Angling Trust Angry at ‘Shambolic’ EA

This makes me f........ angry! Not much does, but this is mad. Consulting non-paying canoeists about flow but not license paying anglers. WTF!

Should be re-named The Environment Destruction Agency, do they really know what they are doing, makes you wonder. Cant see the people of Abingdon letting them f..k up The Abbey Stream, where are the listed buildings people? Oh and the turbines will enhance the natural environment, ohh right, thats ok then, I love looking at turbines, suppose they will be painted pink?

They're Government run and will do whatever they see fit to make money. They think that by introducing water turbines they are helping the environment, this may well be true, but at what cost to the rest of the environment. It's about time that anglers took a stand, stop paying for a rod license for 1 year until they change their attitude and start to listen more to what anglers have to say. You can still fish without a rod license in Scotland oh and you can go see fishing too. For as long as we keep paying them they still hold all the cards ... it's really that simple. Now let me make myself totally clear, i am not saying that people should fish illegally (without a Rod License) but, they should stop paying for one and look for alternatives. The EA would sh1t themselves if no one bought a Rod license in 2013 and submitted a big petition as to why. I bet the Big Named boys won't back that idea (what no fishing for a year) but hey it would open some eyes i think.

If only we all did that Steff, yes we would be heard then

If. hypothetically, none of us bought a license next year then what could the EA do? They could not afford to take us all to court - they need the revenue from our licenses to prosecute the 'few' that they do now. Won't happen though will it. Unfortunatley, the majority of anglers havn't a clue that this thing is going on.

I would like to have seen some balance in the article like a full statement from the EA. tabloid journalism for me.

The EA do a lot of good work and have a lot of committed staff, but they always go soft in the face of any business interests. Maybe the Chief Executive is looking for some company directorships in his retirement or a place in the Lords. Nothing new there. Look at how the water companies were allowed to achieve excessive levels of authorised abstraction and the softly softly approach to bring rivers back from it. They are an arm of government and government also sides with business - whatever the party involved.

I have sent the following to who I think is spokeperson for the project Paul Do you realise your Abingdon project is getting a lot of flak in the fishing media about the impact of the project on the environment. Is there a statement or some web site that gives your views on that concern ? For myself I don't know enough about the proposed project to comment. Many thanks and best of luck

Has angling got a plan in place to tackle (excuse pun) this concern head on? What are ATr and others doing to make sure that we get heard? What would we as anglers be prepared to do to ensure we get heard? I know that their a plenty more intellectual, influential and better connected anglers out there than me, so truly what can be done? If they can't do nothing, then what chance do we have of influencing what happens to our Sport / Hobby / Pastime.

Well I had a very nice reply from a guy named Paul who is part of the project Hi Benny, At present we don’t have a blog but it is something we are looking into. Could you forward some links to the fishing media you mention and I will endeavour to take a look and answer any questions that I can, in the meantime we do have a web site, Home - Abingdon Hydro Which I will do. ---------- Post added at 18:39 ---------- Previous post was at 18:34 ---------- Well I had a very nice reply from a guy named Paul who is part of the project Hi Benny, At present we don’t have a blog but it is something we are looking into. Could you forward some links to the fishing media you mention and I will endeavour to take a look and answer any questions that I can, in the meantime we do have a web site, Home - Abingdon Hydro Which I will do. and my reply was Many thanks for your reply Paul The original article was from here Angling Trust Angry at ‘Shambolic’ EA and the resultant thread I contributed to was here [url=http://www.fishingmagic.com/forums/fm-news-feature-comments/307116-angling-trust-angry-shambolica-ea.html]http://www.fishingmagic.com/forums/fm-news-feature-comments/307116-angling-trust-angry-shambolica-ea.html but really its a current hot topic on a few fishing forums. My online name is BennyGesserit - I would warn about fishing forums they are pretty opinionated places. Once again thanks for your time. Cheers ---------- Post added at 18:43 ---------- Previous post was at 18:39 ---------- Well I have very little knowledge of river ecology but more info on the link I gave details how at least some of the angling concerns have been addressed. What do you think ?

What more can we expect from an organisation (the EA) with the Chair it has. Smith - I know nothing about angling and have no intentions of finding out! Just one of many from the pool of the merry-go-round of professional chairpersons. Whilst I note the ATr Chair post will be voluntary.

I take it, it's a private venture then, they have to get permission from the EA to go ahead?

I take it, it's a private venture then, they have to get permission from the EA to go ahead? The information is on their website

aint abingdon the one that has a patron, who is also a minister, and looks after angling in the house of commons, I think his name is benyon one of the problems with all this hydropower, is that the local communities that are pushing for it, are only hearing the proposers views, if you want them to hear anglers views, you gotta do it yourself, letters to local papers, go to their meetings with your own printed info to hand out, and put signs up where the turbines are to be sited if it truly is a no brainer, then anglers views will win the argument easily, it amazes me how local groups are so unwilling to agree to an enviromental assessment study, surely you need to know what lives somewhere, before you change it

aint abingdon the one that has a patron, who is also a minister, and looks after angling in the house of commons, I think his name is benyon one of the problems with all this hydropower, is that the local communities that are pushing for it, are only hearing the proposers views, if you want them to hear anglers views, you gotta do it yourself, letters to local papers, go to their meetings with your own printed info to hand out, and put signs up where the turbines are to be sited if it truly is a no brainer, then anglers views will win the argument easily, it amazes me how local groups are so unwilling to agree to an enviromental assessment study, surely you need to know what lives somewhere, before you change it You can email the people behind the scheme .

No mention then about the 100's of fish each of these screws are legally allowed to kill?? On rivers such as the Tyne this equates to an awful amount of lost income to the local economy. That alone will probably out-way any 'benefit' they might have.

No mention then about the 100's of fish each of these screws are legally allowed to kill?? On rivers such as the Tyne this equates to an awful amount of lost income to the local economy. That alone will probably out-way any 'benefit' they might have. I thought they were of sufficient size to allow fish to swim through it

if you want them to hear anglers views, you gotta do it yourself, letters to local papers, go to their meetings with your own printed info to hand out, That Jim, is the problem. No organisation, one place for the Govt to consult, means we would get ignored. They won't deal with individuals or a load of fragmented groups, we'd get slaughtered. The ATr is our only hope of getting heard and it needs more support. Still only a very small minority of us are members. We get what we deserve. Ignored. The EA IS the Government, it is a Govt dept of which angling is a very small part. It puts Govt policy into action. Build Hydro boys, they will do it. Wind farms, let's get going. It's part of the statistical game to reduce our carbon foot print. The calculation is that a few fish is a small political price to pay. After all these starnge people who spend their spare time sitting in the rain by rivers can't even the ar*ed to cough up £25 to defend themselves. To give the fisheries people more clout, they need a strong Angling body to lobby them. and create political pressure. I'm afraid that is modern Britain. Stu

The organisation behind this is anxious to hear anglers views , in fact Paul emailed me back within an hour. I am not sure what people are actually objecting to.

The EA position is briefly summarsed on their website: Environment Agency - Our position on hydropower. The Institute of Fisheries Management gives a little more detail: http://www.ifm.org.uk/sites/default/files/page/IFM_Hydropower_position_statement_FINAL.pdf. The basic concern is that detailed environmental impact assessments need to be conducted - including effects on non-aquatic wildlife like bats which feed on fly hatches along the river corridor. Apart from looking ugly - it is the way that flow velocities may be changed and this will affect aspects such as aeration and the nature of the riverbed. In the Thames, fast flowing well-oxygenated water is confined in its distribution to weirpools - with an effective lake between each of them. In this case any degradation of the weirpool habitat or function within the rivers ecology could have serious implications for fish not only using the weirpool itself but further downstream. At least this scheme appears to be a community-led not-for-profit proposal (on the face of it at least), which is more commendable than an energy company in my view.

From their web site it appears the ea did a computer simulation associated with predicted flows I will compile a specidic list of questions and pass them on to Paul Thanks !

In this case Benny there is already an impounding structure in existence - the existing weir. Problem is though that if such schemes become popular we may see impounding structures being built where there are none at present as you need the "head" to generate the flow through the turbines. For the last 15-20years the EA has being trying, successfully in many cases, to remove unnecessary impoundments (often from old mills no longer in use) as they cause barriers to fish migration and deep siltation of reaches upstream of them. In a free-flowing situation the river is then better able to maintain a more natural channel and associated fish and other wildlife. Therefore it would be a backward step if such schemes were promoted widely. Thje flow modelling may give some clarity of what to expect under different flow scenarios, but would this modelling extend to address changes in the river bed (siltation) or oxygenation and the knock-on consequences for river life?. Imagine if it caused siltation of the existing weirpool - who would then fund the weirpool dredging and how would this impact upon an important habitat be redressed? In my view there should be detailed consideration from a gemorphologist (who understands sediment transport in rivers) as well as a freshwater ecologist/fisheries biologist, as well as hydrologists who examine flow. In the Thames the modified channel and abstraction has already changed the river towards being a very long impounded lake so as i said the weirpools perform an important function as is. Ideally it would be great to remove as many weirs as possible - but that is never going to happen.

Some fascinating points , the team running the project seem to take enviro issues very seriously , i could forward you the guy's email address if you like , he does seem prepared to answer via email, or compile a list. His address is published freely on the web site but I don't want to just paste it here without asking.

Aha good news Paul Buckingham who is part of the project has joined this forum , he has been an angler for 40 years and will hopefully be using this thread to answer any questions we might have. He has tried to talk to the ATr but so far had no reply. Exciting I think that you can get to thecrux of the matter , Lets be gentle with him but not too gentle if you know what i mean, chub I look forwards to him answering your points mate.

So... consultations with unlicensed canoe paddlers who contribute nothing to the environment but no consultation with anglers? Explain yourself! :cool:

So... consultations with unlicensed canoe paddlers who contribute nothing to the environment but no consultation with anglers? Explain yourself! :cool: Geoff and myself aint always seen eye to eye, and thats being polite! but i will echo his request.....explain yourself!

So... consultations with unlicensed canoe paddlers who contribute nothing to the environment but no consultation with anglers? Explain yourself! :cool: From Paul Buckingham's email to me Hi Benny, I've joined the forum you mentioned and will go on there at some point to answer some of the questions but I would be happy to answer any questions you have. We were contacted by a guy from the Angling Trust who we invited to have a meeting with us but he failed to reply to any correspondence so as yet nobody from the angling community has attempted to meet with us. The other group who have expressed concerns are the canoeists as mentioned in the forum, they contacted us and replied to our correspondence so we have been in discussion with them. We would and always have been open to any debate with any concerned parties so if the anglers want to get in touch we are more than happy to meet them and discuss any issues. Thank you again for contacting me, maybe you could act as a go between for us so we can get some balanced discussions going and work towards a meeting between the anglers and Abingdon Hydro. For the record, I am an angler and have been for nearly 40 years! ---------- Post added at 22:13 ---------- Previous post was at 22:12 ---------- That wasn't mentioned by the ATr was it ?

From Paul Buckingham's email to me Hi Benny, I've joined the forum you mentioned and will go on there at some point to answer some of the questions but I would be happy to answer any questions you have. We were contacted by a guy from the Angling Trust who we invited to have a meeting with us but he failed to reply to any correspondence so as yet nobody from the angling community has attempted to meet with us. The other group who have expressed concerns are the canoeists as mentioned in the forum, they contacted us and replied to our correspondence so we have been in discussion with them. We would and always have been open to any debate with any concerned parties so if the anglers want to get in touch we are more than happy to meet them and discuss any issues. we are also expressing concern and invite comment.

Well he has joined the forum and I said I would collate questions - what questions do you have Berty ? I also contacted Ian Welch and asked whether he might do an article - TBH they seem like a really nice bunch of people not super villains building a death ray.

The organisation behind this is anxious to hear anglers views , in fact Paul emailed me back within an hour. I am not sure what people are actually objecting to. As I said earlier, licenced to kill 100's of fish day, 10,000's over a year. Read the ATr position statement on Hydro schemes HERE - also much more info @ The Angling Trust Organisation for Anglers The ATr is/was pushing for a wider consultation process More info [ame="http://vimeo.com/35849086"]HERE[/ame] Don't be fooled, not everything that is 'green' is good for the environment.

As I said earlier, licenced to kill 100's of fish day, 10,000's over a year. Read the ATr position statement on Hydro schemes HERE - also much more info @ The Angling Trust Organisation for Anglers The ATr is/was pushing for a wider consultation process More info HERE Don't be fooled, not everything that is 'green' is good for the environment. But the Abingdon screw has been specifically designed so fish can swim through it , they have asked for consultation with the ATr and they haven't replied. It would be a great question to put to the Abingdon project.

But the Abingdon screw has been specifically designed so fish can swim through it The main reason for using them is that fish are carried through without damage, so it is easier to get an Environment Agency licence. They turn quite slowly, 2 to 3 seconds per revolution, but are more efficient than waterwheels. At Abingdon the water will fall about 1.65m, and this means the biggest screw we can use is about 3.3m diameter - any bigger and it gets less efficient. Each one would pass 5 to 6 tons of water per second and generate about 65kW of electrical power. We cannot take all the water, we have to leave some to keep the rest of the river healthy (the "hands off flow"). The Environment Agency sets conditions of what we can take. From what Ive heard there is hardly any flow in the river, even in winter. Already far too much abstraction and reduction of river energy they have asked for consultation with the ATr and they haven't replied. It would be a great question to put to the Abingdon project. I'll ask, but I think you might be being fed porkys

The main reason for using them is that fish are carried through without damage, so it is easier to get an Environment Agency licence. They turn quite slowly, 2 to 3 seconds per revolution, but are more efficient than waterwheels. At Abingdon the water will fall about 1.65m, and this means the biggest screw we can use is about 3.3m diameter - any bigger and it gets less efficient. Each one would pass 5 to 6 tons of water per second and generate about 65kW of electrical power. We cannot take all the water, we have to leave some to keep the rest of the river healthy (the "hands off flow"). The Environment Agency sets conditions of what we can take. From what Ive heard there is hardly any flow in the river, even in winter. Already far too much abstraction and reduction of river energy I'll ask, but I think you might be being fed porkys Its never constructive just to call someone a liar , they aren't going to enter into a dialogue if we do that , maybe the ATr think they replied etc etc. As regards river energy though you are extracting net energy from the river isn't that a very small amount compared to the tremendous energy in a river i.e. the river isn't going to stop , or be noticeably impared later on downstream. However silting might be an issue. ---------- Post added at 23:07 ---------- Previous post was at 23:04 ---------- ooops John me and you were both viewing each others profile at the same time :D

Just checking whether your not a spokesperson for the developers/shareholders - the only people who will derive any benefit from these schemes, because the river and environment surely wont.

Well he has joined the forum and I said I would collate questions - what questions do you have Berty ? I also contacted Ian Welch and asked whether he might do an article - TBH they seem like a really nice bunch of people not super villains building a death ray. The one about the canoists would be a good start!!......i dont doubt they are nice people, but i'd rather have an effective ******* where my favourite pastime is concerned ;)

Hi everyone, I'm the correspondent from Abingdon Hydro and I've been reading all the comments with interest. I will try and answer as many of the questions as I can over the next week or so. I am an angler myself and have been for almost 40 years so I do have a strong interest in the welfare of fish within the river Thames. Just a quick answer to one of the questions for now about why we haven't had any discussions with anglers. We had a rather rude e-mail from a guy called Alan Butterworth, who I believe is from the ATr, well over a year ago, we responded to his e-mail with the intention of setting up a meeting to discuss his and the anglers concerns but we have never had a reply. A number of other anglers have approached us at various public events we have attended and we have asked them to contact us via e-mail to set up meetings but nobody has actually got back to us. Seeing a forum thread like this slamming us for not having discussions with you over your concerns is very frustrating because we do not know who to contact and when we have been approached nobody has actually been bothered to follow up our invitation to meet up leaving us in a difficult position. The canoeists contacted us and followed up our response and as a result have been able to discuss in depth their concerns and have been able to work together to resolve their issues resulting in the EA granting us an abstraction license. Without this agreement with the canoeists we would not have been granted it. We would be very glad and indeed relieved if the anglers did get in touch with us and set up a meeting because then we may be seen in a different light and not as environmental terrorists intent on destroying the river. We really have done all we can to speak to the anglers, we are a voluntary organization and as such do all the work for this project in our spare time so do not have to time to chase around trying to find people to talk to, that I'm afraid is in your court so please get back to us if you have concerns. Hydro schemes such as this will happen whether now or in the future because the government are pushing for it and there is a future need. We are a community based project and some proceeds from the scheme will be put back into the community to develop other projects both energy and social. If we don't succeed with this project the likelihood is that a commercial outfit with far more financial clout will and any groups such as yourselves will be pushed aside. Please get in touch with us if you want to have your say, if you don't then we can only conclude that the angling community has no interest in any impact this scheme may have. Paul.

Hi everyone, I'm the correspondent from Abingdon Hydro and I've been reading all the comments with interest. I will try and answer as many of the questions as I can over the next week or so. I am an angler myself and have been for almost 40 years so I do have a strong interest in the welfare of fish within the river Thames. Just a quick answer to one of the questions for now about why we haven't had any discussions with anglers. We had a rather rude e-mail from a guy called Alan Butterworth, who I believe is from the ATr, well over a year ago, we responded to his e-mail with the intention of setting up a meeting to discuss his and the anglers concerns but we have never had a reply. A number of other anglers have approached us at various public events we have attended and we have asked them to contact us via e-mail to set up meetings but nobody has actually got back to us. Seeing a forum thread like this slamming us for not having discussions with you over your concerns is very frustrating because we do not know who to contact and when we have been approached nobody has actually been bothered to follow up our invitation to meet up leaving us in a difficult position. The canoeists contacted us and followed up our response and as a result have been able to discuss in depth their concerns and have been able to work together to resolve their issues resulting in the EA granting us an abstraction license. Without this agreement with the canoeists we would not have been granted it. We would be very glad and indeed relieved if the anglers did get in touch with us and set up a meeting because then we may be seen in a different light and not as environmental terrorists intent on destroying the river. We really have done all we can to speak to the anglers, we are a voluntary organization and as such do all the work for this project in our spare time so do not have to time to chase around trying to find people to talk to, that I'm afraid is in your court so please get back to us if you have concerns. Hydro schemes such as this will happen whether now or in the future because the government are pushing for it and there is a future need. We are a community based project and some proceeds from the scheme will be put back into the community to develop other projects both energy and social. If we don't succeed with this project the likelihood is that a commercial outfit with far more financial clout will and any groups such as yourselves will be pushed aside. Please get in touch with us if you want to have your say, if you don't then we can only conclude that the angling community has no interest in any impact this scheme may have. Paul. Paul thanks for replying - One of the , many , specific questions are will fish die if they travel through the screw , and if they do , will this be in any great numbers ?

Theres some more info about what is actually proposed from a canoeing thread: Guidebook Community Pages • View topic - Abingdon Weir at Risk from Hydro Project ? - The UK Rivers Guidebook. This includes some details re the abstraction licence (1.3 million cubic metres per day). The scheme was apparently advertised in the Wantage Herald and Oxfordshire press and the deadline for this "consultation" passed last October. Pondy, what do you get out of this?. I read somewhere else on the net that someone involved considered this project as contributing to gods work on earth and helping with the "Big Society". Is this another way of saying that you might stand to make a lot of money?

Are the ATr monitoring this forum? Would it be possible to have a response from 'The Voice of Angling'? Martin Salter was on Fishermans Blues this morning and mentioned this issue so they must have a view on it. Stu

Are the ATr monitoring this forum? Would it be possible to have a response from 'The Voice of Angling'? Martin Salter was on Fishermans Blues this morning and mentioned this issue so they must have a view on it. Stu To be honest its not as though it is difficult to contact Paul , his email address is on his web site and he responds to his email , its easy to say this but if I was in the ATr I would have entered into a dialogue. Now some of the questions raised by members here completely outstrip my knowledge , maybe , and its just speculation , the ATr were asked for a view , as I am sure they are asked for many views on many subjects , and they gave the answer they were expected to give.

Theres some more info about what is actually proposed from a canoeing thread: Guidebook Community Pages • View topic - Abingdon Weir at Risk from Hydro Project ? - The UK Rivers Guidebook. This includes some details re the abstraction licence (1.3 million cubic metres per day). The scheme was apparently advertised in the Wantage Herald and Oxfordshire press and the deadline for this "consultation" passed last October. Pondy, what do you get out of this?. I read somewhere else on the net that someone involved considered this project as contributing to gods work on earth and helping with the "Big Society". Is this another way of saying that you might stand to make a lot of money? I wish! We are purely a voluntary group, the scheme we hope will be funded by local shareholders who will all want a dividend, we will be paying out an interest rate on their investment, taking out enough money to maintain the project, ie, insurance, equipment maintenance and repairs, a contingency fund and fees for operating the share scheme, the remainder will be put into a community fund for other projects. Any money I am likely to make will be from any shares I buy in the scheme and that is likely to be limited to a maximum of £20k per shareholder so any financial gains for myself and any of the other directors will be very limited. It's not intended to be a money making scheme unlike if a commercial outfit installs it.

To be honest its not as though it is difficult to contact Paul , his email address is on his web site and he responds to his email , its easy to say this but if I was in the ATr I would have entered into a dialogue. Now some of the questions raised by members here completely outstrip my knowledge , maybe , and its just speculation , the ATr were asked for a view , as I am sure they are asked for many views on many subjects , and they gave the answer they were expected to give. There could be a lot of reasons why the ATr haven't entered into a dialogue with Abington Hydro. Not least of which is that there are a lot of these schemes being proposed at the moment and because hardly any of us have joined and put up any money, they have severely restricted recources. Or they may be concentrating their fire on the EA. We don't know. I hope that we get an update from them. You say 'if I was in the ATr', I take it you aren't a member. If not, why have you any expectation of them? Stu

There could be a lot of reasons why the ATr haven't entered into a dialogue with Abington Hydro. Not least of which is that there are a lot of these schemes being proposed at the moment and because hardly any of us have joined and put up any money, they have severely restricted recources. Or they may be concentrating their fire on the EA. We don't know. I hope that we get an update from them. You say 'if I was in the ATr', I take it you aren't a member. If not, why have you any expectation of them? Stu I take your point , if we were all in the ATr then that would be a massive voice for angling. The reason I haven't joined is that I don't agree with what I think their views on otters are and I'm a bit tight fisted.

I wish! We are purely a voluntary group, the scheme we hope will be funded by local shareholders who will all want a dividend, we will be paying out an interest rate on their investment, taking out enough money to maintain the project, ie, insurance, equipment maintenance and repairs, a contingency fund and fees for operating the share scheme, the remainder will be put into a community fund for other projects. Any money I am likely to make will be from any shares I buy in the scheme and that will is likely to be limited to a maximum of £20k per shareholder so any financial gains for myself and any of the other directors will be very limited. It's not intended to be a money making scheme unlike if a commercial outfit installs it. Thats reassuring, although i am sure there are less contentious ways of making a difference re global warming or conserving the environment. Without seeing an environmental assessment it would be difficult to form a firm overall opinion re the merits of your scheme, so I am left to cite primary concerns expressed widely about fish mortalities (which appear unavoidable) and the potential environmental changes in the river both within the existing weirpool or elswehere as a result of changing the flow and turbulence. As regards the visual impact, there can be little doubt that these things are ugly and represent riverside development at a site where there isnt any at the moment. Why add to this intrusion with a visitor centre?. This would need an access road, maybe catering facilities and so on. A back door to commercialisation of the riverbank? ---------- Post added at 04:46 ---------- Previous post was at 04:38 ---------- I take your point , if we were all in the ATr then that would be a massive voice for angling. The reason I haven't joined is that I don't agree with what I think their views on otters are and I'm a bit tight fisted. A pity the EA doesnt give an option to join the ATr when you renew your rod licence. But there never is any joined up thinking in this world.

The reason I haven't joined is that I don't agree with what I think their views on otters are and I'm a bit tight fisted. I don't know what their views on otters are to be honest, it's a very delicate and highly emotive subject. It is also only one of many threats to angling. I don't agree with them on everything and I don't expect to. I just think that if we don't try and put up a united front, we are doomed. I believe that considering the eye watering lack of support they are doing pretty well. Anyway no pay, no say! As most anglers seem to be tight fisted too, we get what we deserve, ignored. Stu ---------- Post added at 06:02 ---------- Previous post was at 05:53 ---------- A pity the EA doesnt give an option to join the ATr when you renew your rod licenceThat's simple, the EA are the Govt. Why would they want to get involved with an organisation representing anglers any more than they would the RSPB? To work, the ATr has to be independent. The EA are usually on the side of the enemy. Hydro, Otters, Cormorants, Extraction, Discharge Licences, etc, etc. The fisheries people are very nice but they are a tiny part of a gigantic Govt Department. All the time that we are so disorganised that there is no political price to pay, we will be ignored. Stu

But in this case , it seems ( so far ) that the ATr haven't done anything but generate publicity for themselves , Oh hang on aren't some of their key members anglers who generate their own publicity anyway ? However that is sort of a whole thread in itself, Pondy do you have any thoughts on whether the screw is fish safe ?

But in this case , it seems ( so far ) that the ATr haven't done anything but generate publicity for themselves , Oh hang on aren't some of their key members anglers who generate their own publicity anyway ? Benny, I'm sure that if you give it a bit of time you can think of a whole load of excuses not to join. You are in the majority (of about 98% of anglers). We get what we deserve. The facts on these turbines are in the public domain. There's little doubt that they will have a negative effect on angling but unlike the RSPB, the Govt can comfortably get away with ignoring us. As I said earlier, if you aren't a member why have you any expectation of them? Stu

Benny, I'm sure that if you give it a bit of time you can think of a whole load of excuses not to join. You are in the majority (of about 98% of anglers). We get what we deserve. The facts on these turbines are in the public domain. There's little doubt that they will have a negative effect on angling but unlike the RSPB, the Govt can comfortably get away with ignoring us. As I said earlier, if you aren't a member why have you any expectation of them? Stu Stu I can see your point of view , about a united voice for angling , like the RSPB, and I will certainly consider it now, i can comment on any public body though especially in this case where I saw the article as potentially being a little one sided. Although I don't know enough about river ecology to be certain of that. Start another thread on the ATr and I'll be happy to join in that , but I certainly don't want to divert the thread away from the major issue - is the Abingdon Hydro scheme a good or bad thing id you are an angler. ---------- Post added at 17:38 ---------- Previous post was at 16:06 ---------- As I said earlier, licenced to kill 100's of fish day, 10,000's over a year. Read the ATr position statement on Hydro schemes HERE I must say that link is very convincing !

a mahoosive thanks to pondy for joining the forum, pukka m8 a simple question for you fella, how can you as part of the local community, be prepared to change something, before you fully understand what lives there ?

Despite your statement Pondy, it seems to me that if shareholders are involved who will want a dividend, then this IS a commercial operation and it IS about making money - that's why they are investing. Where they put their profits is immaterial. Though I suggest it is even more about gaining political capital than financial. As has been said by others, not every Green policy is good for the environment. As an angler for the last 40 years, what do you attribute the decline of the Thames to? And do you not think these hydro plants will contribute to be a continuation of that decline.

Stu I can see your point of view , about a united voice for angling , like the RSPB, and I will certainly consider it now, i can comment on any public body though especially in this case where I saw the article as potentially being a little one sided.Hi Benny, it's not a public body. I get a bit hacked off when people who haven't joined and contribute nothing, for what ever reason, complain why the ATr don't do more. They are very under recourced because the majoritory of anglers who are quite happy to leave it to others then moan about what is or isn't done. If you haven't joined, they don't represent you, it's that simple. I think that if you look into the matter you'll find that it is the establishment (that includes Pondy's mob) propaganda that is very one sided. But hey, who cares about a few fish, they don't. Stu

Hi Benny, it's not a public body. I get a bit hacked off when people who haven't joined and contribute nothing, for what ever reason, complain why the ATr don't do more. They are very under recourced because the majoritory of anglers who are quite happy to leave it to others then moan about what is or isn't done. If you haven't joined, they don't represent you, it's that simple. I think that if you look into the matter you'll find that it is the establishment (that includes Pondy's mob) propaganda that is very one sided. But hey, who cares about a few fish, they don't. Stu I mean't an organisation in the public eye. I commented on the ATr , as is my right , the same right that the ATr have to comment on Abingdon. What would be beneficial is to hear Pondy answer anglers specific questions about hydro, Lets take that chance , do you know if Pondy cares about fish ? Have you asked him ? Have you read the ATr's official view of hydro ? I am reading it , its very interesting. Pondy have you read it ? ---------- Post added at 08:50 ---------- Previous post was at 08:48 ---------- a mahoosive thanks to pondy for joining the forum, pukka m8 a simple question for you fella, how can you as part of the local community, be prepared to change something, before you fully understand what lives there ? Spot on , I think its great we have a direct line to someone directly involved in such a big angling issue, given the propensity for any government these days to want to be seen to be green it looks like there may be many many more of these projects.

What would be beneficial is to hear Pondy answer anglers specific questions about hydro, Lets take that chance , do you know if Pondy cares about fish ? Have you asked him ? Have you read the ATr's official view of hydro ? I am reading it , its very interestingBenny, Has anybody involved in this carried out an environmental impact study? I don't think so. The RSPB have funded research into the effect on birds on other schemes, they can afford it for the simple reason that they have 1,000,000+ paying members (the Atr have about 20,000 at the moment I believe), not just non contributing opinions, no pay, no say. Who cares about a few fish? Certainly not the wider 'Establishment' of which Pondy's group is a part. Of course I've read the ATr view(s), and I've discussed the matter with them. I've been a member since it started and was a member of the ACA for about 35 years before that. This has come to you a bit late, this isn't the first Hydro application and it won't be the last. With Govt policy and 'green' subsidies, there could be these schemes on nearly every weir in the country. I believe that this 'might' result in about 0.5% of our electricity needs. Stu

Yes I have come to this late , completely agree.

Benny, Has anybody involved in this carried out an environmental impact study? I don't think so. The RSPB have funded research into the effect on birds on other schemes, they can afford it for the simple reason that they have 1,000,000+ paying members (the Atr have about 20,000 at the moment I believe), not just non contributing opinions, no pay, no say. Who cares about a few fish? Certainly not the wider 'Establishment' of which Pondy's group is a part. Of course I've read the ATr view(s), and I've discussed the matter with them. I've been a member since it started and was a member of the ACA for about 35 years before that. This has come to you a bit late, this isn't the first Hydro application and it won't be the last. With Govt policy and 'green' subsidies, there could be these schemes on nearly every weir in the country. I believe that this 'might' result in about 0.5% of our electricity needs. Stu Have to agree with this 100%. If all of those anglers out there who are not members of the AT stopped all the rhetoric about "well I think I'll wait and see what happens in the AT before I join" and actually put their money directly into fighting for their sport, then we might have a chance. This is a prime example at just how little clout we have. We are a tiny voice in a very big political world and I'm afraid without the support of anglers, that's exactly how it is going to stay. If only instead of constantly bemoaning how hard done by we all are, you actually did something about it. On the flip side of that, I am very disappointed to hear that the AT were contacted and never responded. Why? I'll be emailing the AT and asking the question and drawing their attention to this thread.

My specific questions would be Has an enviro impact assesment been completed, who paid for it , is there an online copy. Is there an expected fish kill from the screw ? Will the fish passes be regularly inspected to make sure they are not blocked. Does anyone from Abingdon have a view on the ATr's published views on hydro , do they see themselves fitting the ATrs view of a successfull project ? Many thanks !

For as long as we keep paying them they still hold all the cards ... it's really that simple. As a matter of interest, how many of you contributing to this thread are members of The Angling Trust? ---------------------- Life Member - Angling Trust

and thats the most important question in all this!

and thats the most important question in all this! Its certainly a real factor in this but lets not cloud the clarity of the thread

and thats the most important question in all this! What's that? -Why have the Thames region EA team failed yet AGAIN to engage with all of a river's 'stakeholders' in a consultation? -Why don't the interested parties (anglers) bombard the hell out of the EA expressing their concerns with this project and their utter disdain over the lack of consultation with angling organisations/bodies. And demand to see the evidence that was used to establish this project is environmentally sound. -Why do fools gather on threads like this; is it just to spout off pointless nothingness? Was "the most important question" listed by me? Oh and big pat on the back to Benny; you're obviously a man with some gumption. Who despite not being a river angler and doesn't even live in the Abingdon area, he has done more good on this subject than everyone else on this thread put together!

Colin while I would love to bask in the glory , and thanks for your kind words, All I did was send an email the credit really goes to Paul Buckingham ( Pondy ) for joining us and addressing our concerns. I sincerely hope he finishes that process.

Colin while I would love to bask in the glory , and thanks for your kind words, All I did was send an email the credit really goes to Paul Buckingham ( Pondy ) for joining us and addressing our concerns. I sincerely hope he finishes that process. Benny, it may not have been a huge amount of effort on your part but it's a lot more effort than anyone else on this thread would've bothered to put in. It'll be interesting to see how many actually bother contacting the EA to tell them of their annoyance at the lack of open consultation was that undertaken, plus asking exactly what surveys have been conducted to evaluate any environmental impact. Because the EA officers present at last weeks UTFC meeting, certainly didn't have any answers whatsoever to Richard Knowles's barrage of questions.

It's been raining and I can't get on with any work outdoors and not being interested in Queenie things I looked this thread up at the suggestion of a colleague.... (from Pondy- apparently) - We were contacted by a guy from the Angling Trust who we invited to have a meeting with us but he failed to reply to any correspondence so as yet nobody from the angling community has attempted to meet with us.That guy being Dr Alan Butterworth who has been mentioned already. I have been in contact with Alan and he kindly reforwarded (as I lost some emails last year) his objections to the scheme and given me permission to reprint them here. - Abingdon – Objection to WR Application 29.09.2011 RE: Water Resources Application NPS/WR/005499 by Abingdon Hydro Community Group for the River Thames, Abingdon On behalf of the Angling Trust, I object to this scheme on the grounds of the insufficient environmental information supplied and its potential impact on the weirpool habitat and associated fish populations. Yet again an inadequate application has been allowed to get to this stage. It is widely accepted that the principle species at risk from hydropower schemes are the fish populations, and habitats at risk are the stretches of river depleted of water. The "Habitat and Species Report" rightly makes considerable efforts describing nearby conservation sites and their associated species, but only has 5 lines devoted to fish, and just 4 lines on "open water". The report concludes that “As a development the construction and operation of the proposed HEP facility can be viewed as benign as far as biodiversity is concerned. No loss of species or habitats is anticipated, given the limited “footprint” of the proposal”. This is completely unjustified, and the potential "footprint" is not "limited". The hydropower consultant also concludes that there will be "no loss of fish habitat" - that conclusion cannot be assumed from the Habitat and Species Report, and I am not aware that he has any fisheries or ecology qualifications or has done any other work to allow this conclusion to be made. The EA's "Good Practice Guide" correctly describes weirpool habitats on heavily impounded rivers, such as the Thames, as highly important and dependant on the flow and energy of water entering it, including mid-range flows to maintain the habitat. This weirpool is known as a significant spawning location for barbel and it is an important fishery. This proposal will completely alter the flow regime, and only leave a very low flow (presumed to be Q95, but is not specified) directly entering the weirpool for a majority of the year. The effect of this requires very careful evaluation, and should require a proportional distribution of flows. The proposal is for three 4-blade Archimedean screws; these have not, as far as I am aware, been approved as being safe for fish passage if unscreened, and therefore cannot be described as "fish neutral". The design is to take the flow at right angles from the entrance of the Abbey Stream. This will create high water velocities in the immediate vicinity upstream. The Abbey Stream itself is a significant fishery and offers refuge for both young and adult fish, especially in the Winter. Any fish entering or exiting the Abbey Stream will be at risk of being entrained, as will fish which may have just exited the fish pass. There is also significant risk of bank erosion. The scheme rightly includes a fish pass, which must be suitable for all species and therefore the Denil option mentioned is not suitable, the Larinier may be if correctly located. The method by which levels will be controlled is not described. In general, levels on the Thames are not maintained to a precision suitable for hydropower. There is a specific danger of fluctuating upstream and downstream water levels which may affect the river habitats and associated wetlands, as well as resulting in navigation issues. This needs resolution. There may be an economically and environmentally acceptable scheme as this location, but it is not possible to determine this one given the standard of information submitted. It should be rejected. Dr Alan Butterworth Technical Director Angling Trust ------------------------------------------------------ This was received as he had an exchange of detailed emails with a Richard Riggs who, he assumed, would have discussed them with the other team members. I am a representative of the Middle Thames Consultative (aka TVAA) and this area around Abingdon is part of the Upper Thames Fishery Consultatives area. I would add that Dr Butterworth is more than very familiar with this weir and its importance as he used to be the head of the fisheries department for all the Thames area of the EA. (more later, can't make the post too long) PS - I can't read the original FM article as it seems "You don't have sufficient privileges to view this page." Does everyone else see the article and is it just me, a former editor of the site, that can't read it? PPS - Just checked - I can't read any articles on FM, is someone trying to hide something? No wonder I don't post any longer. :mad:

Cheers Jeff (and thanks Alan) This is the actual EA decision over Abingdon: Environment Agency - Abingdon Hydro Community Interest Company

Do you mean the article that started this thread ? Yes I can

It's there for me Jeff. Something odd going on.......... Jerry

Is this the one? Angling Trust Angry at ‘Shambolic’ EA Hope this helps

Is this the one? Angling Trust Angry at ‘Shambolic’ EA Hope this helps You always were one of the more helpful members of staff Peter, past and present.

With river angling on the decline, thanks to commercial fisheries, I am not surprised to read that hydro-scheme applications are given the green light.We anglers have had at least 4 years to encourage ALL anglers to join Angling Trust & Fish Legal(AT&FL) then by now the governing body would probably have 5 times the money it has now. But no, we do nothing, or say "my club is a member of the trust so why should I need to join? AT&FL has within it's ranks the knowledge and know how, but it's representatives ain't going to work for nothing. "Pay nothing and that's what you will get back". Of course we anglers are right in thinking that the impact of hydro-schemes will spell disaster for our rivers, not just for fishing but the whole ecology and integrity of our rivers. I have just asked the agency why some weirs on our local river were" notched" some years ago?, the reply was, "they had no idea". So If they had no idea will they replace the notches and restore the weirs back to as they were? NO. Seems that as soon as anyone uses that magical word "GREEN" we all think it's OK! So let's go, don't check to see if the other lights are RED. Groups like TAC are doing a fantastic job on the Thames , but if we could all join up for a common cause the nation would benefit. Anglers , Forfit 5 bags of boilies for a week, join AT&FL and claim what you are paying for. The others will then be GREEN but with envy :D Like the others in this forum I too am worried as to where angling will be in the future. Final note . I remember how good nuclear power was going to be, the answer to all our future problems, that too was a good idea, what are we doing with it now?

It's been raining and I can't get on with any work outdoors and not being interested in Queenie things I looked this thread up at the suggestion of a colleague.... That guy being Dr Alan Butterworth who has been mentioned already. I have been in contact with Alan and he kindly reforwarded (as I lost some emails last year) his objections to the scheme and given me permission to reprint them here. - Abingdon – Objection to WR Application 29.09.2011 RE: Water Resources Application NPS/WR/005499 by Abingdon Hydro Community Group for the River Thames, Abingdon On behalf of the Angling Trust, I object to this scheme on the grounds of the insufficient environmental information supplied and its potential impact on the weirpool habitat and associated fish populations. Yet again an inadequate application has been allowed to get to this stage. It is widely accepted that the principle species at risk from hydropower schemes are the fish populations, and habitats at risk are the stretches of river depleted of water. The "Habitat and Species Report" rightly makes considerable efforts describing nearby conservation sites and their associated species, but only has 5 lines devoted to fish, and just 4 lines on "open water". The report concludes that “As a development the construction and operation of the proposed HEP facility can be viewed as benign as far as biodiversity is concerned. No loss of species or habitats is anticipated, given the limited “footprint” of the proposal”. This is completely unjustified, and the potential "footprint" is not "limited". The hydropower consultant also concludes that there will be "no loss of fish habitat" - that conclusion cannot be assumed from the Habitat and Species Report, and I am not aware that he has any fisheries or ecology qualifications or has done any other work to allow this conclusion to be made. The EA's "Good Practice Guide" correctly describes weirpool habitats on heavily impounded rivers, such as the Thames, as highly important and dependant on the flow and energy of water entering it, including mid-range flows to maintain the habitat. This weirpool is known as a significant spawning location for barbel and it is an important fishery. This proposal will completely alter the flow regime, and only leave a very low flow (presumed to be Q95, but is not specified) directly entering the weirpool for a majority of the year. The effect of this requires very careful evaluation, and should require a proportional distribution of flows. The proposal is for three 4-blade Archimedean screws; these have not, as far as I am aware, been approved as being safe for fish passage if unscreened, and therefore cannot be described as "fish neutral". The design is to take the flow at right angles from the entrance of the Abbey Stream. This will create high water velocities in the immediate vicinity upstream. The Abbey Stream itself is a significant fishery and offers refuge for both young and adult fish, especially in the Winter. Any fish entering or exiting the Abbey Stream will be at risk of being entrained, as will fish which may have just exited the fish pass. There is also significant risk of bank erosion. The scheme rightly includes a fish pass, which must be suitable for all species and therefore the Denil option mentioned is not suitable, the Larinier may be if correctly located. The method by which levels will be controlled is not described. In general, levels on the Thames are not maintained to a precision suitable for hydropower. There is a specific danger of fluctuating upstream and downstream water levels which may affect the river habitats and associated wetlands, as well as resulting in navigation issues. This needs resolution. There may be an economically and environmentally acceptable scheme as this location, but it is not possible to determine this one given the standard of information submitted. It should be rejected. Dr Alan Butterworth Technical Director Angling Trust ------------------------------------------------------ This was received as he had an exchange of detailed emails with a Richard Riggs who, he assumed, would have discussed them with the other team members. I am a representative of the Middle Thames Consultative (aka TVAA) and this area around Abingdon is part of the Upper Thames Fishery Consultatives area. I would add that Dr Butterworth is more than very familiar with this weir and its importance as he used to be the head of the fisheries department for all the Thames area of the EA. (more later, can't make the post too long) PS - I can't read the original FM article as it seems "You don't have sufficient privileges to view this page." Does everyone else see the article and is it just me, a former editor of the site, that can't read it? PPS - Just checked - I can't read any articles on FM, is someone trying to hide something? No wonder I don't post any longer. :mad: Thank you for posting this, Richard Riggs did discuss these matters with the rest of the directors and we suggested setting up a meeting with any interested parties but, as I have said previously, nobody has come forward yet regarding a meeting. We would be happy to work with the ATr, the EA and any other agency concerned to develop the project, we have limited understanding of the claims made in this objection and would be glad of some proper constructive input from Dr Butterworth and anyone else with the relevant knowledge and understanding. The last thing we want is to install a scheme that upsets anglers and more importantly the fish and the local environment. Until someone contacts us to put their concerns to us we can't really do anything more than we already are, the reason I joined this forum is to show that we are not bulldozing people aside and we do consider the environment and other river users. The canoeists had major concerns and by collaborating with them we have reached an agreement that keeps both sides happy, we really do want to have the same involvement with the anglers so please come forward or we will have to go ahead with the scheme without your input. Paul.

My specific questions would be Has an enviro impact assesment been completed, who paid for it , is there an online copy. Is there an expected fish kill from the screw ? Will the fish passes be regularly inspected to make sure they are not blocked. Does anyone from Abingdon have a view on the ATr's published views on hydro , do they see themselves fitting the ATrs view of a successfull project ? Many thanks ! Paul are you saying that questions as detailed above need addressing face to face rather than in a forum ? ---------- Post added at 10:52 ---------- Previous post was at 10:25 ---------- Paul are you saying that questions as detailed above need addressing face to face rather than in a forum ? Is it that I havent done the required reading ?

I wonder if there has been any environmental monitoring work by the EA (or anyone else) in connection with other hydropower schemes - the one at Romney Weir on the Thames for example which i think was one of the first of this type. I dont know if the Romney scheme is even operational yet, or whether a baseline environmental assessment was carried out. Ideally, monitoring of fish losses/habitat change would enable a more informed view going forward and possibly enable rejection of damaging schemes or further safeguards to be built into schemes. The EA is supposed to support the Precautionary Principle so should not be permitting further schemes until they are proved to be safe? My understanding is that this scheme so far only has an approved abstraction licence. As it is non-consumptive (all water being returned) that is not surprising.

Is this the one? Angling Trust Angry at ‘Shambolic’ EA Hope this helpsThank you, but if I sign out and view as a guest I can read, if I sign in as Jeff Woodhouse it still says "You don't have sufficient privileges to view this page." So what has someone done to me that classifies me as less than a guest? No matter if it's political, I can't be bothered. More importantly - The last thing we want is to install a scheme that upsets anglers and more importantly the fish and the local environment.If you don't want to harm the fish (their breeding areas in particular) or their environment (the water quality) then don't build hydros on Thames weirs! The amount of electricity that hydros, even Archimedes Screw types, generate is pathetic compared to other forms of renewable energy creation. Take a look at the following table of plans submitted to the Government covering all aspects of renewable energy and just see what hydro represents. In all cases 0.2% and that is when there is a hydro on almost every weir on every river in the country truly killing off thousands of breeding grounds for rheophilic species of fish such as barbel, chub, dace, and minnows. The entire argument for hydro does not hold water (pardon the pun) and the damage it will do is irreparable for at least the lifetime of the plant. It would be like deliberately breaking a precious Ming vase, you can stick it together of sorts, but it will never funtion again as a vase and the value will have completely gone. If you want to be really efficient, have a 200 ft wind turbine erected outside your house in the back garden. Or how about a nice waste incinerator just down the road, the bonus with this one is we don't have to fill any more holes in the ground with garbage. However, you say that you're not doing this for any profit as it's a 'community scheme' so why are you promising dividends and high returns to people that might invest in the scheme? Isn't that for profit? You say, if I remember, that it may yield profits of up to 18% (it may be another scheme I am confusing it with), but I doubt anyone will see any return and many may even lose money on such a scheme. If it were not for Government subsidy, our tax money - the feed in tarriff, you wouldn't make a wooden nickle on it, that's for sure. If you want a good investment tip listen up - take all your savings out of the banks and from tomorrow, put a £10 bet on EVERY favourite horse in EVERY race being run EVERY day for 1 year. I can almost guarantee you will make between 15 and 18% on your stake monies over the period of a year. It has been tested in the past and it causes a lot less harm than hydro power. You want reasons why you shouldn't go ahead with this scheme - you've had them - Apart from looking ugly - it is the way that flow velocities may be changed and this will affect aspects such as aeration and the nature of the riverbed. In the Thames, fast flowing well-oxygenated water is confined in its distribution to weirpools - with an effective lake between each of them. In this case any degradation of the weirpool habitat or function within the rivers ecology could have serious implications for fish not only using the weirpool itself but further downstream. The flow modelling may give some clarity of what to expect under different flow scenarios, but would this modelling extend to address changes in the river bed (siltation) or oxygenation and the knock-on consequences for river life? Imagine if it caused siltation of the existing weirpool - who would then fund the weirpool dredging and how would this impact upon an important habitat be redressed? In my view there should be detailed consideration from a gemorphologist (who understands sediment transport in rivers) as well as a freshwater ecologist/fisheries biologist, as well as hydrologists who examine flow. In the Thames the modified channel and abstraction has already changed the river towards being a very long impounded lake so as i said the weirpools perform an important function as is. WELL SAID CHUBBY! There could be a lot of reasons why the ATr haven't entered into a dialogue with Abington Hydro. Not least of which is that there are a lot of these schemes being proposed at the moment and because hardly any of us have joined and put up any money, they have severely restricted recources. Or they may be concentrating their fire on the EA. We don't know. I hope that we get an update from them. Yes they are. I'm part of a sub-group meeting with the EA every six months (not often enough perhaps) on the Thames hydro power schemes. This group includes Dr Alan Butterworth and Dave Harvey of TAC as well as some former members of RFEREC. It might be nice to have someone from the Upper Thames Consultative at the next one as more and more schemes are being planned up there. Has anybody involved in this carried out an environmental impact study? I don't think so.I believe this scheme doesn't require a EIA as the plants will generate less than 500kW. It's a pity, but a fact. I would ask you Pondy, has any work at all been done by your group to study the levels of dissolved oxygen in the lower part of the weir and have they taken into account any research material as to what the make up of the biomass is in the head waters and the run off? Have your group questioned anglers who fish both upper and lower sections to discover what species are dominent in their catches? You see, it would be no good me turning up to meet you because I don't have the above answers, but you could find some maybe by contacting John Sutton of the Fisheries Division of the EA in Wallingford - so not far to go. If you PM me, I'll pass you his phone number and email. Finally, you claim to be an angler yourself of 40 years. Being an angler these days is, or should be, more than just a catcher of fish unless it's someone trying to make a name and sponsorship for himself. And it's no use just claiming that you care for fish because you use or don't use certain bits of tackle that are blessed or cursed. Every angler owes it to himself to learn more about fish, their lives, their breeding, their environment, the weed and insect life that supports them and with that to do everything in one's power to protect it and where possible improve it - NOT DESTROY IT! Sadly, hydropower does only one thing in the environment and it isn't good.

The bigger picture is that Romney was meant to be the first Thames scheme and used as a pilot. In 2008 that assurance was given to the then RFERAC that no other schemes would be promoted until Romney had be built and monitored for affects on the river. Romney is now built but due to technical difficulties is still not operational and that is over 10 years from the original concept The EA with no doubt pressure from DEFRA and ultimately DECC broke this promise, link here Angling Trust Latest News DECC and DEFRA are the ones pushing for Hydro, I somehow doubt given the chance the EA would want anything to do with it. A Point of note is that its not EA fisheries promoting theses schemes. Lastly as I could go on for many hours about this, Hydro is only about money. Hydro developers get paid by selling the electricity back to the national grid through something called Feed in Tariffs, or FITS. If anyone has got solar panels on your roof, this is the same. Without FITS, I doubt any Hydro would exist. EDIT, you posted ahead of me Jeff, but more comprehensive

I dont know if the Romney scheme is even operational yet, or whether a baseline environmental assessment was carried out. Ideally, monitoring of fish losses/habitat change would enable a more informed view going forward and possibly enable rejection of damaging schemes or further safeguards to be built into schemes. The EA is supposed to support the Precautionary Principle so should not be permitting further schemes until they are proved to be safe?Good points again Chubby. I don't believe any assessments were carried out before the Romney scheme was approved (perhaps it was a rush job as an Anniversary present to the Queen ;) ) The EA have promised to carry out assessments at the site (at the expense of rod licence payers .... :mad:) to see if anything will change, but from what, no one will know. It still isn't operational as yet as a cable connecting it to Windsor Castle was not installed under the lock at an advantagious time so a separate tunnelling has to be done now further upstream. It is a point worth repeating that the EA originally promised NO FURTHER hydro schemes until the Romney plants had been working for two years to evaluate their efectiveness and any subsequent damage. Yes, the EA used to have a "Precautionary Principle", but when I asked about this at our March meeting they said it was considered to be reasonable with hydro power to 'take the risk' (not their terminology, but amounted to same).

For info, i just found an EA Environmental Statement (Feb 2012) re the proposed imminent refurbishment of Rushy Weir (located upstream of Abingdon). In this case, the EA are aware that during construction flow patterns and areas of deposition/erosion will be affected by the works - so will be monitored to ensure no long-term changes result. The report emphasises the importance of the weirpools for fish and other wildlife and seeks to ensure best practice in the weir replacement. http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Leisure/Rushey_weir_-_environmental_statement_non-technical_summary.pdf Thanks for the kind words Jeff

And for info, these are all the other current proposed Thames sites, most are at the very early stage bar Teddington, Goring and Romney. Osney Weir Goring weir Sutton Courtenay Sandford Buscot Weir Bell weir Sunbury weir Romney weir Teddington weir Rushey Lock Shifford Lock Marlow Boulter's Weir Days Weir Marsh Weir

I still need to complete the required reading but having been involved in various projects to reduce data centre power consumption and to turn unused kit off overnight , the saying we have now in the team is that a green pound is worth two real pounds , mainly to meet reduced carbon footprints or more accurately to be seen to be reducing them. Also , once a scheme is in place , a sustainable scheme , it could run for many years , so the business case should take a long term view when adding up the financial rewards. It seems the EA are being pressurised into these schemes judging from one of the links posted here. Now to do the reading. ---------- Post added at 15:07 ---------- Previous post was at 13:45 ---------- Cheers Jeff (and thanks Alan) This is the actual EA decision over Abingdon: Environment Agency - Abingdon Hydro Community Interest Company Very good link this thanks , like I said green pound is worth two , govt wants to achieve fifteen percent renewable Energy

Yes mate lots of reading to do, its an extensive and emotive subject for sure. This is worth a read, very telling as to why Hydro is pure folly http://www.withouthotair.com/ Comes down to a single question, what damage is acceptable to a river in order to generate green electricity? In our view none whatsoever and until it can be proved beyond doubt that run of the river Hydropower is harmless to fish, invertebrates, the overall ecology and biodiversity, we have to fight against it.

Yes mate lots of reading to do, its an extensive and emotive subject for sure. This is worth a read, very telling as to why Hydro is pure folly David MacKay FRS: Sustainable Energy - without the hot air: Contents Comes down to a single question, what damage is acceptable to a river in order to generate green electricity? In our view none whatsoever and until it can be proved beyond doubt that run of the river Hydropower is harmless to fish, invertebrates, the overall ecology and biodiversity, we have to fight against it. Lets say the screws , now they have been adjusted after EA consultancy ( am I right in that ? ) have no direct effect by the ferocity of the water they are releasing into a concentrated point, i.e. they have been repositioned what other effect might they have ? In particular do they make the levels downstream flucuate more rapidly than they might ? Still havent got an answer to fish kill within the turbine , I think the EA application talks about reduced risk.

What's that? -Why have the Thames region EA team failed yet AGAIN to engage with all of a river's 'stakeholders' in a consultation? -Why don't the interested parties (anglers) bombard the hell out of the EA expressing their concerns with this project and their utter disdain over the lack of consultation with angling organisations/bodies. And demand to see the evidence that was used to establish this project is environmentally sound. -Why do fools gather on threads like this; is it just to spout off pointless nothingness? Was "the most important question" listed by me? Oh and big pat on the back to Benny; you're obviously a man with some gumption. Who despite not being a river angler and doesn't even live in the Abingdon area, he has done more good on this subject than everyone else on this thread put together! Ah Colin Gordon the true internet warrior, made my laugh all that coming from you! you know full well angling and rivers are on the back foot nowadays and the EA are the main reason for this...as you say little or no consultation. thing is we are being steam rollered and we have no choice other than to take it on the chin unless an underfunded Angling Trust gets the membership it needs to have real lobbying power with the resouces to match it. So Colin tell us why you have never joined the Angling Trust? Benny a bit more reading for you thid guy puts it across in a very real way http://dryflyexpert.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/where-fish-are.html Cheers Jason

So Colin tell us why you have never joined the Angling Trust? I'll say it again, how many contributing to this thread; in fact how many members of this site are individual members of the Angling Trust? ------------------- Life Member - Angling Trust

I'm an individual member Huckleberry! That is a paid up annual member, of course. Oh, welcome back b.t.w.

There are lots of reasons for criticising the ATr. They are not perfect we all know that, yet they are the one and only body that represents all anglers in this country. I don't know the exact figure, something like 20,000 individual members perhaps. But this is a paltry figure compared with the amount of people who regularly go fishing. One thing I will say is that if the Angling Trust had an individual membership of one million, it would have the political and financial clout to achieve great things. Then bodies like the EA and even the government would view us differently, and we would have no reason to fear for the future of our sport. -------------- Life Member - Angling Trust

Like many others on FM I am also an ATr member. Remember though Ron that the guys on here and other angling websites are the hardcore of angling. I imagine that most anglers don't read any fishing papers or websites, they have no concept that there is such a thing as politics within angling, they have no knowledge about hydo, otters, abstraction or any of the other things that can wind us lot up and they have never heard of the ATr. These are the majority who go fishing now and then to get away from all that badnews stuff. You will not reach that audience via anything other than conventional media. The best we can do here is preach to the converted, or semi-converted at best.

I imagine that most anglers don't read any fishing papers or websites, That is true. It was Barrie Rickards, who in his book "Angling - Fundamental Principles", stated that overall, "British anglers do not read!" Quite an indictment don't you think?

Not merely Anglers, Ron - reading is considered a non-productive waste of time by a great many Brits, who spend and have long spent most of their time just trying make ends meet and to survive. Also, the extremely well-read (I include myself in their number) find that their reading and any knowledge or even wisdom resulting from that reading is not only highly resented by the unread majority but actively feared by those who have a little bit of knowledge but all of the money and power!

I hate to say this but I find that one must face up to facts. For example watch the average Joe Soap on a bus or train open a newspaper. Where does he turn? To the back section for football of course! I often think if there were headlines such as: "World War III starts, London Nuclear Bombed", they would still turn to the back page. The Roman poet Juvenal was right when he wrote about what the average Roman Pleb was concerned with. It wasn't for history or nation or birthright or political involvement or even justice. It was for "Panum et Circensis". In English that is "Bread and Circuses", in other words, football matches and full bellies!

It was for "Panum et Circensis". In English that is "Bread and Circuses", in other words, football matches and full bellies! Yes, I know my Classical history well (Greek and Latin from the age of eight; O Level and AO Level Oxford & Cambridge Board in the latter), but you always need to ask yourself: "Who makes the feckless plebeian - Himself or his Masters?".

Yes, I know my Classical history well (Greek and Latin from the age of eight; O Level and AO Level Oxford & Cambridge Board in the latter). Was The English teacher away? Are you and Ron related? I'm a pleb and i read lots, Beano, Dandy etc, progressing to Titbits Parade etc in my early teens........:)

While you lot get all divisive with the mildly aggressive "join the ATr, or else" stuff and the, not at all condesceding, talk of those dirty scummy proles. Don't take this to mean I'm a supporter of such schemes but, am I the only one seeing a certain irony in the bitching about hydro schemes unduly affecting those entirely natural river features called weirs?:wh

"Who makes the feckless plebeian - Himself or his Masters?". A combination of both if you ask me Paul. The internet is a wonderful thing. It enables many who might not be as erudite as some to become more learned and worldly. Yet research has often shown that as much as 40% of the public who surf the internet spend most of their time on pornography. ---------- Post added at 04:24 ---------- Previous post was at 04:21 ---------- I'm a pleb and i read lots, Beano, Dandy etc, progressing to Titbits Parade etc in my early teens........ Hey Brummie you've missed out Viz! :D:D:omg:

Don't take this to mean I'm a supporter of such schemes but, am I the only one seeing a certain irony in the bitching about hydro schemes unduly affecting those entirely natural river features called weirs?:wh Absolutely, but where would we be without some irony. Creased clothes for a start.

Just a quick one to keep you all in the picture. There are quite a few questions arising on here about our proposed hydro scheme that I haven't managed to answer yet, I'm not trying to avoid the issues it's just that with bank holidays, half term, family, etc, I haven't had the time yet. What I hope to do over the next few days is make a list of all the questions raised and put together as many answers as I can. I don't want to put quick answers together that don't really give enough information. Please bear with me, I've only been on this forum for a few days and have had a lot of questions fired at me with very little time to address them. Just a quick add in here, I was at the weir in Abingdon a couple of weeks ago giving an interview to BBC Oxford news and just happened to glance at the weir rapids when a huge carp, probably around 30lb at a guess, jumped right out of the water a couple of times! I suspect it was expressing its own concerns about our project............or maybe showing its support, who knows. Paul.

Pondy, thanks for contributing to this discussion....I hope seeing that carp in the pool as made you think about your hydro plans and by the way I live in oxford and fish the thames in that area problem being at a guess you are the only angler involved with it and basically your friends wont even understand the potential damage these screws will do? Cheers Jason

I'll say it again, how many contributing to this thread; in fact how many members of this site are individual members of the Angling Trust? ------------------- Life Member - Angling Trust Give the man a medal, he's a life member of what - Does he even know what of? Oh and for the record Ron, in my posts, I've not even broached the subject of the Angling Trust. On the contrary I merely informed members of this forum how straight forward it is to make themselves heard, rather than whispering nothingness to other anglers (on here), who when all said and done will do an equal amount of nothing! So Colin tell us why you have never joined the Angling Trust? Cheers Jason Ah , I thought you'd like my post... Let's be honest, this Hydro power plan is better being dealt with on a regional level - One letter from the AT or a thousand (even a hundred) from local anglers; which carries the most clout, I'd say the thousand (or even a hundred) local anglers airing their concerns would generate more of a need to respond from the EA. The AT seem to me too have some very strange bed mates; British Waterways (the biggest unaccountable abstractor of water), they're happy organising matches with them but what of the abstraction issue? A little analogy for you; if I vote Lib, Lab or Con - Do they then expect me to join their party, so why should I join the AT? Do they not represent all the voters that voted for them? So why can the ATr not 'represent' all the members accrued by clubs, association, organisations etc joining them? As an individual member do I then get full rights to initiate any changes within the trust? In summary, as an idividual all I am is a number and a supplier of cash; cash for what? TBH I'd rather give £25 to Friends of the Earth than the ATr! So if I and a million other anglers were to join, would my local rivers (Cherwell, Windrush and Thames) be improved? Why the f*** would I want to join them? (give me enough of a reason, and I might even sign up my two boys as junior members)

pondy, you're a gent and true to your word so far, many thanks from anglers everywhere any chance you could post up any meetings that could be attended by contributors to this thread and I've gotta repeat my question, how can you change something without knowing what you are changing ? regarding the ATr, since its formation its been underfunded and not supported by apathetic anglers, and it aint found a way to change it, it dont blame itself or its policies, but always looks elsewhere ham hydro had a public meeting last year on the evening of june 16th, no ATr people were there, despite many communications, and neither was there assistance with literature/flyers, neither did the ATr attend or assist the following one last october can anyone please tell me the assistance they've received with hydropower in their local area, there's 26,000 proposed nationally so someone must be local, and best to exclude the recent clear as gin 'n' twice the price victory, that our game brothers recently acquired with the ATr assistance, and I must also add that no recognition of assistance was given to the ATr by our game brothers the S&TA 30 meeting in a year between the EA, hydropower proposers and the ATr, all to achieve nuffin, not even a full stop altered, the games crooked and scant resources shouldn't be wasted playing it their way

Shades of Orwell's 1984 New Speak - thought crime, doubleplusungood etc - to which must now be added "Consultation", meaning "We allow you shower to whine for a while - er, present your concerns - then we go ahead and do what we wanted anyway.".

As is usual, another serious thread has decended into cat-calling, "I won't join...", "You should join...." This all demonstrates to people like Paul Buckingham (pondy) what a disfunctional group we anglers are. By all means argue these points on a different thread, but on here it has only served to divert the attention away from the main subject, that being - Angling Trust Angry at ‘Shambolic’ EA Now Pondy, I shall repeat my offer, if you want some contact names and emails, all you have to do is send me a PM and you will be able to address these important people directly. I have today received a copy of the objection sent to the EA about this project last September from Richard Knowles who is Secretary of the Upper Thames Fisheries Consultative and who cover that area. It is a matter of public record I suppose so no harm in reproducing it hear. Application by Abingdon Hydro Community Interest Group to abstract water from the River Thames between National Grid References SU 50530 97204 and SU 50545 97193. Dear Sir/Madam Reference Number NPS/WR/005499 The UTFC wish to object formally to the above application. The UTFC shares many of the concerns which angling organisations including the Angling Trust have expressed about hydropower schemes. The proposed scheme at Abingdon raises serious concerns for us with regard to the ecological impact of the proposed turbine, particularly with reference to the impact on the morphology of the weirpool and the consequent spawning of rheophilic species. The notes (Habitat and species survey) issued to consultees have a mere 4 lines to say about fish – though it is exactly fish species which are most impacted by the proposals. We are told that no fish surveys were undertaken – which seems extraordinary. We then have the equally extraordinary (for their lack of precision) statements that bullhead (cottus gobio) are present in the catchment and “fish numbers have been generally increasing in the Thames”. The reality is that some of the fish species most likely to use the weirpool for spawning are in decline in the upper Thames. The European barbel (barbus barbus), native to the Thames catchment and with protected European status, is in steep decline throughout the upper Thames, which is exactly why the EA launched its upper Thames barbel project some years ago. The Environment Agency’s own fishery staff have repeatedly cited the loss of suitable spawning habitat as a key reason for the decline in Thames barbel populations. In many reaches of the impounded Thames the only suitable spawning habitat has been found in the vicinity of weirpools. It follows that any proposal which impacts on the morphology of a Thames weirpool is potentially highly damaging. Of course the barbel is not the only Thames species that spawns in Thames weirpools. In addition to the rheophilic species which migrate to these sites, species such as the common bream are particularly attracted to weirpools after spawning. It is really quite unacceptable that a proposal for a hydropower scheme should be considered for acceptance after such a cavalier disregard for the ecological impact of the proposal and we urge that the application be rejected. Yours faithfully, Richard Knowles What Richard states echos my thoughts precisely and only recently I posted a report to John Sutton (EA Fisheries Team Leader, Thames West Area) entitled 'The Thames in Crisis' pointing to the lack of young year classes of several species that use the weirs for breeding purposes. What we anglers want are means to IMPROVE the weirs for these fish, not to destroy them, which is what hydro power schemes will do. Frankly, it is the belief of many of us that one day the EA will be held to account for the destruction they have caused to the river environment and the morphology of the watercourse, but until then we stand determined to fight against every single scheme proposed.

As is usual, another serious thread has decended into cat-calling, "I won't join...", "You should join...." This all demonstrates to people like Paul Buckingham (pondy) what a disfunctional group we anglers are. By all means argue these points on a different thread, but on here it has only served to divert the attention away from the main subject, that being - Angling Trust Angry at ‘Shambolic’ EA Well said Jeff; this thread is an important and, largely, on-topic and informed debate. By this post I shall ask the moderators to ensure it is kept subject-related.

Well said Jeff; this thread is an important and, largely, on-topic and informed debate. By this post I shall ask the moderators to ensure it is kept subject-related. I'll go along with that too, there is a lot of stuff in this thread and I don't really want to be trawling through trash to get to the important bits that I need to be putting answers to! Please keep to the subject, this is difficult enough for me to get to grips with as it is so please give me a hand and keep the rest for another thread! Paul.

As a Thames angler (I live in Dorset but do fish and have fished the Thames in the Oxford area for many decades) I think the following objections apply: The scheme is an eyesore - out of kilter with a beautiful river. There should be none of these on any lowland rivers! There is no way of measuring fish-kill. The permitted levels and supposition that it won't kill fish are just that, guesswork. The carbon footprint of building such a works (manufacture and placement of huge amounts of concrete and steel) are likely to far exceed any perceived environmental benefit, with a payback possibly into hundreds of years. The actual life is more likely to be 20 years or so. Windfarms are hitting the same problem - a lot of derelict windfarms (California) that no-one wants to pay to dismantle. Will the company allow to pay for its dismantling? It's a very inefficient and expensive way to generate a very modest amount of energy. When they close Didcot and the lights go out you'll see what is really needed which is to ignore stupid clean energy directives and get on with life, just as the Chinese and Indians are doing! Lowland rivers don't have the energy potential to be worthwhile. My local river, the Stour, had many watermills (cornmills) in the past but by the 1920s these had more or less all ceased to work. The biggest, Throop, had diesel generators installed about 100 years ago (derelict since the 1970s), so much for water power! Only one working mill left and that is just for show. It's a pain when it is working though as levels fluctuate all day as water is drawn off or backed up. The Thames is often like one big lake in low-flow summers, such that all locks almost cease to operate (eg boat stacking) and weirs are set tight to conserve all water. In such circumstances the turbine will not work at all, or must have sluices to stop it working - are they part of the design? In Floods it won't work either as the flow is too strong. Bit like windmills really. As others have pointed out this scheme is jumping the gun for the Thames. Other schemes need to be proven first. The perceived flow regime may change if the Abingdon reservoir is built. It may be on hold at present but that could change. How will the scheme stop log jams? My local keeper has the unenviable task of removing trees and logs from the hatches on the Avon; this isn't that dissimilar to a turbine. Once the log is in with a strong flow it's very hard to get out again! If it was a real environmental benefit then 50% of the profits should go into improving the Thames habitat. Gravel reinstatement might help.

Marry in haste, repent at leisure... There is a horror story / are a succession of horror stories just waiting for these waved-through vanity / PR Thames hydel projects. ---------- Post added at 18:47 ---------- Previous post was at 17:46 ---------- Not just the Thames, but a rash of them everywhere at present. Here is a very recent Observer article about a new hydel effort on a small river / stream, the Cych, a tributary of the lower Teifi in west Wales, that I had many fish from - some salmon, rather more sea-trout and heaven knows how many brown trout - as a young man - Microhydro energy: reinventing the wheel | Environment | The Observer Terrible all this "Government red tape"... More about the mill featured here - WMS • Dreifa Mills, Cwm Morgan Seems that projects on other mills on the river are happening, too. Very green and nice for the new owners but bound to effect the flows in what is only a very small river, a river that shrinks to pretty well nothing in the heat of summer, leaving the salmon and sea-trout searching for somewhere to hide in the few deeper holes, bends and pools. Got to watch these Green-smokegreen hydel projects.

Sorry this has taken a while but as you can see there were a lot of things to deal with. I have tried to cover as many of the questions as possible here, if I've missed any I apologize now and if you re-post any questions I will answer them later. I've tried to be as balanced and unbiased as possible here because obviously I have a vested interest in this project but also I am an angler and an environmentalist and understand that there has to be a degree of compromise with any scheme such as this. The last two points on here are proposals that we have been looking into that we feel are important issues to address. 1) Consultation. As mentioned in a previous post, the anglers/ ATr were never consulted because they never contacted us or responded to our replies for consultation. The canoeists contacted us and responded resulting in several meetings between us to address their concerns. 2) Environmental study. We were obliged to carry out an environmental survey of the proposed site by EA requirements for the abstraction license application. The survey was carried out by a guy who is a member of the Abingdon Naturalists Society who have a very strong vested interest in the welfare of the natural environment in and around Abingdon. Much of the details in the report were already available from the many previous surveys they have conducted over many years. This society are well regarded within Abingdon by the local council and planners because they know the area very well. 3) Fish kill. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN0S4rUy58E]Archimedean Screw Fish And Debris Testing - YouTube[/ame] This is a link to a video of a fish survey where fish were dropped into the water above an Archimedes screw hydro installation and were caught at the outlet to assess them for damage. As can be seen in the video there were no casualties. In July 2010 there was also an article on the BBC’s Country file where a pike of around 750mm length was dropped into a screw at Howsham Mill in North Yorkshire and caught at the outlet with no signs of damage. I couldn’t find a link to this video unfortunately. The ATr position statement http://www.durhamanglers.co.uk/Angling_Trust_Position_Statement_on_Run_of_River_Hydropower.pdf shows a photograph of some dead Perch with severe damage reportedly caused by a hydro generator. Despite asking for a source for this photo we have been unable to find where it was taken, it is believed to come from the Netherlands but there is no evidence to suggest what type of hydro scheme, if any, caused this damage. I would be very interested to find the source of this photo and the equipment that caused it. There is no other evidence around that supports the notion that an Archimedes screw kills fish. While I’m sure that some damage to fish is possible it is likely to be very minimal. As an angler myself I am fully aware that no matter how careful you are when catching fish there are always a few casualties, fishing is a blood sport at the end of the day and the nature of such is that some fish will inevitably become casualties. The Thames is also a navigational waterway with numerous boats going up and down every day with high velocity screws rotating, it is a certainty that these screws will also result in fish casualties. Any use of the waterways by us will have an impact on fish stocks and cause incidental damage but the evidence that the hydro scheme will cause serious numbers of fish kill is largely unfounded and based on the evidence available, unlikely. 4) ATr published views. I read this with interest, there are some valid points in here but it does come across as being 100% anti hydro which detracts from its deemed validity. We have tried to be balanced in everything we have addressed, I can seen some potential problems with our scheme but there are also many benefits of the scheme. I have said in previous posts that this scheme will go ahead, either by us or a commercial developer, we want to work with any concerned parties and come up with compromises and adjustments where required. Another developer is likely to throw money at a scheme and bulldoze everyone else out of the picture, a more balanced view from the ATr would have been more constructive and helpful to both sides. 5) Weir pool. There is concern that the weir pool could suffer detrimental effects as a result of the hydro system. This pool habitat is not a natural environment, it is largely manmade from when the weir itself was constructed, over time it has evolved and developed into the habitat it currently is. The flow rate and water volume currently experienced here will not change, the main flow will move as a result of the hydro scheme but will not be removed. There will still be a flow over the existing sluice gates oxygenating the water, the screws themselves will also be oxygenating the water. The river bed is predominantly of gravel and as mentioned is probably the only habitat along this stretch of water suitable for barbel to live and breed and so a maintenance flow of water is essential to maintain this environment, oxygenate the water and prevent silting. When the flow is very low, as it was for most of 2011, this maintenance flow will be very limited in its current state regardless of the introduction of the hydro. The hydro scheme should not effect this maintenance flow, when the flow is too low the hydro will be taken out of service because it will not work and generate below a measured level so the current “natural” flow will be restored. When the flow rate is high the screws will only be abstracting part of the flow with the majority flowing similarly to the current flow. Undoubtedly when the screws are initially installed there is likely to be a settling down period while the environment adjusts to its new layout but nature is very adaptive so any long term effects are likely to be negligible. 6) Flood control. There was mention in one of the thread responses about the EA wanting to remove some existing weirs and returning the areas into a more natural flow. This is very unlikely to happen because the weirs are used as flood control, without this measure the EA would be unable to regulate flows and levels increasing the risk of serious flooding. 7) Visual impact. The hydro development will be installed next to the existing weir in Abingdon which is not very pretty as it is. The location currently looks very shabby and in need of tidying up, we are very aware of the visual impact this scheme may have but it isn’t going in to a natural looking environment, this said we do want it to be as aesthetically pleasing as possible. We have an architect working on this at the moment and the brief was for it to fit in well within its environment, I can’t say any further than this at present because I don’t know what ideas the architect has for this but it will obviously be very visible due to its nature but it certainly won’t be too ugly! One comment mentioned the visitors center next to the screws, this is probably badly named on our side, it will actually be more of an information area displaying information boards of the scheme and how it works and the environment it sits in. It will also be an educational space where school parties can visit to find out about hydro and other renewable energies. It will have a covered area but not a cafe, etc. 8) Shareholders/ funding. The intention for this scheme is that it will be owned by the local community for the benefit of the community. When we are set up shares will be offered to people living within the town of Abingdon so they will have ownership of the scheme. Obviously with shareholders we will have to give then a return on their investment, this is not going to be a large lump of cash as one or two on here seem to believe, it is likely to be in the region of 3% interest rather than a dividend. We are likely to offer the option that shareholders can opt to donate part or all of this interest back into the community fund we will set up to fund further community projects so this scheme is not all about making money for investors. The trust fund will be used to fund possible future renewable schemes, fuel poverty improvement schemes and possible community development schemes. We could fund it through bank loans where all the profits come back into the community fund but in the process we would have been funding bankers bonuses until the loan and interest is paid off. I know where I would rather see the money going! 9) Decline of the Thames and fish stocks. There are a number of causes of declining fish stocks on the Thames and most other rivers in the UK and globally. In the UK we have a massive epidemic of signal crayfish, when I first started fishing as a kid I had never seen a crayfish, it is now almost impossible to go fishing without catching them! I was talking to a potential investor a few days ago who said who was working with the EA to re-enforce some river banks on the Thames. This involved clearing out the undercut of the banks, they removed tens of thousands of crayfish in huge baskets to be destroyed, when they came back a few days later the crayfish had returned in similar numbers. Crayfish are well known to be decimating our rivers with their voracious appetites, they feed mainly on the bottom where fish eggs are to be found and will eat anything. These creatures are one of the main contributors of fish decline, another major contributor is the hormone oestrogen from contraceptive pills, this is known to cause fish fry (mainly roach I believe) to develop as female causing a breeding imbalance resulting in declining stocks. The installation of hydro schemes will have little, if any, impact on fish stocks compared to the other major causes that are happening “naturally”. 10) Green wash. I have been studying the environment, climate change, carbon emissions and the green movement for the last few years and have just attained a Masters Degree on the subject so I’m fully aware of all the “green wash” that is currently developing in popularity. I am as frustrated as anyone, possibly more so than most, in the declaration of being “green” by people and companies who are clearly colour blind and wouldn’t know green if it grew on trees! Hydro schemes are far more reliable than other renewable technologies such as Photo Voltaic and wind, as long as there is a flow you will generate electricity, PV doesn’t work at night and in dull weather it produces far less than its potential. Wind doesn’t work on a calm day or in a gale force wind. Micro Hydro is relatively new to the UK with only a few installations so far, compared to the rest of Europe who are probably 30-40 years ahead of us when it comes to renewables and energy reduction. These schemes have been running, very successfully, for many years all over Europe so we should be looking over there to see what they have been doing rather than calling ourselves green with little understanding of what it means. All things green are not always green and an element of compromise, reality and understanding is needed, hydro schemes may not be 100% green but compared to most, they are not that bad, embodied energy will be paid back within 2 or 3 years and then everything that is generated is carbon neutral. If the scheme then generates for many years, which is highly likely with hydro, it is clearly a green technology. 11) Fish passes. We were advised by the EA on the type of fish pass that would be required for the scheme, a subject I know nothing about, in the objection sent to the EA by Dr Alan Butterworth he states that this is a Denil Type but a Lariner type would be the correct one to use. I would be interested to hear more about this and if this is correct then speaking to us and not the EA about it could result in a change to the specification, this comes back to the fact that nobody has approached us for a meeting from the anglers, again, if you want an input into this project get in touch, if you don’t contact us then how are we to address your concerns. 12) Hydro pure folly? Hydro schemes have been running very successfully all over the world for many years, there is a new scheme in Mapledurham on the Thames which has been running for about 9 months now and is generating pretty much bang on target with the calculated predictions. 13) Feed in tariff. Contrary to popular belief the FiT is not tax funded, it is funded through your electricity bill which equates to about £1 per year on an average bill. 14) Mill stream silting. The mill stream above the weir is becoming heavily silted and has raised voices of concern from the anglers. We have investigated this and a number of years ago the Upper Reaches Hotel raised the height of the sluice to reduce the noise levels, this has resulted in a reduced flow and silting. We have been looking into possible ways of increasing the flow through the mill stream to try and rectify this problem. 15) Bank re-enforcement. There is currently only one place to fish from to access the weir pool and this has become very eroded over the years and probably will be gone within a few years at the current rate of erosion. The hydro scheme could impact on this further, we are currently looking into re-enforcing and extending this area as part of the development of the scheme. This could involve installing gabions or willow/ reed bank re-enforcing measures, this could open this area up to anglers providing a more stable platform and further fishing pegs while preventing continuing erosion. I hope this covers most of the questions and I look forward to your responses. Paul.

Great response Paul , thank you , I have just read it with interest , I do have some questions which I will post later as the match is on.

Re point 6 and flood control, i think the Thames weirs are mainly there to support navigation on the river. Its true that in many rivers such structures (and sluices) are used to regulate flow - but this is the neanderthal solution used in highly engineered artificial waterways, or where specific issues such as tidal ingress is to be prevented. I would doubt if a new channel built to a high ecological specification would include weirs. In theory the Jubilee River flood channel on the Thames (Maidenhead area) is an example of a "new" large channel which was supposed to be relatively green, but i dont know it at all - or whether it has many weirs. For examples of weir removal works and other channel enhancement works, the River Restoration Centre has plenty of examples. The site (or its staff if you talk to them) should also provide examples of green bank reinforcement - the last thing needed is more banks lined with sheet piling or rock-filled gabions which are equally naff.. the River Restoration Centre

Most fish migrate upstream as well as downstream; any thoughts on how spawn laden 20/30/40lb fish (you wish on the Thames:)) might ascend these structures? Any increase in the heights of the dams to create extra volumes of water (to compensate for the flow/energy lost to fish passes) will then cause flooding problems upstream. Then there is the problem of unintended consequences. Then you/we might ask, just how green is green. I know where the green lies, and its not only with the screws. Incidentally the EU, for all its faults, now (after many inappropriate schemes)only recommends hydro schemes on 'large rivers' The UK does not have a single river that falls into the 'large river' category. For those who enjoy reading reports, HERE'S a little more. More HERE

Paul will the fish passes be regularly inspected ? That seemed to be part of the ATr's arguments.

mods/admin, might it be a good idea to start a new thread containing pondy and other important posts, 'aving someone on the inside is to good an opportunity to miss fantabulous pondy, a mahoosive thanks for your post I am still not convinced that you can change something when relying on scientific studies that were not designed/engineered to understand the impact hydropower could have an EAI study should be mandatory, even though the point scoring affixed to the many species, awards a zero value to many common fish found within a weirpool a couple of observations, the EA fisheries only seem to whisper during this controversy, and why aint the full time river professionals, the people who physically operate the weirs consulted, their title is lockeeper

Paul will the fish passes be regularly inspected ? That seemed to be part of the ATr's arguments. If the river Ribble Settle hydro plant is to be the default position, no.

Paul will the fish passes be regularly inspected ? That seemed to be part of the ATr's arguments. This is something we can specify in the regular maintenance plan, I don't know who will be carrying out the maintenance yet, we haven't got that far, but it is something I would want to see happen, even if I have to take a look myself on a regular basis. The current fish pass is full of debris and always has been from what I've seen. In answer to the question about larger fish being able to use the fish pass, the current one appears to be very shallow so larger fish would struggle to use it. I don't know anything about the one we will install but I would be glad of some proper advice on this so we can design one that will be suitable. Regarding the lock keeper, we have spoken to him and he is in favour of the scheme, the only problem being is that he is retiring next year and being replaced by a man in a van, which seems to be the EA's future policy. I think this is a mistake because I believe there is a requirement for daily inspection of the whole weir/ lock system and a man in a van will probably call in when he has to!

Regarding the lock keeper, we have spoken to him and he is in favour of the scheme, the only problem being is that he is retiring next year and being replaced by a man in a van, which seems to be the EA's future policy. I think this is a mistake because I believe there is a requirement for daily inspection of the whole weir/ lock system and a man in a van will probably call in when he has to! Been happening for a good number of years - the loss of lock-keepers on the ground and with the vital knowledge. Men in vans somewhere and "on call"? Some disasters just waiting to happen... I'd love to see somewhere really chi-chi like Henley go under one time - just see something done then!

nice one pondy, great to hear the lockeeper has been involved, and his support is fantastic its not strange to hear that EA customers, boaters/anglers and others are against losing resident lockeepers, neither is it strange that instead of applying ourselves to remedying that problem, we use the resources/time to install/or not, hydrpower, on an environment that is under stress and that we dont fully understand what scoring system does the EA utilise when evaluating a 24/7 professional operative on the river, and how does that compare to the hydropower scoring system perhaps the question should be, how does withdrawing resident professionals from the river, benefit the river, its users and nearby dwellings, and how would hydropower benefit these groups unfortunately until it can be proven satisfactorily through the appliance of science, that these installations will not cause any damage, the fall back position of, if we the local community don't, big business will, reigns supreme along the rivers length, and many others rivers as well the mindset that the local community will destroy less than business stinks, you should be ashamed that you aint making doubly sure that what is being proposed, aint destroying a part of your local gene pool does no-one find it strange, that of the many variations of hydropower, only one is ever being discussed/proposed the variety that lives on the river bottom, and generates more, aint never mentioned, does anybody know why

nice one pondy, great to hear the lockeeper has been involved, and his support is fantastic its not strange to hear that EA customers, boaters/anglers and others are against losing resident lockeepers, neither is it strange that instead of applying ourselves to remedying that problem, we use the resources/time to install/or not, hydrpower, on an environment that is under stress and that we dont fully understand what scoring system does the EA utilise when evaluating a 24/7 professional operative on the river, and how does that compare to the hydropower scoring system perhaps the question should be, how does withdrawing resident professionals from the river, benefit the river, its users and nearby dwellings, and how would hydropower benefit these groups unfortunately until it can be proven satisfactorily through the appliance of science, that these installations will not cause any damage, the fall back position of, if we the local community don't, big business will, reigns supreme along the rivers length, and many others rivers as well the mindset that the local community will destroy less than business stinks, you should be ashamed that you aint making doubly sure that what is being proposed, aint destroying a part of your local gene pool does no-one find it strange, that of the many variations of hydropower, only one is ever being discussed/proposed the variety that lives on the river bottom, and generates more, aint never mentioned, does anybody know why I've never heard of a generator that lives on the river bottom. If there is such a thing it would need to be situated on a fast flowing river, the Archimedes screw is the only suitable technology for an application such as Abingdon because there is no significant head so any other turbine wouldn't work. The Archimedes screw works on a steady downward flow, there are underwater technologies being developed for tidal generation but this is still a little way off because the engineering involved is quite complex. As for "the mindset that the local community will destroy less than business stinks" analogy you can see from what we are trying to do and the fact that I am on here taking note of your views that we are at least trying to cause as little impact as possible. If we pulled out and handed over to a commercial outfit do you really think they would be on here listening to your views? Maybe you would prefer it if we did just that and allowed big businesses to charge in and destroy everything! That is not what we are about, as I have said above, I am an environmentalist and the last thing I want to do is destroy the environment any more than we are already doing. Renewable energy is something we really need, the fossil fuel resources are rapidly depleting and the destruction being caused globally in the search for increasingly difficult to reach reserves is devastating. Look at the tar sands mining in Canada, there are massive areas of wilderness, thousands of square miles, being totally destroyed just to scrape out a bit of oil, the energy to extract this is almost as much as they are getting out but there is money to be made. Huge areas of rain forest are being destroyed in places like Borneo and Brazil so that oil palms can be grown to produce "environmentally friendly" bio-fuels that we run our cars on and call green. The catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 when a deep see oil rig exploded because they were taking too many risks to extract hard to get at oil from one of the deepest wells ever drilled. I could go on but the point is compared to these and many other energy sourcing projects, ours will be pretty much benign, and any incidental damage, which nature will be able to deal with, will be at a minimum, the weir systems as they are do not provide adequate fish passing in reality and we are trying to improve this if we can. We won't be generating a huge amount of energy but it will demonstrate a reliable and sustainable method of electrical generation and show people that we don't have to rely on the environmentally destructive sources we have become used to. Systems like our proposed project have been operating all over Europe for many years and no serious adverse effects have been reported so, in answer to your comment "unfortunately until it can be proven satisfactorily through the appliance of science, that these installations will not cause any damage" they have already been proven. Germany for one are many years ahead of us when it comes to renewable energy, something like 20% of their energy comes from renewable sources unlike the UK where it is around 2% at best. Renewable resources are limited so we will need to develop them where we can to help provide our future energy demand, although it is unlikely that they will ever fully replace our other energy sources. If I am ashamed it is because we are all contributing to the destruction of the environment whether we know it or not and we should all be working together to find less impacting ways to live, unfortunately, only a few of us are!

THE BLUE QUOTES ARE FROM PONDY - “I am an environmentalist and the last thing I want to do is destroy the environment any more than we are already doing.” Have you any proof whatsoever that an Archimedes hydro screw will do absolutely no harm to the environment? If not, and we say they do cause harm, then you can’t be an environmentalist. Or is this really the “last thing” you want to do and don’t care now if you do cause any harm to the environment? “If we pulled out and handed over to a commercial outfit do you really think they would be on here listening to your views?” This then is your sole reason for doing this, to stop a commercial enterprise from harming the environment by doing it yourselves? “the weir systems as they are do not provide adequate fish passing” I would agree and many weirs now need urgent upgrading with larinier fish passes, but this can be done without the need to obstruct the passage of water with a turbine. They do remove the energy for the water or can’t you see that? Just for your information since it seems you don't know what a Larinier fish pass is - “Systems like our proposed project have been operating all over Europe for many years and no serious adverse effects have been reported” On much bigger rivers I might add. The Thames is not a big river despite what you might think since both it and the Severn are nowhere near as big as the Tweed and that is small compared to the Rhine or the Rhone. Do you know what the average flow of the Thames is (in cumecs at Abingdon) at normal summer flow levels or what the Rhine is? “unlike the UK where it is around 2% at best” And do you know (you should as it’s displayed in that table I posted) how much electricity will be generated by hydro schemes if there was one on almost every weir of almost every river in the country? Other questions: How many houses are there in Abingdon? How many houses will this scheme provide with electric when operating normally? How much electricity could be saved by all the houses in Abingdon having proper insulation? How much carbon footprint will you save when this is running normally? How much Carbon footprint does a jetliner use on take-off from Heathrow? Last question - Are your shareholders going to be spending their profits/dividends on extra holiday flights from Heathrow? :cool:;):D “If I am ashamed it is because we are all contributing to the destruction of the environment whether we know it or not and we should all be working together to find less impacting ways to live, unfortunately, only a few of us are!” Looks like you’ve done a wonderful job of selling this scheme – to yourselves….

i have moved this post to follow Pondys reply to Jeff

Have you any proof whatsoever that an Archimedes hydro screw will do absolutely no harm to the environment? I'm still waiting for proof that they do cause harm, I've presented proof that they don't, the photo from the ATr is dubious in that it's source cannot be verified, despite requests for it's origin. This then is your sole reason for doing this, to stop a commercial enterprise from harming the environment by doing it yourselves? We are doing it for the reasons stated in my previous posts, to generate renewable energy from a reliable source, not to prevent commercial enterprise from doing so. I would agree and many weirs now need urgent upgrading with larinier fish passes, but this can be done without the need to obstruct the passage of water with a turbine. They do remove the energy for the water or can’t you see that? Archimedes screws do not obstruct the passage of water, they allow the passage of water to continue but remove some of the energy. On much bigger rivers I might add. The Thames is not a big river despite what you might think since both it and the Severn are nowhere near as big as the Tweed and that is small compared to the Rhine or the Rhone. Do you know what the average flow of the Thames is (in cumecs at Abingdon) at normal summer flow levels or what the Rhine is? The annual average for Abingdon is 24 cumecs, the low flow rate for the summer months is around 8 cumecs. The maximum we are allowed to take is 16 cumecs but in reality we will only be taking an average of 8 cumecs, roughly half of the actual flow. I don't know what the flow rates of the big European rivers are but remember their screws will be far bigger than ours. Other questions: How many houses are there in Abingdon? Probably around 15000. How many houses will this scheme provide with electric when operating normally? 200. How much electricity could be saved by all the houses in Abingdon having proper insulation? Probably very little, most people use gas or oil for their heating. This is a subject I am very clued in on and I can assure you that there are very few houses in the UK that are well insulated, cavity wall insulation and loft insulation help a bit but in reality these are very rarely installed to the standard they need to be. I'm going to stop here because I could go on all day about insulated houses. How much carbon footprint will you save when this is running normally? I don't have the figures to hand at the moment but I will find out and post later. How much Carbon footprint does a jetliner use on take-off from Heathrow? Irrelevant, but I will find out if you really need to know!. Last question - Are your shareholders going to be spending their profits/dividends on extra holiday flights from Heathrow? For the maximum investment allowed, £20,000 the interest will be about £600 per year so I very much doubt this will encourage people to fly from Heathrow any more than they already do. Looks like you’ve done a wonderful job of selling this scheme – to yourselves…. This project is selling itself quite well, there are only seven of us involved and we have a mailing list of supporters of over 200 and rising rapidly so there are quite a few people who are on board with this without really trying too much!

There has been no adequate ecological survey, as far i am concerned , in relation to the potential environmental impact of your scheme. Perhaps you will not have needed to do one for the abstraction licence. The survey by a member of a local naturalists group is extremely unlikely to have been undertaken by an aquatic specialist - these naturalists (great though they are) usually have singular interests - which could be flowering plants, ferns, moths, mammals, birds, or all sorts of taxonomic groups - rarely fish and invertebrates or the key aspects of the aquatic ecosystem that are likely to be threatened. The same could be said for available information to such groups - the odd record of something here or there, proximity to the nearest SSSI etc - all pretty irrelevant in most cases.. To understand the potential impact, as i said before, requires a multi-disciplinary examination by experts in the fields of aquatic ecology, fisheries and geomorphology. Such an examination should have been made already on pilot schemes elsewhere. The last named field of hydro-geomorphology is probably the most important in terms of understanding how the weirpool habitat may be affected - fisheries experts or ecologists can then extrapolate potential implications. As i understand it, the nature of the bed in a weirpool is formed during flood events - the deep scour pool and the deposition of gravels etc downstream. You "hope" that the areas of erosion and deposition will simply re-adjust to the changed direction of flow coming from a turbine . However, what is most likely i suspect is that deposition in particular will be accelerated by the way the flow is moved to the side of the weir structure - causing siltation of the weirpool itself during normal flows. This may then be moved during flood events. So in effect the weirpool would contain a more unstable habitat than it does at present. But i am not a gemorphologist. The maintenence of the shallow bars downstream of a weirpool are also critical habitat for fish spawning and habitat (not least barbel). Some of the Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species that are likely to be present in the weirpool area include: Otters Water vole various bats fine-lined pea mussel depressed river mussel European eel Salmon The Thames is a particularly rich river for aquatic invertebrates - notably so within the vicinity of weirpools, and contains a large number of species afforded Red Data Book status due to their rarity and vulnerability to extinction within Great Britain. Examples include several riffle beetles, mayflies and caddis for which the Thames, along with large rivers such as the Severn and Wye are their national strongholds. A competent species-level survey of the weirpool and vicinity would probably generate records for over 300 invertebrate species, the majority associated with fast flowing water, and with the distributions of many of these species confined to habitats such as weirpools on the River Thames. Creating an unstable habitat in this vicinity would be of major concern. My final point to you, Pondy, is that attempting to address climate change and CO2 is not the only environmental concern of our age. It seems to have taken a back seat in terms of government priorities, but halting or reversing the loss of biodiversity on the planet is an equally if not more pressing problem. The Biodiversity legislation i have indicated above was part of our nations response to conserving globally threatened species or habitats arising from the Rio Earth Summit of 1994. Unfortunately, unlike the bandwagon for alternative energy, there is apparently too little profit or financial incentive to do much about the conservation of biodiversity. It would be appalling if the pursuit of "green technology" was to contribute to biodiversity loss - and i would hope you can see that possibility.

Just for your information since it seems you don't know what a Larinier fish pass is - Thanks for that Jeff. I don't think the one we have planned at present is a Denil type as suggested. The EA wanted a 'long meandering natural flow fish pass' which was their brief for design so it will be a shallower drop but stretching for about 20 meters or so. If this is insufficient then we need some input from an expert on this so we can plan accordingly.

pondy, apologies for it seeming we're all on your case, the time you take in responding to us all is very very much appreciated, the insight we all gain from these communications is brill, you can give nuffin more precious than your time, and its welcomed mahoosively sadly we can put men on the moon, and engage in plenty of other non-green activities, but we cant explain wot lives in a weir pool for 24hrs, let alone 52 weeks irrespective of who runs a hydropower scheme, it should be the duty of the local community to make sure it has no adverse effects, the inability of communities along the rivers length to grasp this simple core requirement is appalling rather than off the cuff remarks about alternative hydropower, would it not be better to at least hold fire and do some research, I've been told by a senior EA engineer that riverbed hydro would work on the thames, ok we were talking about the teddington proposals, but surely it must be worth exploring every avenue, before committing to such a permanent change to your local environment once again thanks for your input and please continue, by the way have you wondered why those that exploit our rivers, the water companies, aint interested in hydropower

It took me a while to twig what these schemes really are; nothing to do with 'green' energy but something sold on those lines to hoodwink the public into thinking it is benign. It's just a slice and dice scheme (used to describe frauds where the rounding errors on interest payments are diverted away; I should have realised earlier because I have done interest calculation programming for a bank in the past - correctly I might add!) whereby the captive paying public is fleeced of a tiny amount so that they don't notice it in their energy bills but the beneficiary is the promoter of the scheme. Trouble is that if enough of these schemes are implemented our power becomes so expensive it is crippling to the economy which is why keeping Didcot going is is far, far more important. Didcot provides more power (3.6 GWH) in a more flexible manner than 30,000 hydro schemes (more than could be installed on the entire UK river system) of this nature. I just hope further changes are made to keep Didcot going. The trouble is that these green schemes have already bumped up the price of our electricity substantially - at what point do we stop? The EA should issue a complete moratorium on these schemes. Still no answer on who will free log jams? Will there be full-time employees to do this 24x7? Or is the EA expected to provide this free of charge?

There seems to be little more I can say on here, I have stated our position on this matter and I fully believe that what we are doing will benefit the community and help a little towards decarbonising the grid. Our energy security is hanging very precariously in the UK, we rely very much on gas for our heating and 30-40% of our electricity generation. There is very little left in the North sea today so we are net importers of gas, our mains supplies come from Russia and Qatar in the Middle East. We are not the best of friends with the Russians and there have been many times when the gas taps have been turned off stopping supplies to Europe. Gas from Qatar is pulled out of the ground, cooled to -162degC, which consumes huge quantities of energy, put on to ships and sailed through Somali waters full of pirates with significant risk of hijack and then pumped ashore in Milford Haven, warmed up again consuming huge amounts of energy and then piped to the consumers. If our gas supplies are compromised we will be in trouble because we rely on these supplies far too much. The majority of the rest of our electricity comes from burning coal which pumps huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, our existing power stations are about 30% efficient with 70% of the energy disappearing out of the cooling towers. Again we are net importers of coal which comes mainly from China, China are building something like one coal fired power station per week so their coal demand is increasing rapidly and at some point they could decide to keep it all for them selves or sell to the highest bidder. Our gas prices are predicted to double within the next few years and this trend will continue, the days of cheap energy have gone and as I said our energy security is pretty unstable. Nuclear energy would seem to be the obvious answer to our energy needs in the immediate future but this is also met with much resistance. If we do not start to generate electricity from other sources such as hydro, wind, tidal, etc then we will be in a bit of a mess at some point in the future. Going back to the river bed hydro scheme mentioned, I have never heard of this and I have spent some time studying renewable energies, if you could point me in the direction of some details of this I will look into it but changing to another technology at this stage of the game will not happen. I'm still waiting for someone to come forward to consult with us on any issues that need addressing but as before nobody has come forward, if you want to have some say in this we will have to have a meeting and discussion session as we did with the canoeists. There was a public meeting quite recently at Romney weir, I believe, where objectors were publicly stating their position and objections, the ATr were present but refused to stand up and put their points forward all they said was that they were going to object, this did them no favours and was looked on pretty dismissively. If you want to be heard then you have to come forward and do so. I have done really what I can but as I've said, I've stated where we are and answered many questions as honestly as I can to go forward with this you have to make the next move, I will continue to look at this thread but probably wont be able to input anything further. Thank you for your participation. Paul.

Many thanks Paul !

the ATr were present but refused to stand up and put their points forward all they said was that they were going to object, this did them no favours and was looked on pretty dismissively. If you want to be heard then you have to come forward and do so. Or alternatively keep one's powder dry until necessary to use?

Or alternatively keep one's powder dry until necessary to use? They did the same for our abstract license application, put in their objections and they were rejected!

amazing int it, we all want the same thing, a better world to live in, but the games set up to be divisive pondy, nice one for your posts, its a shame the opinions aired on this forum aint enough for you to at least consider slowing down, let alone making doubly sure your local anglers suck, as do the ATr, the way to build bridges is to communicate, the way to alienate is to remain aloof I applaud your stance with both these groups, it seems they can all give it large in their comfort zones, but achieve very little out of it mark, I doff my cap in respect, at last a post that understands how the game is corrupted, if you want confirmation check out, russia today max keiser show tue, thu, sat and most important, good luck'n'plenty of laughter if you're doing it this weekend on a river

I find it very hard to believe that Pondy is an angler. Anglers have an inbuilt bias towards fish which he seems to be missing. Anyway, I believe that the time line of this proposal went something like this: Grandstanding Politician signs up to providing a certain % of renewable energy by a certain date. Politically a good move? What’s the downside? Minister What about that Humphrey, inspired or what! Sir Humphrey Sorry Minister, it won’t happen, it doesn’t work, it hardly generates any power, the carbon saved doesn’t compensate for the carbon cost and it doesn’t stack up financially. The electorate will go berserk if they find out the price involved. M But I’ve signed up to it, I need to save face. SH Well, we could fudge the figures on carbon to make wind and water power look green and if we refuse to carry out any environmental studies (on the basis that each scheme is of so little consequence in power generating terms) by the time it becomes apparent what the aesthetic and ecological price was, it will be too late. M Do it SH With respect M It still doesn’t address the costs. The public won’t stand for soaring bills and we will put most of the industry we haven’t yet exported to China (at about six times the carbon cost) out of business. M Can’t we subsidise it? SH Subsidise Energy Companies? It would look like we are in the pocket of big business. (even if we are). M Good point. Try and get the EA to encourage local greenies to front it. What did Gerry Adams call us? Oh yes, useful idiots. Get some of them to apologise for it. Feed them the information we want to release and let them front it. In the long term it can always be sold on to the Energy companies if it fails. SH What about the RSPB’s objections to wind farms? M God, keep them onside. Get the EA to try and broker a compromise. What am I hearing about my rich mates making a fortune out of this? SH Yes, very embarrassing M. It seems that through the wind farm initiative, the great unwashed are pouring money into the coffers of your landowner friends via increased fuel prices and subsidies. It’s not looking terribly good sir. M I wish that I’d never started this! Hydro Power, is that what it’s called? Let’s go for that, after all the public own the water, no rich landowners involved. And be careful about upsetting anybody like the RSPB. SH Don’t worry about that M. The RSPB’s interests can be met. Anglers, no problem they never agree on anything and fortunately so far they’ve never stumped up the combined resources necessary to put up a fight. We can (almost) honestly say that they are not engaging in the process. Carbon against fish? With the right PR (propaganda) no contest, after all the public can’t see either of them. Result: Where we are. Look forward to a small but sad environmental disaster on a river near you. Any resemblance to anybody you may think that you recognise is purely unintentional. Stu

Now that is both inspired and funny . . . . . and yet at the same time, sadly, probably quite close to the truth . . . . . .

Good post Mark and Stu, Very funny! All blue comments are Pondy's “We are doing it for the reasons stated in my previous posts, to generate renewable energy from a reliable source, not to prevent commercial enterprise from doing so.” Then why not have a wind farm outside your house or a waste disposal incinerator down the road, both of which are far more efficient?… Archimedes screws do not obstruct the passage of water, they allow the passage of water to continue but remove some of the energy. EXACTLY! That is what I am trying to tell you, you agree but cannot see the damage removing the energy will do. If you are only going to use half the water flow (a statement I will not believe as there will be times when you use more than half) you are removing the potential of 50% of the oxygen generation for that part of the river. This denies valuable oxygen, especially at breeding times, to fish that need it and also the energy stops any siltation of the immediate area thereby keeping the gravels, required by rheophilic species, free of debris. In short, you remove 50% of the energy, you slowly KILL the fishery. Try living with one lung and see whether you can still run 100 metres. But there’s none so blind as those that don’t want to see. How many houses are there in Abingdon? Probably around 15000. How many houses will this scheme provide with electric when operating normally? 200. So this scheme will only provide 0.133% of Abingdon households with ‘maybe’ sufficient electricity? Hardly climate changing. Irrelevant, but I will find out if you really need to know!. What you’re about to save in carbon (if the scheme does get through) will equate to one jumbo taking off from Heathrow. But please don’t tell me we need another 360 more similar schemes to account for every jumbo taking off from every airport in Britain and that’s not counting the smaller aircraft or cars. For the maximum investment allowed, £20,000 the interest will be about £600 per year so I very much doubt this will encourage people to fly from Heathrow any more than they already do. That’s if it pays that much. I’m getting 4.5% at the Halifax now on a 5 year fixed term (shorter than a hydro scheme) and that’s far more secure – secured by the Government. I think your attitude so far smacks of “We’re doing this whether you like it or not, but if you want to be consulted, YOU MUST COME TO US!” rather than you going out to find some answers first. Also, is anyone that is consulted actually listened to if it conflicts with what you want? I am meeting tonight with that EA contact I gave you and shall find out from him if you have indeed contacted him already, you’ve had a number of days now, time enough. I’ll tell you about the Romney scheme. The EA first promised that NO further schemes would be started until 2 years after the Romney plant had been operating to see what effects it would have on the morphology of the river. That wasn’t sufficient for the ministers and DEFRA so it is being pushed through now as a ‘worth the risk’ opportunity. The REAL green people, the true anglers, don’t want to take that ‘risk’ and would rather that everything was still on hold. Romney still is not working. In other words - I would have preferred thsi as an alternative ending to Stu's farce, a typical Sir Humphrey statement - It is clear that Cabinet Committee is agreed that the new policy is an excellent plan, in principle, but in view of the doubts being expressed, it was decided to record that, after careful consideration, the considered view of the committee was that while they considered the proposal met with broad approval in principle, it was felt that some of the principles were sufficiently fundamental in principle, and some of the considerations so complex and finely balanced in practice that in principle it was proposed that the sensible and prudent practice would be to subject the proposal to more detailed consideration with and across the relevant departments with a view to preparing and proposing a more thorough and wide-ranging proposal, laying stress on the less controversial elements and giving consideration to the essential continuity of the new proposal with existing principles, to be presented for parliamentary consideration and public discussion on some more propitious occasion when the climate of opinion is deemed to be more amenable for consideration of the approach and the principle of the principal arguments which the proposal proposes and propounds for approval. Or - Don't mention the plan....

I think your attitude so far smacks of “We’re doing this whether you like it or not, but if you want to be consulted, YOU MUST COME TO US!” rather than you going out to find some answers first. Also, is anyone that is consulted actually listened to if it conflicts with what you want? We do and have listened to anyone that is consulted or who has bothered to contact us. The canoeists came along for a chat and the outcome is that we are going to add an electrical sluice control so they can adjust the flow when they want to use it. This will cost us a considerable amount to design and install and to top it off, when they use it the flow through the screws will drop considerably costing us even more in lost generation income, so we do listen and we do take note even if it conflicts with what we want. We could come to you but where do you live, how can we contact you, etc. We have a website, all our contact details are on there and we want to set up a meeting at some point over the next few weeks where the anglers will be invited but if nobody shows up what more are we supposed to do?

what more are we supposed to do? Pondy, what you will do, will be totally decided by the Establishment, you are just a pawn in a greater game. If the powers that be decide to proceed, it will proceed with or without you. If they decide to withdraw, your funding will be removed as will any chance of you getting permission to bang another nail in the coffin of the Thames. On that basis, I would venture that talking to you may be an unnecessary diversion from taking on the real decision makers. We have very limited recourses and your scheme is just one of a plethora of proposals that have suddenly come to light. Divide and rule. If I was the Sir Humphrey tasked with implementing this, I would have flooded the opposition with as many schemes at once as I could muster, get it fronted by 'useful idiots' who think that they can save the planet, feed them the propaganda necessary to allow them to put the green arguments and keep the opposition wrong footed and over-whelmed. Ring any bells? You may not be an idiot pondy but you are very useful to those pulling your strings. Jeff, that paragraph of yours was beyond my writing skills! Sir Humphrey lives! Stu

What about any statutory consultation which I believe has to happen, or is this it? As for contacting angling clubs/groups/ associations or whatever, I wouldn't have thought that would be too difficult. A good start would be the EA Area Fisheries dept. I cant see the Thames Region/Area being any different to the Northumbria Area, and they can give a list of just about every club/association in the North East. The ATr will have a record of every club/member in the area (not sure about data protection though) but I was sent a printed list of every individual/club member in the NE not on e-mail, (to post out a meeting invite) e-mail would be even easier. If I as an individual can do it, it shouldn't be an obstacle to a group of potential share holders. The ATr might even do it if asked, but I'm assuming here, Will?? Or get yourselves along to the EA Fisheries Forums, open to all, and put your argument over there. Wheres theres a will...

like in all days past, its the canoeists first out of the block, and who get what they want, why is that ? pondy I apologise again for the tone of the posts, but when what many consider to be obvious, is ignored or brushed under the carpet, inevitably hackles are raised the obvious way to build bridges, is to communicate, so I repeat my request from my earlier post, could you post up any details of any meetings, that any of the contributors to this thread can attend

As for contacting angling clubs/groups/ associations or whatever, I wouldn't have thought that would be too difficult. A good start would be the EA Area Fisheries dept. John, over a week ago I sent an email to Pondy giving him contact email details of the EA Thames West Area Fisheries Team Leader, JOHN SUTTON, along with contacts for Mike Heylin of Angling Trust and the contact for the Upper Thames Fisheries Conservation group who would have all the details of many clubs in the area. I can tell you that as of Friday night when our little group held our annual barbeque, John Sutton was invited along, and he told me that he had recieved NO CONTACT whatsoever from the Abingdon hydro scheme people or Pondy (giving his real name). I will say that John is quite neutral on the topic of hydro schemes, he has to be, and having enjoyed our barbeque did sarcastically say that he would like be invited to our party to celebrate the switching on of our hydro scheme. :mad: It was a joke... If it was my scheme and I was genuine about consulting people I would have jumped at the chance to speak with someone with John Sutton's knowledge and experience and would have done so immediately. Yet after a week and more, there has been no contact. One has to ask if the Abingdon people are actually interested in any kind of consultation or whether they prefer keeping themselves and everyone involved in the dark, the Mushroom method (with apologies to Jim above) - keep 'em in the dark, feed 'em a load of sh*t, and something's bound to come up. I don't know yet whether Mike Heylin or the Upper Thames people have been contacted, but I suspect not. Finding contacts is simple enough, a quick Google search just now reveals - Abingdon and Oxford Alliance Membership Secretary Roger Bateman 16 The Gap, Marcham, Abingdon 01865 391809 Not terribly hard is it? There's your starter for ten, Pondy.

John, over a week ago I sent an email to Pondy giving him contact email details of the EA Thames West Area Fisheries Team Leader, JOHN SUTTON, along with contacts for Mike Heylin of Angling Trust and the contact for the Upper Thames Fisheries Conservation group who would have all the details of many clubs in the area. I can tell you that as of Friday night when our little group held our annual barbeque, John Sutton was invited along, and he told me that he had recieved NO CONTACT whatsoever from the Abingdon hydro scheme people or Pondy (giving his real name). I will say that John is quite neutral on the topic of hydro schemes, he has to be, and having enjoyed our barbeque did sarcastically say that he would like be invited to our party to celebrate the switching on of our hydro scheme. :mad: It was a joke... If it was my scheme and I was genuine about consulting people I would have jumped at the chance to speak with someone with John Sutton's knowledge and experience and would have done so immediately. Yet after a week and more, there has been no contact. One has to ask if the Abingdon people are actually interested in any kind of consultation or whether they prefer keeping themselves and everyone involved in the dark, the Mushroom method (with apologies to Jim above) - keep 'em in the dark, feed 'em a load of sh*t, and something's bound to come up. I don't know yet whether Mike Heylin or the Upper Thames people have been contacted, but I suspect not. Finding contacts is simple enough, a quick Google search just now reveals - Abingdon and Oxford Alliance Membership Secretary Roger Bateman 16 The Gap, Marcham, Abingdon 01865 391809 Not terribly hard is it? There's your starter for ten, Pondy. I don't see how you can say that when Paul contacted me quickly and has been very open on here, he has stated that this is a busy week for him for other reasons.

You could also argue it would be just as easy for the AT and all of the local clubs to contact the Abingdon Hydro Community to request a meeting and yet that doesn't seemed to have happened either. One has to wonder why?

surely this arrow firing from both sides is just gonna compound the current situation why aint a local angling club given a presentation to these proposers, explaining their concerns why aint local anglers got letters published in the local newspapers why aint local anglers affixed signs near the proposed development, informing their local community of the dangers/pitfalls instead of twittering away on 'ere, expecting someone else to do it for you, do it for yourselves some brave soul did just that, last bank holiday weekend, a banner approximately 15ft long and 4 ft high was affixed to sunbury weir, it exclaimed the neccessity of an environmental assessment study, dunno if a pic made it onto any fishing forum, or even in the local paper, but at least someone has got of his/her arse

John, over a week ago I sent an email to Pondy giving him contact email details of the EA Thames West Area Fisheries Team Leader, JOHN SUTTON, along with contacts for Mike Heylin of Angling Trust and the contact for the Upper Thames Fisheries Conservation group who would have all the details of many clubs in the area. I can tell you that as of Friday night when our little group held our annual barbeque, John Sutton was invited along, and he told me that he had recieved NO CONTACT whatsoever from the Abingdon hydro scheme people or Pondy (giving his real name). I will say that John is quite neutral on the topic of hydro schemes, he has to be, and having enjoyed our barbeque did sarcastically say that he would like be invited to our party to celebrate the switching on of our hydro scheme. :mad: It was a joke... If it was my scheme and I was genuine about consulting people I would have jumped at the chance to speak with someone with John Sutton's knowledge and experience and would have done so immediately. Yet after a week and more, there has been no contact. One has to ask if the Abingdon people are actually interested in any kind of consultation or whether they prefer keeping themselves and everyone involved in the dark, the Mushroom method (with apologies to Jim above) - keep 'em in the dark, feed 'em a load of sh*t, and something's bound to come up. I don't know yet whether Mike Heylin or the Upper Thames people have been contacted, but I suspect not. Finding contacts is simple enough, a quick Google search just now reveals - Abingdon and Oxford Alliance Membership Secretary Roger Bateman 16 The Gap, Marcham, Abingdon 01865 391809 Not terribly hard is it? There's your starter for ten, Pondy. These things take time and up to now I haven't had enough of it. I have just sent out an open invitation to the parties you e-mailed me details of so I am now waiting for some responses. Please realise that I am good to my word but I do have a life beyond fishing and Abingdon Hydro so I cannot do everything at the drop of a hat. Remember I'm involved with Abingdon Hydro on a purely voluntary basis, I do not get paid for my time so things get done when I am able to do them, it's not particularly nice to be effectively called a liar when I am doing everything I can to get some sort of dialogue going! It would have been just as easy for you to have passed on my contact details to these others to get them to contact me.........but you didn't!

Having gone back to the start of this thread and seen what has been put up in defence of this scheme, I think that the ATr were very restrained with the word shambolic, after all, who cares about a few fish!:mad: Stu

Pondy, what you will do, will be totally decided by the Establishment, you are just a pawn in a greater game. If the powers that be decide to proceed, it will proceed with or without you. If they decide to withdraw, your funding will be removed as will any chance of you getting permission to bang another nail in the coffin of the Thames. On that basis, I would venture that talking to you may be an unnecessary diversion from taking on the real decision makers. We have very limited recourses and your scheme is just one of a plethora of proposals that have suddenly come to light. Divide and rule. If I was the Sir Humphrey tasked with implementing this, I would have flooded the opposition with as many schemes at once as I could muster, get it fronted by 'useful idiots' who think that they can save the planet, feed them the propaganda necessary to allow them to put the green arguments and keep the opposition wrong footed and over-whelmed. Ring any bells? You may not be an idiot pondy but you are very useful to those pulling your strings. Jeff, that paragraph of yours was beyond my writing skills! Sir Humphrey lives! Stu We are a private enterprise, there is no "Establishment" we are not pawns and nobody is pulling my strings so in answer to your question "Ring any bells?" no! We are not funded, our working money has come purely from voluntary donations/ investments from individuals who all believe in what we are trying to do they are not using us as "useful idiots". Please read everything about us before putting us in the same boat as all those contributing to the 'greenwash' that is currently flooding the UK. We are well informed individuals who have put in a considerable amount of work to get where we are today, if we decide the project is going to happen then it will, if we decide it isn't then it won't.

Pondy i'm not against hydro, I attend utfc meetings, a member of the angling trust and love my fishing. thing is there are so many nails being hammered into our rivers nowadays that are killing fish, destroying habitat, sucking water out of them, flushing **** through them and making natural enviroments no go areas for anglers. please ask yourself the question...are you putting another nail in? it maybe small but there will be alot of them like yours. have a think about it Cheers Jason

pondy, many thanks from the thousands of thames anglers who are oblivious to the threat of hydropower and here's yet another question, that you wont be able to answer, but maybe the ATr members on 'ere, might ask the ATr national campaigns manager, mr salter, who is also currently employed by Thames Water as Thames Water have failed yet again to meet their yearly target on renewable energy generation, what are the reasons for them ignoring hydropower ? maybe their reasons will add weight to the ATr position

They probably believe, and rightly so, that the overall benefit is not worth the expenditure, Jim. (cost benefit analysis, as my CIPFA public sector accountant son would put it) I'll be at an EA FF meeting tonight where John Cheyne (ATr Regional Coordinator) and top guys from Northumbria Water will be there, so I'll ask them the question; why NW are not going down the same pointless route. Some NE reservoirs do have hydro schemes built into the dam walls- but they are real schemes, not rich boys toys. I went to a meeting with similar folk in Durham concerning the WFD/Wear catchment plans, it was like a production meeting of Blue Peter, right down to coloured felt tip pens and sticky back plastic That is the honest truth, I kid you not. I'll also be asking tonight why the local papers are full of apparently passed plans for a (poss multi) hydro scheme/s on the Wear, when the EA and the consenting authority (Durham County Council) denied any knowledge - smoke and mirrors

nice one john, I dunno where you get the stamina for these meetings, but anglers everywhere mucho appreciate it smoke 'n' mirrors are the only way they can get these things nationwide, and their paid professionals are running rings round the ammateurs against it instead of entering their game, their way, with all of our stake, we should concentrate our game where we could have the advantage, at ground level, where money cant compete with individual efforts perhaps as pondy has declined to my request to post up any meeting dates, that interested parties could attend, maybe another contributor to this thread, if made aware of any meeting dates, could do so instead

It would have been just as easy for you to have passed on my contact details to these others to get them to contact me.........but you didn't! Always, always, the mountain must come to Mohammed. Better as Dr Butterworth has just put it - "As far as consulting local interests go - the onus is well and truly on the developer to seek out and get the views of people who are liable to be affected by the scheme." Anyway. it looks like my little kick up the backside has got you stirring, Pondy, at last. Just to let everyone else know though, he did contact the names I gave him and has since been offered the opportunity to attend an ATTRF meeting next Tuesday at which representative of all the Thames Region's fisheries consultatives will be there. Sadly he can't make it and I've not heard yet of anyone else from the project that can attend either, it was short notice perhaps. However, Mike Heylin (Chair of Angling Trust) has asked for a habitat and species survey from them and Dave Wales (Chair of the ATTRF) has requested any ecological and fish surveys that they may have done. We're still waiting for these and an alternative date for a meeting. So some progress, it would seem. One disappointing conversation I had was with an Abingdon Anglers Association man and he admitted that he didn't know too much about these screws only that they were 'good' and didn't seem all that bothered by this scheme as the weir adjoins council land and the fishery is not controlled by the AAA. They will now discuss it at one of their meetings and they do have a rep on the Upper Thames Consultative so we'll see what happens from there. Previous to this, they hadn't recieved any contact from the developers, or so he understood.

We are a private enterprise, there is no "Establishment" we are not pawns and nobody is pulling my strings so in answer to your question "Ring any bells?" no! We are not funded, our working money has come purely from voluntary donations/ investments from individuals who all believe in what we are trying to do they are not using us as "useful idiots". Please read everything about us before putting us in the same boat as all those contributing to the 'greenwash' that is currently flooding the UK. We are well informed individuals who have put in a considerable amount of work to get where we are today, if we decide the project is going to happen then it will, if we decide it isn't then it won't. I'm sorry Pondy but that is the biggest load of eyewash I've seen for a long time. Stu

Some will already be aware, however just in case you don't, the ATr is to appoint a 'Hydro' person in each ATr/EA fisheries region. If a region already has an EA Regional Fisheries Forum these will be merged with the ATr Regional Freshwater Forums over the coming months, headed by John Cheyne, ATr Region Coordinator. The post is funded by the EA so it has an added interest in the scheme being successful At yesterdays EA's Northumbrian FF the EA's hydro consenting team gave a very good presentation and insight into its methods and ways of giving consents, eventually. I doubt that anything is yet cut and dried. Although the R Tyne Hexham hydro people have already spent £100,0000's there are very grave concerns about the scheme, and that's before the application has been submitted :rolleyes: You'll be pleased, and surprised to hear Jim, that the TAC was mentioned as a way forward at yesterdays EA Northumbria FF mentioned above, I didn't dare say I had some involvement ;) I'm not sure just how the Thames scheme is being funded but the good folk of Settle did it THIS way, incidentally the Settle plant has broken so many consents they have stopped recording the breaches and there are MAJOR concerns about the ability of fish to migrate upstream, not least from the vibration when it is 'working' if we decide the project is going to happen then it will, if we decide it isn't then it won't. Oh yes :rolleyes: Ever heard of loss of amenity, for a start. How may years worth of 'green energy' generation would it take just to repay that. If all the proposed schemes are consented, by the year 2020 the total electricity supplied to the UK by on river hydro schemes will be just 1% of the Nations needs, and that includes that from Scotland which will provide the vast majority of that 1%! And by 2020 Scotland might not even let us have their share :) perhaps as pondy has declined to my request to post up any meeting dates, that interested parties could attend, maybe another contributor to this thread, if made aware of any meeting dates, could do so instead Sure they 'aint the Masons, Jim ;)

when someone realises that you oppose their schemes, the last thing they're gonna do is coming running wiv their arms open, its up to you to go to them, pro-active not reactive, surely that is common sense a mahoosive shout to the ATr for getting reps on the ground to fight our corner, cant wait to see the results of their efforts its brill to hear that the TAC is held in good esteem, it wouldn't have happened without your support and assistance, thames anglers whether they know it or not owe you a debt that can never be repaid, the boys in charge now are doing a pukka job and playing to their strengths, hence the open arms from anglings establishment it may as well be the masons john, for all the transparency that dont prevail, if its complicated or opaque, everyone ends up with cloudy opinions keep it simple simon and ask; should I/we be allowed to change something before understanding what lives there ?

I'm sorry Pondy but that is the biggest load of eyewash I've seen for a long time. Stu You obviously wear rose tinted glasses then! Read our web site and you will see that everything I have said above is the reality, believe what you will but you are clearly misinformed! ---------- Post added at 09:47 ---------- Previous post was at 09:31 ---------- perhaps as pondy has declined to my request to post up any meeting dates, that interested parties could attend, maybe another contributor to this thread, if made aware of any meeting dates, could do so instead I have not declined to your request as you claim, there are no meetings set up as yet, I am working on that at the moment but we are in discussion, off forum, with the ATr and various other groups to set up a meeting within the next couple of weeks. As numbers will be limited I won't be posting details on here so I suggest you get in touch with the ATr and find out from them. Despite what some members on here seem to think of me and my organisation, I am doing everything I can to get some dialogue going between us and concerned parties. Just because it isn't happening in the blink of any eye doesn't mean it isn't happening. This forum is not the only means of talking to people and there are others out there who are not on this forum. Unless you know exactly what is happening please keep derogatory comments to yourself, I have faced a tirade of abuse and slagging off on here and all I am trying to achieve is hear your, reasonable, points of view and to get some constructive consultation going. If you want more than that go and find it in the playground, I'm beginning to wonder why I bothered getting involved on here because my efforts clearly are not appreciated for what they represent.

You obviously wear rose tinted glasses then! Read our web site and you will see that everything I have said above is the reality, believe what you will but you are clearly misinformed! ---------- Post added at 09:47 ---------- Previous post was at 09:31 ---------- I have not declined to your request as you claim, there are no meetings set up as yet, I am working on that at the moment but we are in discussion, off forum, with the ATr and various other groups to set up a meeting within the next couple of weeks. As numbers will be limited I won't be posting details on here so I suggest you get in touch with the ATr and find out from them. Despite what some members on here seem to think of me and my organisation, I am doing everything I can to get some dialogue going between us and concerned parties. Just because it isn't happening in the blink of any eye doesn't mean it isn't happening. This forum is not the only means of talking to people and there are others out there who are not on this forum. Unless you know exactly what is happening please keep derogatory comments to yourself, I have faced a tirade of abuse and slagging off on here and all I am trying to achieve is hear your, reasonable, points of view and to get some constructive consultation going. If you want more than that go and find it in the playground, I'm beginning to wonder why I bothered getting involved on here because my efforts clearly are not appreciated for what they represent. I appreciate your efforts Paul and I am sure many more do who haven't contributed to this thread judging by the 4,000 or so views.

I'm beginning to wonder why I bothered getting involved on here because my efforts clearly are not appreciated for what they represent. Its not unique or specific to hydro schemes or yourself, pondy. The Tyne Rivers Trust recently took on the task of eradicating Himalayan Balsam from the banks of the Tyne and the people involved immediately started to received 'hate mail' from ...... .....the local bee keeping community, I kid you not. So in comparison to the probable and likely damage to the Thames as a fishery in that/those areas where the hydro schemes are proposed, I think you're getting off very lightly. However for you to come on a fishing forum board to tell anglers how you intend to harm/ damage a river as a fishery (no matter how you try to disguise/dress up the bottom line) its hardly surprising you have not been welcomed as a long lost friend, 'angler' or not. And if you'd been a member of the ATr, or even aware of its existance, you would already have been aware of the Trusts position re hydro schemes, which contrary to what you might believe, is not 100% against them.

These hair brained hydro schemes are just not viable. The money would be better spent as a contribution to help intensify international research into nuclear fusion technology. France is leading the world in nuclear technology generally and say they will have fusion produced electricity being fed into the grid by 2040.

These hair brained hydro schemes are just not viable. The money would be better spent as a contribution to help intensify international research into nuclear fusion technology. France is leading the world in nuclear technology generally and say they will have fusion produced electricity being fed into the grid by 2040. At the current rate of energy price increases and our rate of gas and oil consumption by 2040 electricity prices will be so high that only a few of us will be able to afford it! Nuclear fusion probably is our best bet for meeting our future energy needs but we are estimated to be 30 years away from a viable solution. Predictions and time scales are pureley guesswork, in the mean time we need to be reducing consumption of fossil fuels because not only do they emit CO2 but they are also running out. To meet current energy needs we need some alternatives in place and hydro is one of them. They are a proven technology and financilly viable and will become moreso as energy prices rise, look at how long they have been using these systems all over Europe. Wind and PV systems are much less reliable as energy sources because they are very dependent on weather and PV doesn't work at night! Hydro generates at a fairly constant rate as long as there is a reasonable flow on the river, PV and wind generation bounces around all the time. If you think I'm biased towards hydro, I'm not, this week for example I was installing a 3kw PV system, shortly after we connected up the sun came out and we were generating about 1.4kw, a few minutes later it clouded over and this dropped to 0.3kw. Hydro doesn't have this fluctuation. We all depend on energy for almost everything we do and with all the issues facing our energy supply we need to be developing sustainable, reliable sources for the future but also in the short term to reduce CO2 and also help to keep prices down. A hydro scheme does cost both in energy and financially to install but once operational there is no further input of energy and it very quickly pays back its embodied energy and becomes carbon neutral and even carbon negative as it replaces fossil fuel generation, even if it is only a small scheme. A scheme like the one we are proposing could realistically be generating indefinately as long as it is well maintained, over its lifetime the CO2 reduction it will have generated will be very significant. It may have a small environmental impact but the river habitat is changing constantly from year to year anyway due to changing flows of summer and winter with flood conditions and low fows of drought conditions. The habitat constantly has to adapt to environmental and seasonal changes so installing a hydro scheme may add to this but within a short period of time the river habitat will adapt to the change, and stabilize. There are far greater threats to the natural environment which will have far reaching consequences one of which is the signal crayfish which are absolutely devastating the river environments. Our scheme will cost an estimated £1million, investing this in nuclear fusion research will bareley even be noticed however putting it into this hydro scheme will produce positive and real results from the moment it is commisioned. Hydro is not a "hair brained" scheme, it is well thought out, viable and proven, nuclear fusion is still just a distant dream.

Pondy - “If you think I'm biased towards hydro, I'm not, this week for example I was installing a 3kw PV system, shortly after we connected up the sun came out and we were generating about 1.4kw, a few minutes later it clouded over and this dropped to 0.3kw. Hydro doesn't have this fluctuation.” But photovoltaic modules don’t harm the environment. Until it is known just how much damage hydro does it is best NOT to install it. You didn’t get my point earlier about hydro removing the energy, not surprising since you haven’t studied the actual water and morphology of the river. Weirs are like dynamos creating oxygen (look at the floculation under a weir) and the river stores it much like a battery and passes it downstream. Hydros remove the energy that creates the oxygen (although your people will refuse to believe that) by the fact that they use that same energy to create what little electricity they can and leave very little for the natural underwater environment. Yes, the flow is the same, but the water is denuded of the vital oxygen the rest of the river needs. Your £1million pounds would be better spent buying everyone in Abingdon energy efficient light bulbs and converting all their old technology fridges and washing machines to newer equipment. That would save an awful lot more power and carbon emissions, but of course, there’d be no profit in doing that, would there? Pondy - “It may have a small environmental impact but the river habitat is changing constantly from year to year anyway due to changing flows of summer and winter with flood conditions and low flows of drought conditions.” That’s a very random statement that proves you have no idea of what damage you can cause. Also, the low flows we have experienced in the Thames for 18 months before the present rainfall would probably mean that most of the time your hydro would not have been working. Until such time as you can PROVE beyond any doubt that hydros will not harm the river or the underwater species (and not just fish either) then you will find that most anglers that are savvy will object to them. Even the EA cannot prove that yet, but they are ordered by DEFRA and it’s Ministers to toe the line and do as they say rather than protect the environment, which should be their prime duty. Pondy - "Hydro is not a "hair brained" scheme, it is well thought out, viable and proven" Hahahahaha! Read Mike Heylin's latest email to your Martin (et al), you should have had a copy by now. Remember this, once you kill a river with these schemes it will remain dead - for the life of the hydro plants, maybe 30 years or more. What will you then say - OOOPS?

Jeff how does an archimedes screw take oxygen out of the water ? Do you mean diverted water doesn't fall over the weir wall where it gathers oxygen ? Where would you place the biggest threat to our river systems ? If its not Hydro then surely the ATr should concentrate their efforts on the biggest threat ? would you put Hydro in the top 3 ? Wouldn't the river adapt very quickly to any impact the scheme has , there are no toxins being released after all , doesn't a river suffer a more natural impact from its own rising and falling levels therefore in terms of the overall energy of the river the amount being taken at Abingdon is negligible ? ---------- Post added at 13:40 ---------- Previous post was at 13:27 ---------- Additionally Paul Buckingham came here of his own free will , so what we should do is be civil to him , in order frankly , and to use a fishing analogy , to "keep him in the swim" if we are too abrupt and try and score too many points we are going to spook him.

I'm getting a bit spooked now! We all have differing opinions and we are all probably right and wrong in some respects, nobody on here and I include myself and all the water experts in this have any idea what impact our scheme will have on the environment because you cannot study an impact before it happens. The best we can do is install our system and then get a University or some other body to do an operational study of the actual impact not a possible guessed impact. There have been no studies such as this carried out in the UK so nobody knows the answers. If we funded a study it would be seen as biased because we all know that if you want a study to be kind to your scheme you have to fund it yourself, as the oil companies do, where you basically set out to prove that you are right. An independent study is what is required here, I'm confident as to what the outcome might be due to evidence that has come out of Europe but a full study needs to be done of an operating scheme. We have set up a meeting and all these issues will be addressed at that time, I think my time on here has been useful but no matter what questions I have answered I will never break any ground with some people who seem to know what they know and any other opinion is wrong. For that reason I am going to cancel my membership on here and continue with the up coming meeting. I just wish to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread, and especially Benny for making me aware of what was going on and giving me the chance to answer some questions. Paul.

nd all the water experts in this have any idea what impact our scheme will have on the environment because you cannot study an impact before it happens. Moderator hat: Off, ie, personal comment So, apparently you and yours are quite happy to experiement with nature then? I sincerely hope that your ill-conceived scheme never gets the go ahead from the necessary authorities. "There have been no studies such as this carried out in the UK so nobody knows the answers" So, lets just go ahead and mess with something that once done wrong will take eons to put right? I'm sorry but I find that approach unbelievably selfish and ill advised. Personal comment over. mod hat: back on

Jeff how does an archimedes screw take oxygen out of the water ? Do you mean diverted water doesn't fall over the weir wall where it gathers oxygen ? Yes, you answered your own question. Any fall or tumbling of water down steps, as on a weir, or across rocks, as on a waterfall, generates oxygen. What the Archimedes Screws do is to channel the water and let it through gently delivering it to the lower table in traunches, but again, gently without adding (or rather capturing) any oxygen. In this scheme, if they are going to only take half of the flow and divert it through a screw then that will be half of the water that receives no additional oxygen. Try having one lung removed and see how that hampers your activity level. Also the energy created by tumbling over the weir clears the bottom of any silt in the immediate area and the fear (until proven otherwise) is that a screw will allow silt to build up across presently clean gravels that rheophilic species breed on, no clean gravels = no breeding = death of river species. Marlow weir, as it is now. Marlow Weir (an impression) after the building of planned two Archimedes Screws - IF they go ahead. Where would you place the biggest threat to our river systems ? If its not Hydro then surely the ATr should concentrate their efforts on the biggest threat ?True that there are many threats to the river systems and Hydro is certainly not in the top three compared to abstraction, pollution or predation. I doubt that anyone would like to prioritise the threats to the river, but it doesn't matter if hydro was number ten, a threat remains a threat and should be addressed. Example: as a threat to your life a broken leg would feature very small, but if you had one you would want it set and fixed to continue a more 'normal' life - or better still, avoid getting one in the first place which is more to the point here. nobody on here and I include myself and all the water experts in this have any idea what impact our scheme will have on the environment because you cannot study an impact before it happens. The best we can do is install our system and then get a University or some other body to do an operational study of the actual impact not a possible guessed impact....... An independent study is what is required hereBut wait! Yes, just wait because that was the idea of the Romney scheme, to identify any problems and assess the risks properly over a period of two years before continuing with any further similar schemes. And the beauty of it would be, YOU wouldn't have to pay for any research. The EA (independantly and just ever so slightly bias towards your argument) are going to do it all for you at our, the anglers', expense. Yes, get that, we anglers are going to pay for it through our rod licence fees. They're going to anaylise what shift of silt there is, what clean gravels are being affected, and how much lack of oxygen there will be and how this is affecting all sub-aquatic species (not just fish). The only unfortunate problem is, they didn't perform any survey beforehand to compare the results to, but that's the EA for you, shutting the gate after the horse has bolted. We have set up a meeting and all these issues will be addressed at that timeWell so far, we invited your people to one meeting, which you couldn't attend and you invited us to your meeting which hardly anyone of our people could attend - I mean FRIDAY NIGHT? You have to be joking.... or does this show another lack of awareness. Plan a proper one, midweek, away from holidays, at a reasonable venue (I would have to travel over 30 miles to get there) and I'm sure you will get all the consultation you require*. * You're getting a fair bit now via the emails flying around... Here's some more pictures - first is of eels (almost an endangered specie now) killed in a screw (source unknown other than ATr) that got through a screen. and the protest banner that Jim (Mushroom) mentioned in an earlier post.

Jeff - great post mate , I think Paul Buckingham is now conducting the rest of his consultation attempts through more conventional means rather than here. But my immediate thought was that there is turbulence within the screw anyway , at least the ones I have watched videos of , i.e. they are not totally submerged. Wouldn't that turbulence add oxygen ? As far as priorities go I like your analogy but I think you might equate a hydro scheme to a broken nail rather than a leg ? But abstraction or signal crays to a car accident. Does anyone really know the impact of signal crayfish ? It would seem to be something that would have an impact several orders of magnitude greater than a hydro scheme. ---------- Post added at 12:46 ---------- Previous post was at 12:40 ---------- I'll read your post properly now Jeff - very interesting reply

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSO9_wk-dmCC4ZerQTVZwyWQy-9ZFejL3z1UPnQq2Y1TqDkSxaXxw ---------- Post added at 13:51 ---------- Previous post was at 13:48 ---------- http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSeIM75OCT3Rt-CTgPqEMZdL-NHSyi4bd4VDBONoM7wACvmI1o4ZA http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQG5UTjgnU_c3iFJSP4wzgf2qTKZ7-GKQe4OwIoxwNWEMJED0aZEw White water at the outlet from an Archimedes screw! That I believe is called oxygenation!

testing .... placing photo from quote

Looks like something I use to mince cold meat!!

So you can promise these A Screws won't do same damage as these images show? Fight the Hydropower! - The Angling Trust

I'm waiting for details as to where this photo comes from, it has no reference and nobody seems to know it's source. It is reportedly from Holland and could be from a hydro scheme but what type is unknown. Basing evidence on a source like this is very risky when there are numerous videos around showing fish being dropped into the inlet to a screw and being caught in a net at the outlet with no signs of damage. I have asked the author of this paper to send me a reference for this photo but as yet none has arrived!

Here is a methodical study , which I am still reading , i.e. skipping to the conclusions unless it disagrees with me :) [url=http://www.fishtek.co.uk/files/Archimedes%20risk%20assessment.pdf]http://www.fishtek.co.uk/files/Archimedes%20risk%20assessment.pdf ---------- Post added at 17:13 ---------- Previous post was at 16:39 ---------- Here is a methodical study , which I am still reading , i.e. skipping to the conclusions unless it disagrees with me :) [url=http://www.fishtek.co.uk/files/Archimedes%20risk%20assessment.pdf]http://www.fishtek.co.uk/files/Archimedes%20risk%20assessment.pdf Well my conclusion based on the fishtek report , haven't checked my sources ( I can hear my old engineering lecturer in my head ) , is that the damage caused in the pictures being used by the ATr are not caused by a modern hydro system. All new systems will be fitted with a rubber bumper , depending on the size and nature of the screw. My other conclusion is that my maths is terribly rusty. Additionally the risk of fish delaying downstream migration doesn't appear to be a factor either provided the system is set up properly. Now the report does conclude that minor scale damage can occur , its an extremely low percentage , that again can be mitigated by proper design, but how that compares to damage that could naturally occur elsewhere i.e. by traversing the weir naturally I don't know. But the percentage is very very small , and we are talking about minor scale damage not cuts. Interestingly , if I read the fishtek report correctly ( and if its true [ there is that lecturer again ] ) then the fish has only a one in five chance of actually contacting the ( rubber coated ) blade anyway. ---------- Post added at 17:16 ---------- Previous post was at 17:13 ---------- I'm waiting for details as to where this photo comes from, it has no reference and nobody seems to know it's source. It is reportedly from Holland and could be from a hydro scheme but what type is unknown. Basing evidence on a source like this is very risky when there are numerous videos around showing fish being dropped into the inlet to a screw and being caught in a net at the outlet with no signs of damage. I have asked the author of this paper to send me a reference for this photo but as yet none has arrived! Possibly a much older screw where , ignoring other factors , no rubber bumpers were fitted and stones passing through the turbine had sharpened the blade ?

What flow they hoping to use??????

http://www.british-hydro.org/downloads/2012/AT%20Position%20Paper%20Nov%2011-%20BHA%20Critique.pdf this will send you sleep after watching the football

so us anglers are willing to pay for a 2 year research programme through our license money, but the powers that be have deemed it unnecessary pondy doesn't want us spending our money on the research, or cant wait 2 years why is it that we cant use our money to save our environment, whereas pondy can use his to destroy it the mindest of hydropower proposers sucks, they talk about saving a pittance over long time frames, but cant wait 2 years for science proving its safe love the banner on sunbury weir, here's hoping its the first of many to appear along many rivers

Buggar the Archimedes Screw, THIS is where we should be putting our money: Fusion: Fusion - a clean future Note the educational opportunities and apprenticeships being offered by this organisation. THIS IS THE FUTURE! ---------- Post added at 00:23 ---------- Previous post was Yesterday at 23:53 ---------- And note what Brian Cox says about politicians. He states that the major problem with today's politicians is lack of vision and pure idiocy! Not one of the front bench politicians in parliament today understand scientific principles. In a nutshell we are being ruled by idiots. Brian Cox talks about how JFK inspired a nation with his speech on getting a man to the moon in 10 years. He speaks about the stupidity of the average Joe Soap who puts footballers and rock singers ahead of scientists in terms of the definition of a celebrity. But would Cameron have the guts to challenge the people of the UK by saying "let's have a working Tokomak in 10 years time." No! they would rather mess around with the environment, making utterly useless Archimedes Screws.

Buggar the Archimedes Screw, THIS is where we should be putting our money: Fusion: Fusion - a clean future Note the educational opportunities and apprenticeships being offered by this organisation. THIS IS THE FUTURE! ---------- Post added at 00:23 ---------- Previous post was Yesterday at 23:53 ---------- And note what Brian Cox says about politicians. He states that the major problem with today's politicians is lack of vision and pure idiocy! Not one of the front bench politicians in parliament today understand scientific principles. In a nutshell we are being ruled by idiots. Brian Cox talks about how JFK inspired a nation with his speech on getting a man to the moon in 10 years. He speaks about the stupidity of the average Joe Soap who puts footballers and rock singers ahead of scientists in terms of the definition of a celebrity. But would Cameron have the guts to challenge the people of the UK by saying "let's have a working Tokomak in 10 years time." No! they would rather mess around with the environment, making utterly useless Archimedes Screws. .........and the guy who is driving our project is a scientist, in fact, a nuclear physicist who was working on nuclear fusion! Probably knows more than the odd politician!

Ron after Pondy's comment to quote another well known Scientist "Bazinga" ---------- Post added at 09:14 ---------- Previous post was at 09:13 ---------- Pondy is there an enviro impact assesment for any of the hydro schemes in the UK or Europe ?

and the guy who is driving our project is a scientist, in fact, a nuclear physicist who was working on nuclear fusion! Probably knows more than the odd politician! I am not convinced. This scientist is most likely being paid more than he could earn at Culham. The small amount of electricity that can be generated by this anachronism won't even power a decently sized housing estate. If you ask me, hydro electric schemes only work in large countries with enormous catchments such as in the USA, Canada, Southern Africa or Europe as a whole. The Archimedes Screw is purely a ploy to be seen as going green; and a tremendous waste of money too.

Pondy - is there a plan of the proposed scheme available - ie aerial view showing location of screws, artists impression showing what it looks like, details of any bank reinforcements that are proposed, details of trees/bankside vegetation to be removed etc? I am sure i picked up somewhere that the focus and orientation of the flow coming out the screws will be different from the existing flows spread across the weir. Whilst there has clearly been no environmental assessment of the likely changes this will cause to the existing weirpool or elsewhere, i am keen to form my own view on this. Has a topographic survey of the weirpool been undertaken to identify the current morphology of the weirpool and any sandbars etc downstream, or the locations of key instream features for fish spawning or invertebrate life in this reach? I also wonder if any habitat creation or enhancement work is planned to mitigate losses or damage caused by the siting or operation of the scheme? If you are seriously expecting people to believe that this scheme is good for the environment then these aspects are no doubt well dealt with in your plans?

I am not convinced. This scientist is most likely being paid more than he could earn at Culham. The small amount of electricity that can be generated by this anachronism won't even power a decently sized housing estate. If you ask me, hydro electric schemes only work in large countries with enormous catchments such as in the USA, Canada, Southern Africa or Europe as a whole. The Archimedes Screw is purely a ploy to be seen as going green; and a tremendous waste of money too. He's retired and we are all doing this voluntarily, we are being paid nothing! ---------- Post added at 10:56 ---------- Previous post was at 10:34 ---------- Pondy - is there a plan of the proposed scheme available - ie aerial view showing location of screws, artists impression showing what it looks like, details of any bank reinforcements that are proposed, details of trees/bankside vegetation to be removed etc? I am sure i picked up somewhere that the focus and orientation of the flow coming out the screws will be different from the existing flows spread across the weir. Whilst there has clearly been no environmental assessment of the likely changes this will cause to the existing weirpool or elsewhere, i am keen to form my own view on this. Has a topographic survey of the weirpool been undertaken to identify the current morphology of the weirpool and any sandbars etc downstream, or the locations of key instream features for fish spawning or invertebrate life in this reach? I also wonder if any habitat creation or enhancement work is planned to mitigate losses or damage caused by the siting or operation of the scheme? If you are seriously expecting people to believe that this scheme is good for the environment then these aspects are no doubt well dealt with in your plans? The only plans we have at the moment are on our website with an artists impression. The architect is currently working on the rest. We have had a topographic survey carried out but only for the above water area around where the plant will be sited. The morphology of the weirpool is constantly changing, last year there was very little flow on the river but at the moment it is in flood conditions with a very high flow which will be clearing the area of silt, etc from last year. The river bed is very likely to be changing at the moment. We are planning to replace any trees removed with several others of a similar species, we will also be putting up bat boxes and other nesting boxes. The bank near to the scheme is rapidly being eroded and this is the only place to access the weirpool for angling, this bank is going to be re-enforced and built up using either natural methods (prefered) or gabions, this will add further angling pegs to the weirpool and help to preserve this area from future erosion. I don't know of any sand bars in the vicinity but there is an island at the end of the weirpool, there are some sedge beds adjacent to the scheme position which should not be affected significantly and will likely reposition naturally with the changed flow. Regarding invertebrates, the whole area is crawling with crayfish so are likely to be in short supply. Home - Abingdon Hydro ---------- Post added at 11:03 ---------- Previous post was at 10:56 ---------- Ron after Pondy's comment to quote another well known Scientist "Bazinga" ---------- Post added at 09:14 ---------- Previous post was at 09:13 ---------- Pondy is there an enviro impact assesment for any of the hydro schemes in the UK or Europe ? Not as far as I know, but the EA are planning to carryout post operation assessments I believe which should be more accurate than calculated predictions.

Thanks for replying so promptly Pondy. Yes that aerial photo with the location of the scheme in red confirms what i thought, namely that the flow will be focussed through the screws right at the side of the existing weirpool and not near to the existing scour pool downstream of the weir. Dont forget that these weirpools have been in situ for many decades and the bed may not be constantly changing as you might expect . It is true that debris will be scoured during spate events but this debris will be accumulating much more quickly once you have changed the flow in the pool. I would expect the weirpool and areas above the weir structure to silt up progressively faster once your scheme is up and running, and that this silt will then be moved downstream en-mass during spates when the traditional forceful flow over the weir is reactivated. This silt could then be deposited in the shallower areas at the tail of the weirpool or further downstream. I do think that the sediment transport and deposition situation could be changed quite drastically by your scheme and this really needs expert assessment. This is because you will be focussing the flow significantly towards one side of the weir structure. I also believe your scheme will have a profound effect on aeration too. Just looking at that aerial photo you can see the very large area of white, turbulent and well oxygenated water at present. I would predict less than one-third such an area after the flows across the weir structure are reduced to feed your scheme feeding in from the right bank, and your screws will also reduce the energy of the water that passes through them. And i forgot to respond to your point about crayfish - these are a relatively new phenomenon and you dont plan for the future just on the basis of what is happening today. That was the logic that prevented weir builders from constructing fish passes when there were no Salmon in the Thames and elsewhere and now there is the costly exercise of retro-fitting them.

Thanks for replying so promptly Pondy. Yes that aerial photo with the location of the scheme in red confirms what i thought, namely that the flow will be focussed through the screws right at the side of the existing weirpool and not near to the existing scour pool downstream of the weir. Dont forget that these weirpools have been in situ for many decades and the bed may not be constantly changing as you might expect . It is true that debris will be scoured during spate events but this debris will be accumulating much more quickly once you have changed the flow in the pool. I would expect the weirpool and areas above the weir structure to silt up progressively faster once your scheme is up and running, and that this silt will then be moved downstream en-mass during spates when the traditional forceful flow over the weir is reactivated. This silt could then be deposited in the shallower areas at the tail of the weirpool or further downstream. I do think that the sediment transport and deposition situation could be changed quite drastically by your scheme and this really needs expert assessment. This is because you will be focussing the flow significantly towards one side of the weir structure. I also believe your scheme will have a profound effect on aeration too. Just looking at that aerial photo you can see the very large area of white, turbulent and well oxygenated water at present. I would predict less than one-third such an area after the flows across the weir structure are reduced to feed your scheme feeding in from the right bank, and your screws will also reduce the energy of the water that passes through them. And i forgot to respond to your point about crayfish - these are a relatively new phenomenon and you dont plan for the future just on the basis of what is happening today. That was the logic that prevented weir builders from constructing fish passes when there were no Salmon in the Thames and elsewhere and now there is the costly exercise of retro-fitting them. That aerial view is not quite right, the EA are specifying for the screws to be facing more into the weirpool so the flow should be more inline with the existing. We will only be taking part of the flow in any case, the majority will still flow as it is now, when the flow is too low the screws will be out of operation. We are in discussion now with some experts in the field and hopefully with their input the best scheme for the location can be developed.

We are in discussion now with some experts in the field and hopefully with their input the best scheme for the location can be developed. It is a credit to you that you have sought views on here and that you are involving experts in your designs to minimise impact. It is easy to forget that - after all, how many other schemes have done this?. There is a lot that could be done to provide improved habitats for wildlife and fish as part of mitigation and to identify and safeguard existing features. The EA themselves should have done rather more of this themselves when they were filling in natural channels, creating flood channels and putting in sluices and other control structures which create artificial changes in flow. Infact it would be impossible to match the environmental damage caused by the engineering projects they or their predecessors built with so little regard for the environment.

It is a credit to you that you have sought views on here and that you are involving experts in your designs to minimise impact. It is easy to forget that - after all, how many other schemes have done this?. There is a lot that could be done to provide improved habitats for wildlife and fish as part of mitigation and to identify and safeguard existing features. The EA themselves should have done rather more of this themselves when they were filling in natural channels, creating flood channels and putting in sluices and other control structures which create artificial changes in flow. Infact it would be impossible to match the environmental damage caused by the engineering projects they or their predecessors built with so little regard for the environment. The route cause of this environmental damage is an indirect result of building on flood plains necessitating flood control measures instead of letting nature take its own route. By the nature of human beings we constantly try to control everything which is why we are in the mess we're in. Our scheme undoubtedly will have a small impact but compared to what has already been done, it will be negligible.

Pondy : Not as far as I know, but the EA are planning to carryout post operation assessments I believe which should be more accurate than calculated predictions. Have there not been any assesments of existing hydro projects ? How do you asess something after it has changed ?

People need to realise that the Fishtek Consulting report was conducted for Ham Hydro CIC, Spaans Babcock, Ritz Atro, B.SpokeeWaterpower. It is little wonder that the report, and the other two by Fishtek on this issue, support hydro. Hydro paid for them. Everyone knows that the way to get a report which says what you want is to commission it yourself, unless you are the government in which case the government agency conducting the research will normally ask what outcome the client is expecting and, surprise surprise, the report says almost that. I have read through this whole thread and am amazed at how little knowledge of hydrodynamics some anglers and promoters of hydro appear to have. If the EA is as well equipped our rivers don't stand a chance!!

People need to realise that the Fishtek Consulting report was conducted for Ham Hydro CIC, Spaans Babcock, Ritz Atro, B.SpokeeWaterpower. It is little wonder that the report, and the other two by Fishtek on this issue, support hydro. Hydro paid for them. Everyone knows that the way to get a report which says what you want is to commission it yourself, unless you are the government in which case the government agency conducting the research will normally ask what outcome the client is expecting and, surprise surprise, the report says almost that. I have read through this whole thread and am amazed at how little knowledge of hydrodynamics some anglers and promoters of hydro appear to have. If the EA is as well equipped our rivers don't stand a chance!! Well my conclusion based on the fishtek report , haven't checked my sources ( I can hear my old engineering lecturer in my head ) , is that the damage caused in the pictures being used by the ATr are not caused by a modern hydro system. All new systems will be fitted with a rubber bumper , depending on the size and nature of the screw. you aren't my old Engineering Lecturer are you Michael ? What do you disagree with specifically in the Fishtek report ? Can you offer any proof about fish damage in turbines that is backed by some scientific rigour , other than photographs of fish that could have been damaged in any number of ways ? The Trust are often accused of being too emotive over this issue , if you have any hard evidence about fish turbine damage from modern bumpered turbines I would be happy to see it.

great to have your input on 'ere mike, an authorative, involved opinion cutting through the **** is whats needed here's hoping that lessons are being learned by all and sundry it might be worth digging around to find out how these companies such as Ham Hydro and Heather Projects are connected/financed I am led to believe Ham Hydro finance comes from the managing directors daddy, and obviously any green grant offered by the tax payer out of interest, if a license is granted for one of these schemes, how long is it valid for

great to have your input on 'ere mike, an authorative, involved opinion cutting through the **** is whats needed here's hoping that lessons are being learned by all and sundry it might be worth digging around to find out how these companies such as Ham Hydro and Heather Projects are connected/financed I am led to believe Ham Hydro finance comes from the managing directors daddy, and obviously any green grant offered by the tax payer out of interest, if a license is granted for one of these schemes, how long is it valid for Yes great to have Mike here I hope he stays to answer some of our questions in the same way that Paul Buckingham has tried to.

benny, do you think pondy will post now? he as said on here that like it or lump it the hydro will go ahead. and alot of the questions he was aked he didn't answer..... and if you read there website they are living the dream now its been "approved" and so nothing will stop them. cheers Jason

benny, do you think pondy will post now? he as said on here that like it or lump it the hydro will go ahead. and alot of the questions he was aked he didn't answer..... and if you read there website they are living the dream now its been "approved" and so nothing will stop them. cheers Jason He did post after he said he had finished , and I think that he is definitely still consulting with anglers , which is what he wanted , thanks to some of work done by anglers here, it would be nice if someone updated us as to how negotiations are going , might be tricky that though. It was also approved quite a while ago though , I think , so there was no need for him to do this. I know that sounds like I am totally biased but the original article irked because I think it was driven by the angling trust , who seem adept at using the press, but then again they are passionate people with a very difficult job. Through out this thread I have flip flopped in my view towards the scheme, for all the talk of consultation with canoeists I believe that consultation was dictated by the EA as the weir is used so much for recreation , how that didn't apply to anglers I don't know. Also there doesn't seem to be a massive need for consultation for any abstraction scheme - just an advert in the local paper - is that right ? seems outdated in the internet age. -- cont ---------- Post added at 20:09 ---------- Previous post was at 20:02 ---------- then again this isn't abstraction and no toxins are involved. I am convinced fish are not damaged in the way the ATr portray having read several different studies , including the Fishtek one. They look more like the damage caused by pleasure boats , which begs a whole lot more questions about what the ATr's sources where for their photos? But then again an enviro impact after the event holds questions for me , but also I wonder how much that would cost and how detailed it would be , is that demanded for every abstraction license granted ? Maybe the river patterns will shift a bit , maybe we just have to accept that and try to minimise any other impacts by engaging with the Abingdon Hydro team. The ways it can be influenced seem to be inclusion of fish passes , use of a variable screw which seems more fish friendly and other ways. But then again you also wonder about the cumulative effect of many of these schemes throughout our rivers , however the biggest threat to angling and especially the Thames , in my opinion , seems to be signal crayfish to me most effort should be put here , a far greater risk than a mostly benign Hydro plant. Lastly having dealt with reducing carbon footprint through technology , on a smaller scale , I know that , because of targets , a green pound is worth 2 real pounds as the Govt pushes to satisfy the green lobby but also to reduce carbon emissions. cont ..... ---------- Post added at 20:14 ---------- Previous post was at 20:09 ---------- Finally its good to see how many on here have a very detailed knowledge of ecology and obviously care about the habitat they fish in , enough to get involved and do something about it , Paul Buckingham seems like a nice chap too so I wish him and his project good luck ! Still like to know where the Atr got those photos though.

and if you read there website they are living the dream now its been "approved" and so nothing will stop them. Not quite! What they have is merely the first step, to proceed further they need to apply for an impoundment licence from the EA (different department) and for that they need specific plans detailing measurements of the structure, absolute down to the millimetre positioning, and a survey (I believe) of flow regimes and how their structure will affect them. Then they will need planning permission from the local council whose land it is (and I now believe the wier belongs to the Council, but I'll stand to be corrected on that) who will need to take a consultation of all stakeholders affected by it. BUT, first and foremost, they have to raise over £1m from people who are prepared to throw money at a scheme not knowing if they will get any or all of it back, let alone make any profit on it. :D :D :D if someone updated us as to how negotiations are going , might be tricky that though. Not so much tricky, Benny, but I guess there's some things we'd like to keep tucked up our sleeves. Never let the enemy know the full might of your force. - Wellington. The group were invited to our meeting last night but none of them turned up. They (or rather Pondy) has offered a meeting on the 20th July, but seems to want to restrict it to just 16 so if all their team go it doesn't leave a lot of room for objectors - that's politics for you, nice play! It's also on a Friday night, the worst night of the week to hold a meeting, and Alan Butterworth, if he attends, will have to travel up the A34 from the south coast - nice! (NOT :mad:) However, whoever wants to attend can have my seat as I will not be attending since the group seem quite intransigent about this and do not want to listen to anything derogatory about hydros. So I am going to save the planet 2gallons worth of petrol/carbon emmisions by not going to waste my breath, I'll do that in the better places where mine and other voices may be listened to. I am convinced fish are not damaged in the way the ATr portray having read several different studiesPerhaps the pictures shown are a bit extreme and true that the new buffers on the blades stop a lot of that damage, but they can still cause some damage and they will have to be tested for that. Even the RSPCA view these 'tests' with some concern since live fish have to be hand fed through the working turbine. I wonder if they would be allowed to do the same with dogs??? :D It's the damage they may cause to the bed of the river and in particular the spawning areas (and invertibrate life, not to mention plants etc.) and even Pondy admits there might be some damage, but that it will be "negligable". - Our scheme undoubtedly will have a small impact but compared to what has already been done, it will be negligible. I'm sure the people who introduced grey squirrels to our lands thought their impact would be "negligable". I'm also fairly sure that the people that released signal crayfish (same ones that Pondy sites) to our waters thought their impact would be "negligable". I'm sure that the same can be said of those who have released/introduced mink, otters, ring-necked parakeets, glis glis, and damn it - wels catfish in the rivers, they also thought their impacts would be "negligable". (I would even dare think of those people who have introduced all manor of alien creatures into the Australian bush think their impacts would be "negligable"!!!) It's quite strange how "negligable" can later, over the passage of not too much time, become "disastrous"! Just because mistakes have been made in the past does not give us the right to compound them with more mistakes and it only takes ONE mistake to cause a catastrophy (bit like in football where a striker can have several attempts at a goal, but if a goalie makes one mistake, it's a catastrophy.) the biggest threat to angling and especially the Thames , in my opinion , seems to be signal crayfish to me most effort should be put here That's shutting the door after the horse has bolted. They are almost impossible to eradicate now and even if you trap the big ones (which goes on) the little babies have much more chance of survival with few predators, except big chub and barbel, but even that may soon end if the hydros put paid to the chub and barbel spawning grounds. See how everything may be connected? Until such time as all the EA's assessments on the Romney have been concluded (2 years from start up, which has still to happen) it is morally wrong to assume that the installation of these plants on vital weir structures will do no/little damage. Just wait 2 years and then I for one will stand by whatever the EA decides on this (other than fighting for the beauty of the countryside). I save water, all our lights are energy efficient and have been for years now, our house is fully insulated - started in 1984, and I recycle just about everything I can, I am green at heart, but I don't want to become a mental cabbage. Anything that might even possibly be the slightest threat to this beautiful and natural world of ours I will fight as long as there's breath in my body. I still maintain that were it not for the generous FITs that are offered these schemes would never see the light of day, but that may change soon as the Government reassesses the levels of FITs and downgrades them. It's our money after all, you all pay for power and some of that is hived off to pay these overgenerous FITs.Finally its good to see how many on here have a very detailed knowledge of ecology and obviously care about the habitat they fish in , enough to get involved and do something about itYep, I can think of a job now that would suit Chub on the Block down to the ground. There's a man that knows more than he's letting on, methinks. You have come up with some excellent and highly intelligent posts, Sir, and I congratulate you!!!:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

(I would even dare think of those people who have introduced all manor of alien creatures into the Australian bush think their impacts would be "negligable"!!!) It's quite strange how "negligable" can later, over the passage of not too much time, become "disastrous"! Just because mistakes have been made in the past does not give us the right to compound them with more mistakes and it only takes ONE mistake to cause a catastrophy (bit like in football where a striker can have several attempts at a goal, but if a goalie makes one mistake, it's a catastrophy.) That's why I clonk zander on the head and eat them. They don't belong here!

That's why I clonk zander on the head and eat them. They don't belong here! That same apparant view concerning otters is one of the reasons I won't be joining the Angling Trust , the other being over emotive manipulation of the angling media , an example of which we can all see on this thread.

That same apparent view concerning otters is one of the reasons I won't be joining the Angling Trust , the other being over emotive manipulation of the angling media , an example of which we can all see on this thread. A diversion I think, and just where does the ATr propose anything re: otters other than more studies and research? And, as almost 100% of the ATr funding comes via its members (who just happen to be anglers/ angling clubs etc, etc) just who should the Angling Trust be representing to the best of its ability- circus elephants :rolleyes: I did hear that just about every weir structure on the Thames is home to thriving colonies of Great Crested Newts :eek:

A diversion I think, and just where does the ATr propose anything re: otters other than more studies and research? And, as almost 100% of the ATr funding comes via its members (who just happen to be anglers/ angling clubs etc, etc) just who should the Angling Trust be representing to the best of its ability- circus elephants :rolleyes: I did hear that just about every weir structure on the Thames is home to thriving colonies of Great Crested Newts :eek: yes you are right - point conceded about otters being a diversion , I kind of regret the post now , but I still think the point about emotive publicity from the ATr is still valid and I still stand about the point about wanting to know the source of the ATr photos being used against Hydro, 1. where did they come from 2. surely they are out of date now for modern hydro systems using bumpers. As for Mike Heylin's post about no one on the thread knowing anything of river ecology or hydro dynamics well that seemed an ill judged throw away comment at best.

Benny, as for mike heylins post i suggest you wait for better judgement..possibly from him again there's no hurry. I have tried to keep out of this and be non judgemental either way, a few years ago i sat in on a utfc presentation by the ea on future pro hydro projects on the thames. basically saying it's going to happen do with it what you will and it's up to you anglers how you stomach it? It seems we are here now, how do we stomach it?...me not very well being a manager who looks after a large property in oxford and hear's constantly pro green,pro energy saving and pro reducing carbon footprint..well my head hurts (it's all about the dosh!), it leads to me think how much the bull **** is believed by everday joe bloggs...even intelligent people who buy into and think they are living the dream...do they ever spend hours, watching, feeling and sitting in wonderment at how lucky they are just to be there or here for this matter? it's like everthing in life....just wait a little bit, think about it...you will find that your judgement waivers.. think about it a little bit more for 2-3 years it then becomes clear how much you have been misguided? and again wait a year or two...and then it may only just maybe become clear. why do i do this?....well i think only an angler would understand.... Jason

Benny, as for mike heylins post i suggest you wait for better judgement..possibly from him again there's no hurry. I have tried to keep out of this and be non judgemental either way, a few years ago i sat in on a utfc presentation by the ea on future pro hydro projects on the thames. basically saying it's going to happen do with it what you will and it's up to you anglers how you stomach it? It seems we are here now, how do we stomach it?...me not very well being a manager who looks after a large property in oxford and hear's constantly pro green,pro energy saving and pro reducing carbon footprint..well my head hurts (it's all about the dosh!), it leads to me think how much the bull **** is believed by everday joe bloggs...even intelligent people who buy into and think they are living the dream...do they ever spend hours, watching, feeling and sitting in wonderment at how lucky they are just to be there or here for this matter? it's like everthing in life....just wait a little bit, think about it...you will find that you judgement waivers.. think about it a little bit more for 2-3 years it then becomes clear how much you have been misguided? and again wait a year or two...and then it may only just maybe become clear. why do i do this?....well i think only an angler would understand.... Jason Jason what does "why do i do this?....well i think only an angler would understand...." mean ? Do you mean I am not an angler ? I am not taking offense and if that is what you mean't you are probably correct , at least for the moment. But I am interested in understanding the truth , and this is a complicated situation and you have to peel back many layers I think to get to the truth. I'm used to doing that at work with very complex networks but they are nowhere near as complex a situation as this. We should both take your advice , keep an open mind , and see how this plays out. :thumbs:

I did hear that just about every weir structure on the Thames is home to thriving colonies of Great Crested Newts :eek: Unfortunately, john, that is highly unlikely - they are more a pond animal, and specifically those ponds without fish too. Typically they are found in small, old field ponds including those that dry up in late summer most years - the tidying up and dredging out of such ponds, introduction of fish or creation of "dragonfly habitat" has been damaging for them - but mostly their rarity is down to massive loss of ponds in farmed or urbanised landscapes. They have found their way into some smaller gravel pits though i think.

Unfortunately, john, that is highly unlikely - they are more a pond animal, and specifically those ponds without fish too. Typically they are found in small, old field ponds including those that dry up in late summer most years - the tidying up and dredging out of such ponds, introduction of fish or creation of "dragonfly habitat" has been damaging for them - but mostly their rarity is down to massive loss of ponds in farmed or urbanised landscapes. They have found their way into some smaller gravel pits though i think. They certainly used to thrive in the bomb craters around Northolt aerodrome in the 50's - good sport with a stick, line (no hook of course) and a worm. Jerry

Unfortunately, john, that is highly unlikely - they are more a pond animal, and specifically those ponds without fish too. Typically they are found in small, old field ponds including those that dry up in late summer most years - the tidying up and dredging out of such ponds, introduction of fish or creation of "dragonfly habitat" has been damaging for them - but mostly their rarity is down to massive loss of ponds in farmed or urbanised landscapes. They have found their way into some smaller gravel pits though i think. there are newts in my local pool plus about a gazillion frogs too - hadn't seen one since I was a kid - it really should be a SSSI but its rough as old boots down there , its a public pool , someone put about a hundred small carp in there a few years ago so its probably going to be crackered in a few years.

I have it on good authority that the photo's on the ATr position paper are from Holland and from an old propeller type hydro, totally different to the Achimedes screw system. I presume the photo of the eel's is from the same source. I haven't been given any further details on the photo's but they shouldn't be used in the context of Achimedes screws for negative hydro publicity.

pondy..no answers to questions as usual? takes me back a few years when the l.e.d salesmen duped many property managers into buying inferio products. they never got anywhere near there payback, most products just failing. why?...no proven technology hydro on lowland, low flow rivers...ring any bells pondy? and this sort of stuff goes on and on................

pondy..no answers to questions as usual? takes me back a few years when the l.e.d salesmen duped many property managers into buying inferio products. they never got anywhere near there payback, most products just failing. why?...no proven technology hydro on lowland, low flow rivers...ring any bells pondy? and this sort of stuff goes on and on................ What questions are you refering to? I have made an effort to answer every question that has been asked of me on this forum! If you have unanswered questions then thats probably because you haven't asked the questions! Please don't accuse me of refusing to answer questions, to be totally honest here I find your attitude pretty insulting when I have been as open and honest with all my answers as I can be. If you read the whole of this thread you will probably find the answers you are looking for.

Great Crested Newts, just flying a kite, chub on the block :) Pondy, you must have seen/read the BHA 'edited' version of the ATr's hydro document HERE Pretty desperate and factually inaccurate, IMO. If, as has already been established, hydro power will only supply 1% of the UK's energy demand by 2020, and by far the biggest part of that 1% will come from Scotland, why bother 'toying about' on English lowland low flow rivers?

'ere you go pondy why are you unwilling to agree that a 2 year study of hydropower on another thames weir is necessary, what circumstances negate the need for such a survey on any weir, prior to hydropower being installed is your rush for hydropower due to your/our inability to reduce electrical consumption if it costs £1 to generate your green energy, but only 50p to save the same amount of electricity, why would you not want others outside of your community to use your money to achieve your goal