Monday
Aug202012
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Lord Deben and the Severn Barrage
Aug 20, 2012 Climate: Parliament Greens Leo Hickman tweets that Lord Deben is a director of Corlan Hafren, the company that has just proposed building an enormous barrage across the River Severn.
Conflict of interest anyone?
Update on Aug 20, 2012 by
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
Leo has added the further interesting snippet that DECC failed to mention this role when they announced Deben as the new chairman.
Update on Aug 20, 2012 by
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
Leo has now spoken to Lord Deben, who apparently stood down from the company's board two months ago.
Reader Comments (46)
How does that work? I just don't see that it's possible to NOT have a conflict of interest. By definition. He can't do his best work for Corlan Hafren *and* HMG, so there's a conflict of interest, and one or other post would have to go. Declaring that he's a director of the company isn't removing the conflict, it's just revealing it. Isn't it?
At least Peter Hain resigned as an MP to promote the barage. I wonder tho' , he said it will create 20,000 jobs in construction and a further 30,000 jobs after.
Anybody checked these figures?
This type of conflict of interest is the means to channel money to compliant decision makers. It is at the root of many present problems and it has to be stamped out.
I've watched the tide. At low tide there's hardly any movement - you can't really tell if its coming in or going out. Maybe an hour in total - half before and half after low tide. At mid-tide it's moving quickly. Then at high tide it slows down - another hour of slack water.
So we get 4 hours per day of slack water and no power. Who wants that ?
When will DC ennoble a retired Met. Police Horse?
Jack Hughes writes: "So we get 4 hours per day of slack water and no power. Who wants that ?"
Ducks have to rest sometime, Jack...
Well well, was just wondering where this had come from in the 'Telegraph view' today;
"...it was encouraging to learn that David Cameron has now been briefed on the latter [Severn barrage], even though the scheme was rejected on cost grounds by the Department for Energy last year.
The Severn Barrage sounds like a good idea for tidal power but as Jack Hughes points out there are times of slack water when zero power is available. Tidal times are based on lunar times so there would be times when barrage power was available at times of lowest demand. Claims that an intelligent grid would sort this problem of wavering power production/demand have not been found in Germany where wind variability have caused many blackout periods not found when using a reliable generation system.
The original scheme was only going to produce electricity 8 hours per day. This scheme can't do much better. Whatever is built could not reduce the need for conventional power stations. Nobody will stump up the money for such a scheme, even if it will rely on indirect subsidies through the RO scheme. It's a no-goer, promoted by a couple of no-doers who have never done anything useful for society.
Leo is acting like a journalist. He's started mildly questioning the orthodoxy. Is his job at the Guardian at risk?
'Mr Hain, who gave up his post in Labour's shadow cabinet to devote more time to promoting the barrage, said the latest proposals from the Corlan Hafren consortium would not need a single penny of taxpayer's money'.
But what about the billions of pounds of additional subsidy from the power consumers?
Tide times change becoming approximately 55 minutes later every 24 hours. The original plan for the Severn Barrage only generated power when the tide was flowing in one direction. Therefore for more than 12 out of 24 hours it will produce no power at all and when it is working will be consistantly not working a peak periods.
As far as I am concerned, the following is the most alarming item on Deben's CV:
Re the Barrage. The whole idea is that you catch the high tide after it passes through the turbine and then release it back through the turbines at any rate according to demand from the grid. Also when there is a risk of flooding in the Severn and the Wye you can hold back the tide and create a huge basin for flood water that can then escape through the turbines as the tide goes out. I know the current plan is to only work the turbines in one direction but I think there should be a re-think on that. To my mind it is a lot better investment than £124 Billion on use less windmills.
The question rattling around in my head, after apaynig a visit to Leo Hickman's Guardian page, is why doesn't he write about this disurbing web of interests - the latest of which he himself has discovered to be undeclared?
Instead he has "revealed" a two day " 'schmooze-athon' with Shell ", but he has no apparent knowledge of BBC "seminars" with Green lobby groups.
Re: Lord Deben having stood down from Corlan Hafren -- Here in the States, we talk of a "revolving door" between government and industries affected by governmental regulation. There are now (largely ineffective) rules concerning length of time before transitions. The "revolving door" seems an inevitable result of governmental involvement in business matters.
> Leo has now spoken to Lord Deben, who apparently stood down from the company's board two months ago.
I wonder if he owns any shares in the company?
[Not according to his register of interests]
The thing which frustrates me is this.
Our ancestors dumped wind in a big hurry as a means of grinding corn and draining fens, as soon as something more reliable (steam power; followed by diesel and finally electricity) came along.
Solar only EVER works for twelve hours a day - maximum.
Tide power (as pointed out above) - has long periods of slack water when presumably no power is generated.
Can someone explain to me, in REALLY simple terms, why our government seems to think that ANY of the above are a useful means of generating electricity, which is required 24 hours a day, 365 days a year..?
I'm obviously missing something....
Ross - agree with you about better than £124 billion on windmills. But it is not much better. Two things for a start:
- holding back flood waters to then release them 'at any rate' according to demand from grid - nice idea but in practice these waters will have to be released at the same time as when the tide is going out (water won''t go uphill unless there is an energy input) so there is very little latitude for grid balancing.
- given the 15m head, and assuming that the annual average flow of Severn & Wye is only about 30m3s-1, the average output from this 'freshwater' hydro will only be about 5MW, which is even less than than 2 crappy windmills at full tilt. It is the massive volume from the tidal flows which offer the potential to make the scheme significant in terms of output, albeit sporadic.
Though tidal sounds like a good idea, I suspect the intermittent output and very high capital cost will make this another very expensive mistake. If only the UK government / DECC would come to their senses and fund and support a thorium reactor programme. LENR also, which it looks like we will be left behind on also.
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-02/27/rossi-roundup?page=1
Small
worldGlobe isn't it?Of course this is all publicly accessible and scrutinized by the appropriate people:
Lord Deben put forward as Chair of Committee on Climate Change
... who apparently stood down from the company's board two months ago.
@Terry S:
Exactly, does he maintain a financial interest in this company or any other company that stands to benefit from his entirely principled, nay selfless, advocacy of, so capitalised, Renewables?
"Leo has now spoken to Lord Deben, who apparently stood down from the company's board two months ago."
So that effectively takes care of his conflict of interest? Only by applying the most simple of parameters. He will now be completely impartial upon the matter?
I do not believe that that is quite how power and influence and money work.
Arrange these words into a well known phrase or saying: "We why slaughter don't up and them rise?"
Small piece in The Sunday Times re Tim Teo and his 'selfless' promotion of wind farms..
He has opposed one in South Suffolk - which is, of course, his constituency...
Lord Deben said:
“This appointment is a great honour. I look forward to building upon the firm foundations that Adair Turner has laid. I am determined that the Committee on Climate Change will remain firmly independent, giving impartial, scientifically well-founded advice to the UK Government and devolved administrations.”
Update on Aug 20, 2012 by Bishop Hill
Leo has now spoken to Lord Deben, who apparently stood down from the company's board two months ago.
I would not believe a word Seldom Glummer says. He may have removed his name from the directors list but ........
oops, wrong thread...
if he has stepped down it hasn't fed through to companies house yet...
John Selwyn Gummer
Title Lord Deben
Honours
Address 3rd Floor Chronicle House
72-78 Fleet Street
London
EC4Y 1HY
Date of Birth 26/11/1939
Nationality British
Total current directorships 5
List of Current Directorships
Co.Number Company Name Status Function Date Appointed
07358260 CORLAN HAFREN LIMITED Non trading Director 04/09/2010
07688691 VALPAK LIMITED Non trading Director 28/07/2011
00288446 CATHOLIC HERALD LIMITED Active - Accounts Filed Director 04/02/2004
03779289 ASSOCIATION OF INDEPENDENT FINANCIAL ADVISERS Active - Accounts Filed Director 01/01/2003
02127283 VEOLIA WATER UK PLC Active - Accounts Filed Director 09/12/1997
List of Previous Directorships
Co.Number Company Name Status Function Date Appointed
04259131 INTERSOLAR GROUP PLC Company is dissolved Director 21/08/2001
06258946 AIFA SERVICES LIMITED Active - Accounts Filed Director 02/07/2007
02696924 SOVEREIGN REVERSIONS LIMITED Active - Accounts Filed Director 29/11/2004
03455120 EARTHCARE PRODUCTS LIMITED In Receivership / Administration Director 21/10/1998
03331057 VALPAK 1997 LIMITED Active - Accounts Filed Director 21/05/1998
03322023 MARINE STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL Active - Accounts Filed Director 26/02/1998
03203131 AMBIO LIMITED Active - Accounts Filed Director 21/10/1997
00396478 WALSINGHAM COLLEGE (AFFILIATED SCHOOLS) LIMITED Active - Accounts Filed Director 17/10/1991
03424152 CATHOLIC NATIONAL LIBRARY Active - Accounts Filed Director 20/12/1997
01182632 WOODARD SCHOOLS (SOUTHERN DIVISION) LIMITED Company is dissolved Director 14/12/1991
04039127 KIDDE LIMITED Active - Accounts Filed Director 14/11/2000
From Companies House:
26/08/2010 CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
12/10/2010 DIRECTOR APPOINTED RT HON JOHN SELWYN GUMMER LORD DEBEN
12/10/2010 DIRECTOR APPOINTED JOSEPH HANNAH
12/10/2010 DIRECTOR APPOINTED ANTHONY FRANCIS PRYOR
03/08/2011 CURREXT FROM 31/08/2011 TO 31/12/2011
03/08/2011 SECRETARY APPOINTED MR JOHN DAVID LUCAS
09/08/2011 VARYING SHARE RIGHTS AND NAMES
07/09/2011 DIRECTOR'S CHANGE OF PARTICULARS / LORD JOHN SELWYN GUMMER
07/09/2011 DIRECTOR'S CHANGE OF PARTICULARS / JOSEPH HANNAH
07/09/2011 DIRECTOR'S CHANGE OF PARTICULARS / ANTHONY FRANCIS PRYOR
07/09/2011 26/08/11 FULL LIST 07/09/11 STATEMENT OF CAPITAL
18/11/2011 CORPORATE DIRECTOR APPOINTED TEMPORIS CAPITAL LLP
07/03/2012 AUTHORISED ALLOTMENT OF SHARES AND DEBENTURES
28/05/2012 ACCOUNTS OF DORMANT COMPANY MADE UP TO 31/12/11
16/07/2012 REGISTERED OFFICE CHANGED ON 16/07/2012
Cant see any change of directors in there, can you?
[Changes of directors have to be notifed to Companies House within 14 days]
We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that there are a number of (apparently) successful tidal barrages in the world (most famously the Rance barrage, one of the first and still the second largest). Wiki claims a 40% capacity factor, which is at least reasonable.
The dread Wiki also gives a useful listing:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tidal_power_stations
Note that the biggest currently operational barrier generates around one-eighth of Drax power station. The barrier proposed for the Severn would allegedly have a capacity of 8,640 MW or just over two Draxes, or twice as much as the five largest wind farms in the world put together (if the wind was to blow at their ideal design speed.)
So potentially, it could be a big player. And note, in fairness, that you could sit down with your trusty X-box (or perhaps the MET Office's £33 Million Supercomputer) and calculate pretty accurately what the power output at 3:15 pm on the 27th October 2019 (say) might be, at least as a proportion of the actual maximum.
With BigWind, it is a challenge to guess what a wind farm will produce at 3:15 pm tomorrow.
And how much of the time it generates, is a function of how sophisticated the adopted design is (or, in other words, how much money you want to throw at it.) Concentric dams with turbines in both the inner and outer coffer dam can be manipulated to give reasonably balanced output whenever you want it.
IF it could be shown that CO2 was genuinely a problem and IF trying to reduce it was a more sensible approach than mitigation and adaptation, then tidal barrages are at least a credible (if hugely expensive)approach.
But my hunch is that the twitchers and other lunatic greenies will ensure that a Severn barrier never sees the light of day.
Myself, I'd go for shale gas, with some Thorium in the longer term.
Shareholdings of Corlan Hafren:
There are 8704 shares comprising of 8700 non-voting shares and 4 voting shares.
3400 + 1 John Richard Forbes Bazley
2200 + 1 Halcrow Group Limited
1100 + 1 Sancroft International Limited
2000 + 1 Joseph Hannah & Nicholas MacMillan
I've no idea who they are but it appears that Lord Deben doesn't have any shares.
Yeuk.
It is possible to have more or less continuous tidal generation with a two basin layout. Whether it pays or not is quite another matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_barrage#Two-basin_schemes
If we're going to have any renewable generation, I'd have this barrage. It can be operated to provide base load, or to lop peak demand. It can be flexible because it's capable of energy storage. It will create jobs during construction - lots of them, and there will be steady, SAFE employment for a sizeable workforce when it's complete. The civil works will last centuries; the mechanical/electrical plant can be changed with with minimal impact on generation. And there are ancillary benefits such as flood control and communications links.
I smirked at the Sunday Times piece where they said the developers would require ROCs payments equal to those on windmill. Just like that EdF man for Hinckley C. And why not, indeed!
Exactly, does he maintain a financial interest in this company or any other company that stands to benefit from his entirely principled, nay selfless, advocacy of, so capitalised, Renewables?
@dread0
The old pea and thimble trick .... The erstwhile Lord is a director, and 1/6th shareholder of Sancroft International Limited. The other shareholders are all Gummers (i.e. Lord Deben's family including wife, son and three not easily identifiable through Google).
Therefore, by my maths, Lord Deben owns 2% of Corlan Hafren and the Gummers as a collective own about 12%. Not bad when you're proposing a £30bn project!
To add to my earlier comments the maintenance problems are enormous. The river Severn carries millions of tonnes of sediment to the sea every year, as can be seen at low tide in the estuary, and this is slowly carried seawards by tides washing it into deeper water. The barrage will stop this so millions of tonnes of sediment will build up on the landward side into the river Severn. Not only will this reduce power production but severely increase flood risk upstream. Gloucester gets flooded now but this will increase with a barrage.
WE have better, cheaper ways to generate power.
Perhaps worth noting that Deben's son, Ben Gummer, is an MP.
Dreadnought says "It is possible to have more or less continuous tidal generation with a two basin layout."
I looked at that idea years ago. I reckon the low basin should be twice the area of the high basin. The high basin could be suitable for recreational use.
Ah, google is your friend: http://www.thepeerage.com/p21291.htm#i212901
Confirms that the six shareholders of Sancroft International Limited are the Lord and Lady + their 4 children.
Sorry this comment was accidentaly posted on the wrong thread.
If the idea of a Severn barrage is as wonderful as some correspondants suggest why was the original plan turned down by Chris Huhne on enviromental grounds? He is not normaly known for a critical attitude towards green energy.
Aug 20, 2012 at 10:51 AM | Jack Hughes
I've always wondered where power will come from, at slack water on a wind free -18'C night in January. No one has ever given me a sensible answer for renewables, and cannot counter the "don't bother with any of it just use the gas backup all the time" argument
Perhaps rather than a barrage this should be a pumped storage dam?
Sandy
Well dangerous sheep, there is environmental, and there is environmental! The word is applied rather freely and means exactly what its users want it to mean. The original project was deemed to be environmentaly unfriendly because it would disturb or displace various species deemed interesting or rare, or cuddly, or possibly all three. The effect on the working man or availability of energy to the same was not a consideration. These days a species has to be cuddly, rare, interesting and ethnic before preservation of it's habitat can trump the placement of ludicrusly expensive and ineffective 'renewables'.
Interesting to read about the 2-basin configuration ("...possible to generate almost continuously"). After pondering the subject for a few minutes I am sure at a first pass that a clever configuration of 3 lagoons could always have a level difference somewhere and therefore produce power 24x7.
What bothers me is that no-one involved in the scheme has done any of this pondering. No mention of "ebb" turbines or "flood" turbines or "double-lagoon" configurations.
Is it going to come as a big shock when they build the thing and discover the phenomenon of slack water ?
Gotta love the "creating 30,000 jobs" line.
Let's re-write this. "Need an expensive staff of 30,000 to run".
You know politicians are on dodgy ground when they fish around for a second and a third reason for doing something. Normal people make decisions for just one good reason.
According to Andrew Lansley, Tim Yeo made his interests known via the register of interests, so that's ok (I have that in writing). Not in my or any sensible & rational person's book it isn't. As he had declared such extensive interests, that should have disqualified him from any position that he could use to influence gov't policy that results in a positive outcome for his business interests, and therefore his personal gain.
Ilmenite - I'm quite happy that those declaring interests, particularly when they have technical skills or knowledge that is directly relevant, should take part in discussions provided all interests are open and clear. I have a problem when the officers and chairmen of these committees who are in a position to steer the deliberations have such interests.
I'm sorry to be so bold ... but have a simple question.
Where are the animated, monthly, simulations of tidal flows, depths and silt movement that would help us all to visualise graphically if, and how, this system will work.
I imagine that such an exercise will help David Cameron to 'decide' whether, or not, to approve this project.