Hinkley Point C erhält ein Fischabwehrsystem im Wert von 700 Millionen Pfund
https://www.somersetcountygazette.co.uk/news/25641551.hinkley-point-c-700-million-fish-deterrent-system/
Von lolikroli
Hinkley Point C erhält ein Fischabwehrsystem im Wert von 700 Millionen Pfund
https://www.somersetcountygazette.co.uk/news/25641551.hinkley-point-c-700-million-fish-deterrent-system/
Von lolikroli
15 Kommentare
If it saves just one salmon, it’ll all be worth it.
Can someone explain how this isn’t as stupid as the HS2 bat tunnel?
£700m to maybe save a worst case maximum of 44 tonnes of fish per year when we catch 716,000~ tonnes per year.
Absolutely mental, and a classic example of a lack of common sense. £700m for such a poor return/impact is an insane use of public finances.
You could do a shitload of good to our waterways with £700m or even half that. That’s 6-7 years worth of all government funding the canal & river trust receives for non-flood measures. Utter stupidity.
Taking the piss. I am in the wrong career I should be a consultant. I wonder how much of this is kick backs to consultants?
nuclear is the key to a green society , unlike what the greens will tell you
This is coming from EDF, so I’m sure it should be taken with a pinch of salt. It’s possible that they’re playing down the environmental impact so they can save costs by not having a fish disco
So nimbys rejected the alternatives like a salt marsh, as per the article. I’d love to see an actual breakdown of costs, and exactly how the 700 million figure was reached because the article doesn’t list it.
Save the fish or buy 700 struggling millennials family homes in Zone 3.
Impressive.
Makes the HS2 bat tunnel look positively cheap.
Who the fuck is requiring this and why aren’t they being told to fuck right off?
£120m bat sheds, £700m fish disco, etc.
Anyone keen on sharing your professional experiences with similar mitigation measures?
for all the outraged keyboard warriors foaming, this is how such a process would typically go
Engineer – the waterintake system might suck in fish. do you think this a problem?
Environmental Consultant – How much? Doesn’t it damage the intake system
Engineer – dunno. we might need to clean the pumps a few times a year.
Ecologist: – there are approximately X species with Y specimens. Some are protected. We estimate 44 tons annually.
Project manager – So well have a few dead fish. what is acceptable?
Local authoritities – NONE OFCOURSE. We want a power plant, not a fish shredder! 44 tons! that is literally tons.
Ecologist – 44 tons of shredded fish is not good publicity. And it violates the Fish Protecion Code (or whatever, you guys aren’t in the EU anymore so i don’t know)
Environmental Consultant: Fishermen might protest to.
Engineer – We can design an acoustic system to chase the fish away. it’ll cost 700 million though.
Local authorities – All the fish?
Engineer – well nothing is perfect. there is an X chance at Y fish being killed. We estimate zero point something fish per year.
Project manager – Our capital costs are killing the project. Damn the 700 M, and build the damn acoustic thingy so we can move on.
Redditor – ThAt iS LitTerAllY 700 mIlliON peR fIsH.
So they are doing what they said they’d do as part of the original planning permission then spent over half a decade trying to get out of doing?
I prefer the insight that this equipment will all need to be maintained by divers. That’s dangerous work so there’s a non zero probability someone will die to protect that salmon every 12 years.