuary and if so on what basis. Key work areas involved are:
The environmental impacts on biodiversity and wildlife; flood
management; geomorphology; water quality; landscape and compensatory
Engineering and technical areas such as options appraisal; costs;
energy yield, design and construction, links to the National Grid and
Economic considerations—financing; ownership and energy market
The regional social, economic and business impacts;
Planning and consents—regulatory compliance; and
Stakeholder engagement and communication.
The feasibility study concluded its first phase when a public
consultation was launched on 26 January 2009. The consultation covered
a proposed short-list of potential tidal power project options from an
initial list of 10 schemes, processes that were undertaken during
shortlisting and the proposed scope of the Strategic Environmental
Assessment (SEA). The SEA is a formal environmental assessment of
plans or programmes which are likely to have significant effects on
the environment. A consortium led by
Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) and
Black & Veatch (B&V) has been appointed to manage this part of
the project. The process is guided by a stakeholder steering group.
The study will culminate in a full public consultation in 2010.
In July 2009 the
Government response to consultation confirmed
detailed study would be carried out in the second phase on the five
schemes that were proposed for short-listing in January. It also
announced work to bring forward 3 further schemes that are in the very
early stages of development. In September 2010,
The Observer reported
that the government intended to rule out the possibility of public
funding for a complete barrage, while recommending that further
feasibility studies be carried out on smaller projects. On 18
October the government announced that the project was being
In December 2011 it was reported that the government was talking to
Corlan Hafren, a private sector consortium, about a proposal to
build a privately financed barrage from
Lavernock Point to Brean
Down. The Department for Energy and Climate Change said it had
received the first draft of a business case for the scheme, and that
it was an "interesting proposition". The campaign was led in 2012
by politician Peter Hain. It has been suggested by Atkins that
similar schemes could be trialled on smaller estuaries in advance of
the Severn, for example the Mersey and Duddon. However the Hafren
Power plan collapsed after it was rejected by three independent
committees of MPs and by the Government. On 14 January 2014 it was
announced that the Chairman and Chief Executive of Hafren Power had
resigned, putting an end to the
Severn Barrage project.
Power generation potential
Severn Barrage plans would provide a predictable source of
sustainable energy during lifetime of the scheme, with claims of up to
5% of the UK's electricity output from the 10-mile version. This
could reduce the cost of meeting UK’s renewable energy targets, and
help the UK to meet such targets, including those to tackle climate
change. This is because of the few carbon emissions associated
with the plan, because unlike conventional power generation, the
Severn Barrage plans do not involve the combustion of fossil fuels. A
consequence of this plan is that the carbon payback time—the time it
takes for saved carbon emissions (those produced by generating the
same amount of power in other ways) to outstrip those produced during
construction— could be as little as four-and-a-half months, although
likely to be around six.
It could continue to operate for around 120 years, compared with
60 years for nuclear power plants. An additional benefit would be
to improve energy security.
However, although power supply is predictable, peaks in generation
from the barrage do not necessarily coincide with peaks in demand.
There are two major tidal cycles affecting power output:
semi-diurnal cycle: the familiar daily rise and fall of the sea with a
full cycle every 24 hours and 50 minutes, with two high and low tides,
giving maximum power generation opportunities a few hours after each
of the two high tides;
spring-neap cycle: a 29.5 day tidal range cycle with the lowest power
days producing about 25% of the power of the highest power days.
Just under eight hours per day of generation time is expected.
Estimated costs for existing plans could be as low as £10bn and as
high as £34bn. Recent studies have suggested that the smaller
short-listed options could be privately financed, and so in effect the
matter of cost and risk becomes a private one between the building
consortium and their banks. Schemes of the scale of Cardiff-Weston are
likely to require significant
Government involvement. If the banks
feel that a smaller project is viable and decide to lend the money at
an acceptable cost of finance then the projects will go ahead (subject
to planning and other approvals). None of this cost would directly
fall on the tax-payer but any support mechanism for the tidal power
would be likely to fall on consumers. There would, though, be
secondary knock-on costs from the tidal power project that might be
met by the tax-payer, such as modifying existing ports, provision of
compensatory habitat and dealing with environmental change. However,
these would be offset by the positive knock-on effects, such as flood
protection – which would have otherwise also cost tax-payer
money. Whether the parties actually decided to exchange money for
these knock-on effects would be a matter for
As a cost comparison,
Hinkley Point C nuclear power station
Hinkley Point C nuclear power station (also
being built on the
Severn Estuary) will cost £25bn, and deliver 3.2GW
of power sold at £92.50 per megawatt hour (MWh) of electricity
generated for the 35 years of the contract. The Hafren scheme
proposers state they would require £25 billion capital investment,
and power costs would be £160 per MWh for the first 30 years, and
£20 per MWh thereafter. Other schemes have been costed at between
£150 and £350 per MWh.
Some say that a large-scale barrage would create leisure-friendly
water conditions behind it but with around 10 m rise and fall
this would still be one of the largest tidal ranges in the UK bringing
with it significant danger to any leisure users.
would be provided by the barrage, covering the vulnerable Severn
estuary from storm surges from the sea but drainage from land upstream
would be impeded causing worse flooding there. Also higher water
levels downstream of the barrage could cause flooding on the Somerset
Levels. New road and/or rail transport links could be built across a
barrage if demand rises in the future, as outlined below. Any barrage
could provide a boost to the local economy – construction industry
in the short term, tourism and infrastructure in the long term.
However, shipping would have to navigate locks and the reduced depth
of water would prevent much existing shipping from being able to
access docks in
Bristol putting thousands of jobs at
risk. Other existing estuary industries, including fisheries,
would be damaged and jobs lost. All industrial discharges into the
Severn (e.g. from Avonmouth) would have to be reassessed.
Estuary is a
Special Area of Conservation
Special Area of Conservation due to the
European importance of its ecology. The inter-tidal area provides food
for over 85,000 migratory and wintering water birds, and represents 7%
of the UK's total estuaries. There are nature reserves and Site of
Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) on the islands of Flat Holm and
The Barrage was not supported in the 2003 Energy Review due to "strong
environmental concerns" (The same paper also described nuclear power
as "an unattractive option").
RSPB opposes any
Severn Barrage because of the effect it will have
on the feeding grounds that 85,000 birds depend on, stating "The
impact a barrage would have is huge. This is one of the most important
sites in the UK for wild birds and the chances of them surviving if it
went ahead are fairly slim. There would not be enough room left for
all the birds and there would not be enough food for those that
remained. The estuary is one of the UK's most important sites for
water birds and its wildlife value must be taken fully into
Possible effect of turbidity reductions in
The present strong tidal currents in the estuary serve to lift up silt
sediment and so keep the water thick with fine particles—around 30
million tonnes of suspended sediment move in the
Estuary on a high
Spring tide. This blocks light-penetration and means that the Severn
Estuary marine environment is actually a relative desert, in terms of
both plant and fish life. The zone of maximum turbidity is
confined to the inner
Severn and does not extend westwards into the
Bristol Channel. An estimated 6.4 million tonnes/year of sand
moves up and down the
Bristol Channel which would be blocked by a
tidal barrage; the potential environmental consequences of
interrupting this flux of sand include local coastal erosion and loss
of coastal habitats.
The barrage will not create a "lagoon"—as both opponents and
supporters have sometimes claimed.
Tidal power stations by definition
require that the tide flows through the barrage, but the tidal range
Severn would be halved. There are claims that the migration
of fish would be hampered, but these are contested. The
would also be eliminated. Any barrage would be likely to stimulate
coastal erosion in some areas, and create a negative visual impact
upon the landscape (subjective, similar to wind turbines). There would
also be negative consequences of the huge amount of concrete (and
other materials) needed, with the quarrying of stone likely to impact
on other areas.
DEFRA claims that the environmental effects of the barrage still need
more analysis before final conclusions can be drawn. The Sustainable
Development Commission is investigating UK tidal resources, including
tidal power in the
Estuary and its environmental impact, and
should report mid-2007.
Tidal lagoon alternative
Friends of the Earth
Friends of the Earth support the idea of tidal power, but oppose
barrages because of the environmental impact. They have proposed their
own plans based on the concept of tidal lagoons, whereby man-made
lagoons in the estuary would fill and drain through turbines. Their
proposals would include lagoons covering up to 60% of the area covered
by the barrage, which in some smaller configurations would not impound
water in the ecologically sensitive inter-tidal areas of the estuary.
The lagoons could be sub-divided so power would be generated at more
states of the tide than a barrage, with lower peak output, giving
economic advantages to set against the higher construction cost of
longer barriers. This idea is based on a prototype now being proposed
at Swansea bay. However leading figures in the construction industry
are sceptical that the lagoons can be economic.
A set of
Tidal lagoons known as the "Russell
Lagoon concept" were
studied and dismissed by the 1981 Bondi Committee report, rejected on
the grounds of both economics and environmental damage. Studies
suggested that tidal currents around and between the lagoons would
become extremely fierce and damaging.
Another possibility is to construct one or more tidal fences across
Severn estuary which would generate power using tidal stream
generators. This has been put forward by the
Consortium, and groups including IT Power and a number of industry and
academic groups. This would attempt to maximise the potential
power generated whilst allowing for shipping to reach
Bristol without hindrance (through gaps at least 650 m wide) and
wildlife to maintain their existing habitats. The group has now been
contracted by the UK government to investigate the idea under the
Severn Embryonic Technology Scheme (SETS).
The group estimates that it would cost £3.5bn to construct an outer
Minehead which would generate 1.3GW or
3.5TWh/year. It is also investigating an inner fence from Lavernock
Brean Down including
Flat Holm and
Steep Holm islands. Both
fences could possibly be built.
The fence would permit the migration of salmon and would only slightly
affect the mudflats used by migrating birds. In addition it could
significantly reduce the flood risk in the
A second approach to a tidal fence being explored by VerdErg uses a
different way of generating electricity called the Spectral Machine
Energy Converter (SMEC). This uses the flow past Venturi tube
sections as a pump without moving parts to create a large secondary
flow which drives turbines on the sea bed. Verderg estimate that
they could produce output of 13.7TWh/yr at a cost of £9.9bn using the
Brean Down connection.
Some simulations have also been done on the partial barriers envisaged
Dynamic tidal power
Dynamic tidal power which have similar advantages.
Effects of different site locations
One of the complicating factors in assessing the impacts of a barrage
is the large number of possible locations and sizes for the barrage.
Generally, the larger the barrage the bigger its environmental impact,
and the greater the amount of energy it could transfer—and therefore
the bigger carbon offset it could have by way of its renewable power
The largest barrages (sited beyond
Hinkley Point and towards Minehead
on the English side and
Aberthaw on the Welsh side) would
significantly affect the entire
Estuary and much of the Bristol
Channel, but could generate 15 GW peak power and protect the
whole of the Somerset levels against flooding and sea-level rise
caused by Global Warming. The smallest barrages (sited at
Aust/Chepstow) would affect only the river and estuary in
Gloucestershire, but would also only generate perhaps 0.75 GW
A 2009 Paper by Atkins re-evaluated the potential energy which
could be generated from the various locations, and concluded that,
contrary to earlier studies and computations, the maximum power
potential would come from an Ilfracombe-
Gower barrage, much further
west even than the earlier Minehead-
Aberthaw proposals. This was
attributed by the study to several calculation elements which were
neglected in previous numerical models.
Trans-barrage transport links
It is possible that some types of barrage could be used for transport
links between southern
England and southern Wales, and more
specifically the areas around
Weston super Mare
Weston super Mare and
Cardiff but no
demand surveys have been carried out to show whether such a link would
be useful to commuters or businesses. The east-west position of any
future barrage will impact the utility of any transport links across
it. Various proposals include a dual carriageway road giving a further
crossing in addition to the Second
Severn Crossing and the Severn
Bridge. The road would have to be taken over the sea locks on a bridge
at a height of the
Bridge of the Americas
Bridge of the Americas (i.e. with a clearance of
61.3 m) if the locks are Panamax-sized.
Some proposals also include a double track railway line across the
barrage. A railway would have a longer approach up to a fixed bridge
over the locks. The approach would be greatest for non-electrified
heavy railway capable of taking freight, slightly less for
non-electrified passenger line, and less still for electrified
passenger line. There is no electrification presently in the Bristol
Cardiff areas, but this would change with the electrification of
the Great Western Main Line. An alternative to a fixed bridge would be
a swing bridge, though there is concern expressed at this reducing
capacity through the locks and on the railway. However, two swing
bridges, one at either end of the lock would mean that one bridge
could be kept open to railway traffic at all times. The double track
could be reduced to single track at this point without creating too
much of a bottleneck, or if double track is required this could be
worked around by grade separating the two lines and having
double-decked bridges. The line could then be used to partially
The option for a new fixed rail link has implications for several
wider transport proposals. One of the proposed routes for an Irish Sea
Tunnel is from Fishguard, which would generate large amounts of extra
freight traffic which the current
Severn tunnel—already operating at
capacity—could not handle. Additionally, a new high-speed rail route
has been suggested between London, Bristol, and Cardiff, which faces
similar capacity constraints.
If the barrage is built further west, any transport connection would
instead link more isolated areas of the Devon-Cornwall peninsula with
the cities of South
Wales and the ports of Pembrokeshire.
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair (who
backed it in the last weeks of his tenure)
The Chairman of the Climate Change Committee, Lord Deben, formerly
John Selwyn Gummer (who has shares in a company bidding for the
The Welsh Assembly
Former Welsh First Minister Rhodri Morgan
The South West Regional Assembly
Weston Super Mare MP John Penrose
Cardiff Central MP Jenny Willott
Northavon MP Steve Webb
Ogmore MP and Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for
Kingswood MP Roger Berry
Gower MP Byron Davies 
Scientist and "Gaia" theorist Dr.
James Lovelock CBE
Former Welsh Secretary The Lord Hain
The Commons Welsh Affairs Select Committee
The Commons Energy and Climate Change Select Committee
Former UK Science Minister Lord Sainsbury
North Somerset MP and International Trade Secretary Liam Fox
Friends of the Earth
Friends of the Earth Wales
World Wildlife Fund
World Wildlife Fund Wales
Gwent Wildlife Trust
Avon Wildlife Trust
Political commentator George Monbiot
Cardiff Bay Barrage
Energy policy of the United Kingdom
Energy use and conservation in the United Kingdom
List of tidal power stations
Saint Petersburg Dam
Tidal Power Feasibility Study Conclusions". Retrieved 25
^ a b "Energy and Climate Change – Second Report". Parliament UK.
Retrieved 21 April 2014.
^ Energy & Climate Change Select Committee. "MPs say case for
Hafren Power barrage scheme unproven". A
^ Carne, Brian (1995). "Thomas Fulljames 1808–74" (PDF).
Transactions of the
Society. CXIII: 16–17.
Estuary Barrage". UK Environment Agency. 31 May 2006.
Archived from the original (PDF) on 30 September 2007. Retrieved 3
^ Chan, Marjorie A.; Archer, Allen William (2003). Extreme
Depositional Environments: Mega End Members in Geologic Time. Boulder,
Colorado: Geological Society of America. p. 151.
Bristol Channel". BBC. Retrieved 27 August 2007.
^ "£650 Million barrage plan unveiled". Burnham on Sea.com. 4 March
2006. Retrieved 10 August 2008.
^ Pavel Aleksandrovich Shishkov (1887–1958) (Biographical
information in Russian.)
^ a b "The
Severn Barrage" (PDF). Royal Academy of Engineering.
Retrieved 10 August 2008.
^ "How Continuous Power Is Produced By Tide", November 1931, Popular
Mechanics article detailed drawing of how unique 24-hour tidal system
^ "Research Report 3—
Severn Barrage Proposals" (PDF). Sustainable
Development Commission. p. 17. Retrieved 10 August 2008.
Severn Barrage" (PDF). Friends of the Earth. September 2007.
p. 27. Retrieved 10 August 2008.
^ Brooke, Gerry (4 August 2008). "Back to the drawing board". Western
Daily Press. This is Bristol. Retrieved 12 December 2009.
^ Bryant, Paul. "History of
Severn Barrage proposals". r-energy.
Retrieved 8 December 2010.
Tidal power from the
Severn Estuary—Volume 1. Energy Paper 46.
^ Institution of Civil Engineers (Great Britain) (1990). Developments
Tidal Energy. Thomas Telford. p. 3.
^ HL Deb, 7 March 1984 vol 449 cc263-5
^ McKenna, John (3 October 2007). "Will the new fesibilty study into
Severn Barrage be the first steps towards construction or another
false dawn?". New Civil Engineer. Retrieved 12 December 2009.
^ "Lib Dems back small-scale
Severn Shoots barrage proposal".
Severn Barrage Project: General Report. Energy Paper 57. HMSO.
^ Excell, Jon (19 June 2006). "
Severn barrage could meet five per cent
of UK energy needs". The Engineer. Retrieved 18 September 2012.
^ a b c d "Energy Review Consultation Response by
Tidal Power Group. Archived from the original
(PDF) on 4 November 2007. Retrieved 8 December 2010.
^ "Joseph Evans & Sons Ltd".
Severn reef plan is 'more green'". BBC News. BBC. 26 November 2008.
Retrieved 8 March 2010.
^ a b c d "
Tidal Power". Sustainable Development Commission. Retrieved
11 August 2008.
^ Kinver, Mark (1 October 2007). "Advisers endorse tidal power plan".
BBC News. BBC. Retrieved 11 August 2008.
^ "Engagement report—Public and stakeholder engagement programme"
(PDF). Sustainable Development Commission. October 2007. Retrieved 11
^ "John Hutton calls for open minds on the future of the Severn
barrage". BERR. Archived from the original on 24 July 2011. Retrieved
1 December 2010.
Severn tidal power study could unlock massive renewable potential".
BERR. 22 January 2008. Retrieved 8 December 2010.
^ "Strategic Environmental Assessment". BERR. Retrieved 27 August
Tidal Power Q&A" (PDF). Department for Business
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. Retrieved 11 August 2008.
^ Webb, Tim (5 September 2010). "
Severn green energy project loses
government funding". The Observer. London. Retrieved 10 September
Severn barrage tidal energy scheme scrapped by Huhne". BBC News. 18
October 2010. Retrieved 21 April 2014.
^ a b "New talks on
Severn barrage plan from
Cardiff to Weston". BBC
News. 7 December 2011. Retrieved 19 January 2012.
^ Hutchinson, Clare (19 October 2010). "'Real cost' of
£34bn". WalesOnline. Retrieved 18 September 2012.
^ Evans, Bethan (9 September 2012). "Barrage bid to be looked at –
again". The Weston & Somerset Mercury. Retrieved 17 September
^ OConnell, Dominic (27 March 2011). "
Severn barrage awaits the right
time and tide". The Sunday Times. Retrieved 18 September 2012.
^ Shipton, Martin. "Four key figures in Hafren Power resign". Wales
Online. Retrieved 8 October 2015.
^ BBC (26 January 2009). "Shortlist for
Severn energy plans". BBC
News. Retrieved 5 March 2010.
Severn Barrage will pay back carbon in less than six months, says
study". 2 March 2009. Retrieved 8 March 2010.
^ "Extending the Operational Life Span of Nuclear Plants". IAEA.org.
International Atomic Energy Agency. 8 March 2010. Retrieved 8 March
^ a b Turning the Tide,
Tidal Power in the UK (Report). Sustainable
Development Commission. 30 September 2007. pp. 25,77–79.
Retrieved 8 March 2010.
Tidal Consultation Supporting Documents (Report). DECC.
23 April 2009. Retrieved 25 May 2009.
^ Syal, Rajeev (4 August 2015). "Deal to build UK nuclear plant should
be finalised within weeks". Guardian. Retrieved 8 October 2015.
^ "£14 Billion
Tidal Barrage Proposed for
Severn Estuary". Earth
toys. 28 October 2008. Retrieved 28 October 2008.
Severn Barrage 'would destroy port jobs'". SouthWest Business.
Retrieved 30 August 2017.
Severn Barrage: second report of session 2013-14, Vol. 1: Report,
together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence. The
Stationery Office. 2013. p. 35. ISBN 9780215058843.
Severn Estuary: Occasional Paper No 13" (PDF). Marine
Biological Association. Retrieved 8 December 2010.
Severn Barrage is not the answer". Press Release. Friends of the
Earth. 11 April 2006. Retrieved 11 August 2008.
^ "Flat Holm—About the island". BBC. 3 April 2008. Retrieved 12
^ "Steep Holm" (PDF). English Nature. Retrieved 6 September
^ "Energy White PaperOur Energy Future—creating a low carbon
economy" (PDF). Department of Trade and Industry. February 2003.
Archived from the original (PDF) on 17 August 2010. Retrieved 11
^ a b "Barrage bad for birds". (Environmental Data Interactive
Exchange). Retrieved 10 August 2008.
^ Kirby, R.; Shaw, T (March 2005). "
Severn Barrage, UK–environmental
reappraisal". Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers 2005:
Engineering Sustainability. Institution of Civil Engineers. 158 (3):
^ Collins, M.B., 1987.
Sediment transport in the
Bristol Channel: a
review. Proceedings of the Geological Association 98, 367-383.
^ Harris, P.T., Collins, M.B., 1988. Estimation of annual bedload flux
in a macrotidal estuary,
Bristol Channel, U. K. Marine Geology 83,
^ Bradshaw, Ben (15 March 2007). "Speech by Ben Bradshaw MP to the
Tidal Conference of the British Wind Energy Association".
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Retrieved 11
Severn barrage or tidal lagoons? A comparison" (PDF). Friends of
the Earth Cymru. January 2004. Retrieved 1 October 2007.
Lagoon Power Generation Scheme in Swansea Bay" (PDF).
Department of Trade and Industry and the Welsh Development Agency.
April 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on 30 June 2007.
Retrieved 1 October 2007.
^ "Research Report 2—
Tidal technologies overview" (PDF). Sustainable
Development Commission. October 2007. Archived from the original (PDF)
on 11 May 2009. Retrieved 11 August 2008.
^ Jonathan Ford (15 January 2017). "
Tidal power swamped by dubious
mathematics". Financial Times. Retrieved 15 January 2017.
Tidal Fence instead of
^ "IT Power to lead
Consortium with potential
alternative to the
Severn tidal 'fence' idea floated". BBC. 16 July 2008.
Severn Embryonic Technologies Scheme". Retrieved 25 December
^ "SMEC Technology Basic Principles". Retrieved 25 December
^ Atkins, R Rainey. "Technical Note: The optimum position for a tidal
power barrage in the
Severn estuary, Reference CJ0040.6680/TN-001r3"
(PDF). Atkins. Retrieved 20 May 2012.
^ "BLAIR BACKS SEVERN BARRAGE".
^ Brooker, Christopher (25 August 2012). "The tangled tale of Lord
Deben and a dodgy
Severn barrage". Telegraph. Retrieved 5 September
^ a b Jones, Gareth (2 June 2006). "Experts disagree on river
barrage". BBC News. Retrieved 6 April 2010.
^ "ePolitix.com – John Penrose".
^ "UK Parliament – Early Day Motions By Details".
^ "The Webb log: Time to put some energy into power from the
^ "House of Commons Hansard Debates for 4 Feb 2003 (pt 5)".
^ "BACKING FOR £14BN TIDAL BARRAGE BID".
^ "Byron Meets with Chancellor over
Tidal Lagoon". byrondavies.org.uk.
Retrieved 21 November 2016.
^ a b
Estuary energy plan makes waves, The Guardian, 26 April 2006
^ "Concern over
Severn barrage plan". BBC News. 11 April 2006.
Retrieved 6 April 2010.
Severn Barrage—Gwent Wildlife Trust".
Estuary a very special place".
^ Jones, Gareth (27 May 2007). "Monbiot attacks Welsh energy plan".
BBC News. Retrieved 6 April 2010.
Wikimedia Commons has media related to
Department of Energy and Climate Change
Welsh Assembly Government
Tidal Power Resource Page"
SDC paper "
Tidal Power in the UK: Research Report 3 – Severn
Friends of the Earth
Friends of the Earth "
Tidal Lagoons" Plans
Independent report on "
Tidal Lagoons" for the DTI and the Welsh
Gloucestershire background videos and information
Severn Lake Official Website
World Wildlife Fund
World Wildlife Fund "Turning the Tide"
Tidal Power Group report for UK
Appendices to –
Tidal Power Group report for UK
Institute of Civil Engineers
Severn Barrage environmental reappraisal
Estuary energy plan makes waves The Guardian 26 April 2006
Institute of Electronic Engineers
Tidal power appraisal
Memorandum by the
Tidal Power Group to Parliamentary Committee
Standing Conference on Severnside Local Authorities (SCOSLA)
Westminster Hall Debate on the
Sustainable Development Commission
Sustainable Development Commission project looking at '
Tidal Power in
Electricity generation in South West England
Portishead A + B
Hinkley Point B
Hinkley Point A
Hinkley Point C
Marine Current Turbines
Mendip Power Group
Pre-nationalisation electric power companies
South Somerset Hydropower Group
Western Power Distribution
Energy in the United Kingdom
Oil and gas
Royal Dutch Shell
Hardy Oil and Gas
JKX Oil & Gas
Horizon Nuclear Power1
Vattenfall United Kingdom1
The Co-operative Energy
Phoenix Natural Gas
Electricity North West1
SP Energy Networks1
SSE Power Distribution
UK Power Networks1
Western Power Distribution1
Northern Gas Networks
Phoenix Natural Gas
Wales & West Utilities1
Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission
SP Energy Networks1
Companies with headquarters and/or registered office in the UK but no
applicable energy operations within the country shown in italics
1Ultimate parent company is not UK-based 2Integrated in the United
States, no generation or supply activities in the UK
Coal-fired power stations
Coal mining regions
Confederation of UK
Greenhouse gas emissions
Open-pit coal mining
Energy switching services
Grid Trade Master Agreement
Isle of Man to
Electricity Trading Arrangements
Timeline of the electricity supply industry
Advanced gas-cooled reactor
Franco–British Nuclear Forum
National Nuclear Laboratory
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
Nuclear Liabilities Fund
Nuclear power stations
Office for Nuclear Regulation
United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority
Oil and gas
Dash for Gas
Forties pipeline system
Greenhouse gas emissions
Hydrocarbon Oil Duty
Oil and Gas Authority
National Transmission System
Natural gas fields
Natural gas-fired power stations
North Sea oil
Oil & Gas UK
Oil-fired power stations
Petroleum revenue tax
Biofuel power stations
National Non-Food Crops Centre
Renewable Fuels Agency
Transport Fuel Obligation
Geothermal power stations
Hydroelectric power stations
List of offshore wind farms
List of onshore wind farms
North Sea Offshore Grid
Wind power in Scotland
Government and regulation
Committee on Climate Change
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
Department of Energy and Climate Change
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Energy Saving Trust
Office of Gas and
Carbon Emission Reduction Target
Climate Change Act 2008
Climate Change Agreement
Climate Change Levy
Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006
CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme
Display Energy Certificate
Energy Act 2013
Energy Performance Certificate
Fossil Fuel Levy
Low Carbon Building Programme
National Industrial Symbiosis Programme
Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation
Planning Act 2008
Renewable Heat Incentive
United Kingdom Climate Change Programme
Campaign against Climate Change
Centre for Alternative Technology
National Energy Action
Stop Climate Chaos
Combined Heat and Power Association
Energy Networks Association
Energy Retail Association
Green Power Forum
Utilities Intermediaries Association
Centre for Renewable Energy Systems Technology
Energy Technologies Institute
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
Oil Depletion Analysis Centre
Sunbury Research Centre
UK Energy Research Centre
Association for the Conservation of Energy
British Energy Efficiency Federation
Close the Door campaign
Code for Sustainable Homes
Double Glazing & Conservatory Ombudsman Scheme
Energy efficiency in British housing
Energy Saving Trust
Energy Saving Trust Recommended
Greenhouse gas emissions
National Home Energy Rati