TIDAL BARRAGE WOULD COST MORE THAN DOUBLE HINKLEY POINT NUCLEAR STATION

Killer armour: A giant rock-armour sea wall similar to that planned for Swansea would enclose the massive lagoon. The lagoon turbines would kill up to 25% of fish stocks every year according to Natural Resources Wales.

Another nail was  knocked into the coffin of the controversial Swansea Bay Tidal Barrage scheme in the House of Commons by Energy Minister Greg Clark yesterday.

Mr Clark has now revealed that the Swansea Tidal Lagoon – if built – would turn out to be MORE THAN TWICE AS EXPENSIVE as the new nuclear power station being built at Hinkley Point – on the opposite side of the Bristol Channel to Penarth.

Oops! There a Freudian slip coming. UK Energy Minister Greg Clark – perhaps inadvertently –   referred to the Swansea Lagoon in the past tense … as if it was already a dead duck.

Replying to Albert Owen (Labour MP for Anglesey) Mr Clark said “I share the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for green energy, as he knows, and I am proud of our achievements. Since 2010, we have quadrupled the proportion of our electricity that comes from renewable sources. However, as the hon. Gentleman understands from being on the Select Committee, we also have a responsibility to minimise the impact on consumers’ bills. The Swansea proposal was very much more expensive—more than twice as expensive—as the Hinkley nuclear power station, for example. As I said, though, we are in discussions with our colleagues in the Welsh Government. I do not want to close the door on something if it is possible to find a way to justify it as being affordable to consumers.”

The Cardiff/ Penarth Tidal Lagoon and its 90 generating turbines would be built directly in front of Penarth Pier and Penarth Esplanade.

Mr Clark’s statement not only appears to scupper the Swansea Lagoon – but also pours cold sea water on the proposals to build a much larger power-generating lagoon off Penarth and Cardiff.

The controversial Cardiff Lagoon would be so big it would – in effect build a 50 foot high concrete curtain across the entire sea-front of Penarth from Cardiff Docks, past Penarth Pier and beyond Cliff Walk – thus wrecking the view from Penarth Esplanade and Penarth Pier.

 

 

 

About NewsNet

Penarth Daily News email address dmj@newsnet.uk . Penarth Daily News is an independent free on-line fair and balanced news service published by NewsNet Ltd covering the town of Penarth in the Vale of Glamorgan, Wales, UK. All our news items are based on the information we receive or discover at the time of publication and are published on the basis that they are accurate to the best of our knowledge and belief at that time. Comments posted on the site by commentators reflect their opinions and are not necessarily shared, endorsed or supported by Penarth Daily News.
This entry was posted in Penarth Daily News. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to TIDAL BARRAGE WOULD COST MORE THAN DOUBLE HINKLEY POINT NUCLEAR STATION

  1. Dan Potts says:

    Unfortunately the Swansea and Cardiff projects where dead in the water from the start.

  2. Yvonne Penny says:

    Swansea hopefully stopped, please now stop Cardiff. Penarth does not deserve to be blocked out.

  3. Nigel Bull says:

    Perhaps Dan and Yvonne are in favour of the Barry wood burner! We have to generate power somewhere!

    The costs of nuclear power go on almost infinitely as do the costs as they go mounting up. It is not impossible that Russia will again be playing the gas card in international relations. We need to be self sufficient and sustainable in our power generation, so well thought out alternate ideas please!

    • Dan Potts says:

      Hi Nigel, I said “Unfortunately the Swansea and Cardiff projects where dead in the water from the start ” I agree with you we need clean long term independent power generation but on paper the barrage is not economically viable and more and more all those in power care about is cost and short term goals.

    • penarthblog says:

      Maybe having every new building fitted with solar panels would help a little bit.

  4. Sadlab says:

    Of course the astronomical cost of disposing of the highly radioactive waste at an as yet mythical safe storage facility would probably at least treble the real cost of Hinkley point. Thorium nuclear generation is infinately safer but they can’t make bombs out of it so don’t even consider it an option – even though the Chineese are starting to build them they don’t mind bankrolling the dirty stuff here along with the french that have stopped all nuclear power stations being built in France but dont mind building them at Hinkley point.
    Just look online to see what a great saftey record Nuclear power has it has almost killed the Pacific ocean and countless future generations thanks to Fukashima despite Tepco telling everyone to keep smiling and it will go away,not to mention Chernobyl. Nuclear power is an accident waiting to happen.
    I would rather not have a view of Avonmouth, Newprot,etc smoke haze for my lifetime from Penarth seafront so that our grandchildren can have a radiation free world.

    • Penarthur says:

      Nonsense. More people have died from coal mining accidents than nuclear accidents.

  5. JohnPowell says:

    So the barrage would cost twice as much as the sino-French money grabber over at Hinckley Point? Worth every penny! If the barrage fails we get –
    Umm water. If the station at Hinkley fails ….

Comments are closed.