好色先生TV

The government has ruled out proceeding with Hafren Power鈥檚 plan for a tidal barrage in the Severn estuary, at least until the developer can put together a more convincing case for the 拢25bn scheme.

In its response to a report by the government said that in 鈥渋ts current form, the Hafren Power proposal for a Severn barrage does not demonstrate that it could deliver the benefits it claims it would achieve鈥�.

Developer Hafren Power has claimed the scheme, which is being drawn-up by engineers Mott MacDonald, URS, Bechtel and Arup, would generate 16.5 terawatt hours per year, enough to meet 5% of the UK鈥檚 electricity needs.

The government鈥檚 move followed the select committee鈥檚 report, which concluded that Hafren Power鈥檚 case for the tidal barrage was 鈥渦nproven鈥� and that the environmental impact of the barrage was 鈥渧ery considerable鈥� with 鈥渁 high risk of unintended and possibly damaging consequences鈥�.

In its response to the select committee鈥檚 report, the government said it could not see a case for public investment in a Severn barrage, though it had not ruled out a 鈥減rivately-funded scheme coming forward鈥�.

The government said: 鈥淭he Severn estuary has great potential. However, the government recognises that a traditional tidal barrage is not the only way of exploiting the outstanding resource of the Severn estuary.

鈥淭he government remains keen to hear about well-developed proposals for harnessing the power of the Severn estuary - be it through a barrage or other means.

鈥淗owever any such scheme would need to credibly demonstrate strong evidence of value for money, economic benefits, energy saving and environmental impact mitigation before the government could take a view on its potential.

鈥淚t is clear from the report that the Energy and Climate Change Committee shares the Government鈥檚 view on the level of development of the Hafren Power proposal.

鈥淚n its current form, the Hafren Power proposal for a Severn barrage does not demonstrate that it could deliver the benefits it claims it would achieve.鈥�

However, the government鈥檚 response added that it would give further consideration to Hafren Power鈥檚 proposal if the developer could provide 鈥渕uch more detailed, credible evidence鈥�.

It said this would need to include:

• In-depth study of environmental impacts. This would require both baseline studies and estimation of likely effects
• Detailed environmental compensation and mitigation plans
• Further information on turbines including: modelling of impacts, plans to move from concept stage to commercialisation, including in-situ testing
• Gaining commitment to the project from low head turbine manufacturers
• Evidence to substantiate claims of how much of the proposed benefits can be delivered
• Extensive stakeholder consultation including a clear, understandable breakdown of the level of public support the developer thinks they would need and a thorough, robust evidence base to support this
• Analysis of impacts on upstream ports and navigation and mitigation plans
• Detailed evidence supporting job creation figures
• Detailed evidence of the flood impact figures

Hafren Power has been contacted for comment.

Following the publication of the committee鈥檚 report in June, Tony Pryor, chief executive of Hafren Power, said he was aware there was more work to do: 鈥淭he 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.鈥�