Letters / 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.
“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
Become a member of Shetland News
Shetland News is asking its many readers to consider paying for membership to get additional features and services: -
- Remove non-local ads;
- Bookmark posts to read later;
- Exclusive curated weekly newsletter;
- Hide membership messages;
- Comments open for discussion.
If you appreciate what we do and feel strongly about impartial local journalism, then please become a member of Shetland News by either making a single payment, or setting up a monthly, quarterly or yearly subscription.
Already a member? Sign in to hide this message.
