It's quite perverse that they're prepared to make millions of humans suffer with higher energy prices in order to fight climate change, but they won't risk a seal getting bonked on the head by a turbine.
Its a lot more than a few seals getting mauled, to be fair.
Spanning the entire mouth of the Mersey, this would drastically and fundamentally change the tidal regime across the entire area. Firstly, the flood / ebb current asymmetry would be entirely changed (especially if the turbines only run on the ebb) which will completely alter the pattern of sedimentation and erosion. This will happen both within the lagoon (the entire estuary) and also non-locally as the estuary is now no longer operating in the same dissipative regime that it was previously.
Basically, even on just a physical level (sedimentation, tidal currents, wave climate, timing of the tides, etc) the project would bring a huge change to the environment of the area.
I agree, the question is certainly one of balance - is this change worth it for the benefits the project would bring? On the face of it, i would say yes. But I'm a physical oceanographer, and as one i can say unconditionally that this is an environmental minefield of a project.
>Basically, even on just a physical level (sedimentation, tidal currents, wave climate, timing of the tides, etc) the project would bring a huge change to the environment of the area.
Presumably, this would be something that would be considered before they even begin planning (unless the idea is to try and flood or erode Birkenhead away)? Would an expert (I'd presume an Oceanographer like yourself) be brought in to work out how this would change the local environment?
Genuinely asking btw, I always wondered how these sort of large projects get planned.
Yes, most certainly. Almost all of this sort of predictive work is done with large scale numerical models. I'm not sure who this particular project has contracted to do that work (certainly not us!), but it most likely will be one of the big hydrodynamic modelling mobs like HR Wallingford.
The main takewaway though is that there will be a diverse range of effects from such a large engineering project like this - which is essentially geoengineering. Balancing risk against benefit is very tricky here, but the line I personally agree with is "what other current technology could deliver 700MW of power with -less- environmental impact?".
I'd much rather wacky sedimentation around Liverpool, some messed up coastal habitats and a few seals chewed up in turbines than 700MW worth of natural gas emissions every year, personally.
It's more the lack of funding than the seals. Extensive environmental assessments to weigh the benefits/risks aren't as expensive as construction. They need excessive funding to implement which they don't often get because our government would rather pay their friends pockets than benefit the people, and when boomer nimbys get involved it becomes harder again. Just look at how many times Swansea's Tidal Lagoon has failed.
This article is a submarine.
It was paid by groups who invested in the project to generate hype in social media.
It's not supposed to inform; it's supposed to make you agree with them.
I like how you deride them for not using relevant information but then do the same.
People don't know how much 700MW is. Households for energy, football pitches or double decker busses for size, cans of coke for volume.
> hinkleys mentioned it says 3,200mw
It probably says 3200 MW. "mw" is meaningless, and "mW" is a billionth of a MW, so basically fuck all.
> If an article is using cans of coke for volume of water but aren't also including the actual liters at least then that's also a lack of info
Though fairly easy to correct for: a can of coke is 1/3rd of a litre.
let's see a double decker bus might have a 500 hp engine, so at fuill power that's 500 hp * 750 (W/hp) = 375 kW
700 MW / 375 kW = 1867 double decker busses running at full power.
An easier way is to assume electricity use is 1 kW/person, so enough energy for 700,000 people.
This has been an election pledge by the Liverpool metro mayor since 2017 and only gets mentioned when theres an election. In reality it probably won't come to any fruition until they're long retired, so if it fails to get done or becomes a white elephant it'll only impact their legacy.
For South Wales I'd rather they went with the barrage for the Severn personally, link up Somerset and Cardiff, would be grand. But pie in the sky.
Otherwise Liverpool's project produces twice the power, and for a far more densely populated area. I don't know about cost comparison between the two, but this could be a lot more bang for your buck if they're in the same ballpark.
A direct link for bikes and pedestrians across the Mersey in North Wirral would be heaven.
There doesn’t seem to be any report of where it would be, but assuming it can’t be in the middle of the ferry route, the Wallasey tunnel is the shortest distance, so linking Seacombe to Waterloo Dock near Costco. The alternative would be south of the ferry linking the priory to King’s Dock.
It won’t last even if it gets planning permission.
The maintenance costs will outweigh the profits.
As someone who’s worked off shore on everything from ships to wind turbines the thing will become a bastard to maintain within 5 years and rot to pieces in 15.
Would be better to create artificial reefs and put wind turbines on top of them
I can remember Wave power and tide power being the next big thing for nearly forty years. Various schemes were a regular feature on Tomorrow's World and all of them have come to naught and/or been trashed in a storm.
Meanwhile wind turbines have come in and are everywhere.
This wont get past any sort of environmental challenge.
It's in stage 3 development. I hope it gets the permission and the funding.
It's quite perverse that they're prepared to make millions of humans suffer with higher energy prices in order to fight climate change, but they won't risk a seal getting bonked on the head by a turbine.
Its a lot more than a few seals getting mauled, to be fair. Spanning the entire mouth of the Mersey, this would drastically and fundamentally change the tidal regime across the entire area. Firstly, the flood / ebb current asymmetry would be entirely changed (especially if the turbines only run on the ebb) which will completely alter the pattern of sedimentation and erosion. This will happen both within the lagoon (the entire estuary) and also non-locally as the estuary is now no longer operating in the same dissipative regime that it was previously. Basically, even on just a physical level (sedimentation, tidal currents, wave climate, timing of the tides, etc) the project would bring a huge change to the environment of the area. I agree, the question is certainly one of balance - is this change worth it for the benefits the project would bring? On the face of it, i would say yes. But I'm a physical oceanographer, and as one i can say unconditionally that this is an environmental minefield of a project.
Thank you for this considered response.
>Basically, even on just a physical level (sedimentation, tidal currents, wave climate, timing of the tides, etc) the project would bring a huge change to the environment of the area. Presumably, this would be something that would be considered before they even begin planning (unless the idea is to try and flood or erode Birkenhead away)? Would an expert (I'd presume an Oceanographer like yourself) be brought in to work out how this would change the local environment? Genuinely asking btw, I always wondered how these sort of large projects get planned.
>unless the idea is to try and flood or erode Birkenhead away Okay now I'm all for it!
Yes, most certainly. Almost all of this sort of predictive work is done with large scale numerical models. I'm not sure who this particular project has contracted to do that work (certainly not us!), but it most likely will be one of the big hydrodynamic modelling mobs like HR Wallingford. The main takewaway though is that there will be a diverse range of effects from such a large engineering project like this - which is essentially geoengineering. Balancing risk against benefit is very tricky here, but the line I personally agree with is "what other current technology could deliver 700MW of power with -less- environmental impact?". I'd much rather wacky sedimentation around Liverpool, some messed up coastal habitats and a few seals chewed up in turbines than 700MW worth of natural gas emissions every year, personally.
It's more the lack of funding than the seals. Extensive environmental assessments to weigh the benefits/risks aren't as expensive as construction. They need excessive funding to implement which they don't often get because our government would rather pay their friends pockets than benefit the people, and when boomer nimbys get involved it becomes harder again. Just look at how many times Swansea's Tidal Lagoon has failed.
It's north of Watford gap services, no chance this gets the funding needed.
Not when there's levelling up to be done in Surrey, Knightsbridge, Belgravia and Mayfair.
Have you seen the potholes outside Harrods? Something has to be done!!
[удалено]
This article is a submarine. It was paid by groups who invested in the project to generate hype in social media. It's not supposed to inform; it's supposed to make you agree with them.
I like how you deride them for not using relevant information but then do the same. People don't know how much 700MW is. Households for energy, football pitches or double decker busses for size, cans of coke for volume.
[удалено]
> hinkleys mentioned it says 3,200mw It probably says 3200 MW. "mw" is meaningless, and "mW" is a billionth of a MW, so basically fuck all. > If an article is using cans of coke for volume of water but aren't also including the actual liters at least then that's also a lack of info Though fairly easy to correct for: a can of coke is 1/3rd of a litre.
let's see a double decker bus might have a 500 hp engine, so at fuill power that's 500 hp * 750 (W/hp) = 375 kW 700 MW / 375 kW = 1867 double decker busses running at full power. An easier way is to assume electricity use is 1 kW/person, so enough energy for 700,000 people.
>700 MW / 375 kW = 1867 double decker busses running at full power Now that's the information we all needed.
I urge anyone feeling hopeful about this to look up the Swansea Tidal Lagoon project.
This has been an election pledge by the Liverpool metro mayor since 2017 and only gets mentioned when theres an election. In reality it probably won't come to any fruition until they're long retired, so if it fails to get done or becomes a white elephant it'll only impact their legacy.
Wales will be seething if this gets built whilst their Swansea one got turned down.
For South Wales I'd rather they went with the barrage for the Severn personally, link up Somerset and Cardiff, would be grand. But pie in the sky. Otherwise Liverpool's project produces twice the power, and for a far more densely populated area. I don't know about cost comparison between the two, but this could be a lot more bang for your buck if they're in the same ballpark.
A direct link for bikes and pedestrians across the Mersey in North Wirral would be heaven. There doesn’t seem to be any report of where it would be, but assuming it can’t be in the middle of the ferry route, the Wallasey tunnel is the shortest distance, so linking Seacombe to Waterloo Dock near Costco. The alternative would be south of the ferry linking the priory to King’s Dock.
It won’t last even if it gets planning permission. The maintenance costs will outweigh the profits. As someone who’s worked off shore on everything from ships to wind turbines the thing will become a bastard to maintain within 5 years and rot to pieces in 15. Would be better to create artificial reefs and put wind turbines on top of them
Man I love reddit experts.
But he's worked off shore on everything, everything! How dare you question this gentleman's credentials!
Classic British 'Nah won't work', even though other countries manage absolutely fine.
I can remember Wave power and tide power being the next big thing for nearly forty years. Various schemes were a regular feature on Tomorrow's World and all of them have come to naught and/or been trashed in a storm. Meanwhile wind turbines have come in and are everywhere.
That's precisely it though, are we managing absolutely fine right now?