The Government has come in for widespread criticism following the announcement of its decision to reject the £1.3 billion Swansea tidal lagoon scheme.

A wide range of organisations including environmental campaigners and industry bodies representing a number of industrial sectors have condemned the decision.

Greenpeace UK said that South Wales had lost the potential for new jobs, a new export industry and a new source of reliable, clean energy.

“A government that styles itself as an international leader in tackling climate change has just rejected the opportunity to become the international leader in developing tidal lagoons that produce clean energy day and night, and whose prices would have fallen after this first demonstration project. “ the NGO said.

The Association for Consultancy and Engineering [ACE] which represents around 600 professional consultancies and engineering member companies, described the decision as “a major disappointment and a missed opportunity” for the infrastructure industry

Chief executive of ACE, Dr Nelson Ogunshakin OBE said the government should have taken a longer and more far sighted view, adding:

“That it hasn't means that the UK has lost an opportunity to lead the world in this type of renewable technology.”

Rebecca Long-Bailey, shadow secretary of state for business, energy and industrial strategy, said the decision “defied all logic”, describing it as a “kick in the teeth” for Wales and the renewable sector.

RenewableUK expressed disappointment at the Government’s decision not to proceed with the 320MW tidal lagoon project in Swansea Bay. The organisation is highlighting “the clear evidence” set out in a report by experts at the Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult last month which showed that non-lagoon tidal energy technologies can quickly become cost competitive with a number of renewable technologies and nuclear power.

RenewableUK’s Chief Executive Hugh McNeal said:

“This decision is deeply disappointing and shows a lack of vision. Tidal lagoons have massive potential to meet our national energy needs and create jobs, as well as bringing industrial-scale economic benefits to the UK – including opportunities to export worldwide. The review commissioned by the Government on this innovative technology found that it can deliver secure power at a price that’s competitive in the long term.

“The UK’s future energy mix will be powered by a range of low carbon technologies. We know that with the right support, tidal energy can quickly become competitive on cost with other renewable and low carbon power like nuclear.

“With supportive policy and continued investment, we can rapidly cut the cost of new technologies and build world-leading industries. But at present there is no financial support on offer from government for marine renewables – or any new, innovative technologies. These are high-value new technologies that the UK can export to markets across the globe.”

"Loss in skills, supply chain and economic activity to UK is colossal"

The Director of RenewableUK Cymru, David Clubb, added:

“This means that the region will not benefit from many thousands of jobs from the project and the associated supply chain. The loss in skills, supply chain and economic activity to Swansea, the region, to Wales and to the UK is colossal. It means that the pathfinder project, described as being a 'no-regrets' decision by an independent review, which could have led to a whole series of projects across Wales with benefits UK-wide, will have to seek another mechanism of financial support, or will not go ahead.”

In a letter to The Guardian newspaper on 10^th June, leading economist Nicholas Stern and author of the landmark Stern report on climate change, said that countries around the world were “closely following” the UK’s decision on tidal power. Ahead of the government announcement of its decision, he called for the publication of its internal economic analysis of the scheme “so that its rigour and robustness can be checked”.

He offered to have “a constructive look at the analytical work”, saying the analysis should be in the public domain and subject to scrutiny before a decision is taken.

Commenting on Twitter after reading the government’s value for money assessments, David Clubb said:

“ If this 6-page piece of secondary school maths project is what we waited 18 months for, the company, the community and the supply chain have been done a gross disservice.”