Tidal bridge warning

I notice that the mooted Bluemull tidal power “bridge” is to use new technology developed in South Korea. It would be interesting to know which tidal power plant in that country Mr Ian Johnstone refers to (Firm eyes up Bluemull tidal power bridge; SN, 31/03/14).

If perchance it is the Sihwa barrage, opened in 2011, then before everyone gets too excited about the Bluemull project, it may be worth reading the following report – even if the scale of the farms and the ecosystems involved differ: http://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-special-reports/south-koreas-plans-for-tidal-power-when-a-green-solution-creates-more-problems/#axzz2xj1MaDap, in which the authors conclude:

“As technology advances it would seem prudent for South Korea to rethink the large-scale tidal barrage. The United Kingdom’s rejection of the Severn Barrage shows that today’s technologies do not necessarily minimize environmental impacts and produce an economically viable project, even with a benefit as great as obtaining five percent of the nation’s energy from a single renewable source.

“New technologies for ocean energy—tidal power, wave power, and current power—are being researched around the world, and as technologies develop, perhaps a different technology or scale for tidal power could meet South Korea’s demands in the future.

“If the genuine intent of “green growth” is to minimize environmental impacts while promoting economic growth, a more appropriate solution than building a few large projects (especially in fragile and critical ecosystems) could be a distributed system of micro-scale generation, combined with subsidizing energy conservation or other forms of demand-side management.

“For example, given similar conflicts in desert ecosystems, the United States Bureau of Land Management and six southwestern state governments recently implemented new regulations on large-scale facilities for solar energy (“solar farms”), to minimize habitat loss and to mitigate harmful environmental impacts.

“In order to resolve conflicts among apparently green policies, South Korea and other countries should consider implementing regulations to protect wildlife habitat from large-scale energy development, even when the energy itself is renewable or non-polluting.

Help keep Shetland’s news open to everyone

Good local journalism takes time, care and people on the ground. Membership helps us keep reporting the stories that matter to Shetland — and keep them free for everyone to read. Members get a weekly newsletter created especially for them, local ads only, and can bookmark stories and join the conversation in the comments.

Already a member? Sign in.

£3 per month Billed on or shortly after the 24th of each month. Cancel anytime. £5 per month Billed on or shortly after the 24th of each month. Cancel anytime. £10 per month Billed on or shortly after the 24th of each month. Cancel anytime. Choose another amount Explore all membership options. Choose between monthly, quarterly, annual or one-off payments.

Continue Back to article

 

“It will take immediate attention and decisive action to mitigate global climate change, but urgency should be no excuse for hasty decisions that overlook more serious trade-offs. If South Korea continues its rush to build these tidal power plants, it will not be living up to its own stated “green” goals.

“When assessing future proposed projects, related to tidal power or not, South Korea should consider a wider range of alternatives, use more comprehensive methods of evaluation (e.g. ecological accounting and life-cycle assessment), allow time for thorough review by the local community and by relevant experts, and fairly address any suggestions or criticisms. In South Korea and in every nation, sustainable energy policies will emerge only if scientists, planners, policymakers, and everyday citizens alike recognize that not all “greens” are equal.”

James Mackenzie
The Lea
Tresta