I wonder whether the ecological cost of the inevitable environmental catastrophe these sorts of projects will cause exceed the cost of cleaning up a bunch of nuclear power stations.

I'd be willing to bet that the nuke option will turn out better.

I remember doing a project on the Severn Estuary Barrier in school (at Clevedon) for a GCSE in 1988. They said it'd take a while to make their minds up...

most of these schemes will mean the tide no longer rises high enough in the upper reaches to cause the phenomenon...

Click on the "Expand Image" links on that page about the French reactor.

Vive le Bad Web Design!

Gwan then, build nuclear, and watch your fuel bill go through the roof. Please, we know tidal barriers are expensive and damaging, and that part of your report is very good.

But the pro-nuclear twaddle peddled here is screaming for you to learn how to use your mathematical scalpel in both directions. How much does nuclear really cost? Assuming the current route of nice new standard fission reactors, and taking into account the actual real costs of security and waste?

And I have to say, as a regular Severn estuary recreational water user, don't let them tell you the place is an important habitat for millions of nice birds and fish. The place is a _marine desert_ almost devoid of marine life and therefore not home to a lot of wading birds. There is too much silt in the water which makes it opaque to sunlight which means very little plant life which supports very little fish life which supports very little bird life.

Plus, the tidal range is approximately halved by the barrier, not eliminated, therefore some inter-tidal zone will remain which will most likely support _more_ life than before.

One can only hope there is a way to stop the big tidal barrage from silting up.

What's going to happen to the elvers?

Weren't they wiped in a war with the Dwarves years ago?

I Studied Renewable Energy at Uni bac in 98, I wrote a paper at the time that had the cost at around 12 billion then , So I would take these figures with a big pinch of salt (the salt mixed with silt that will clog the estuary on a regular basis after they build this thing). And what about the poor fishes who is looking after their rights (Shami do you need to expand your portfolio)

What is the point of saving the planet (as is the bogus climate change mantra), if the cost is to concrete over one of Britain's most beautiful estuaries and destroy all the associated wildlife habitats, including the world renowned Slimbridge bird sanctuary. All for a massively expensive way of generating a tiny fraction of the country's electricity demand. Just as with the wind white elephant, it is an oft overestimated fraction ignoring the several hours of slack water every day.

Worse still affects the viability of two prime nuclear sites at Oldbury and Berkeley, which could generate far more electricity at a lower cost (including decommissioning) without destroying the estuary and generating massive amounts of CO2 from the construction of concrete barrages.