Dear Cheshire Wildlife Trust member/supporter,
You may have read in the media recently about Peel Energy Ltd’s plans to construct a tidal energy structure in the Mersey estuary to generate renewable energy. Although Cheshire Wildlife Trust has urged Peel to consider less environmentally damaging technologies, their current shortlist of options focuses on the use of barrage systems. Tidal barrages are typically large dams incorporating turbines, that hold back or ‘impound’ a large volume of water, and then release it through the turbines to generate energy. In the case of a tidal barrage, it may be necessary to impound water within an estuary - in contrast to the natural tidal flow, reducing available areas of mud used by feeding birds.
The Trust is concerned about potential damage to the finely-balanced estuary ecosystem of the Mersey, through the use of a technology that is largely untested with regard to potential impacts on wildlife. Similar, small-scale projects elsewhere in the world have however, had damaging effects on estuary ecosystems, and environmental impacts were one of a number of concerns over the recent £30billion Severn barrage proposals shelved by the Government last year.
The Wildlife Trusts support the need to move towards ‘green energy’ to meet the Government’s ambitious, but necessary, targets for 15% of UK energy from renewable sources by 2020 – but striving to meet these targets should not be at a cost to the very wildlife and habitats we are seeking to safeguard from the effects of climate change.
There will be strong economic arguments put forward in support of the project, however we must fully understand the impacts of such a scheme in the long-term, both in terms of potential damage to an internationally-recognised wetland, and also aspects such as flood management. Can we justify such a high cost to a natural icon of the north-west, without knowing the consequences?
It is likely that any barrage scheme will affect the flow and dynamics of the estuary ecosystem, and Peel have recognised that the Mersey’s Special Protection Area (SPA) – a level of protection for birds at a European level, must be considered. We will not fully understand the potential damage to the estuary though until a full ecological assessment has been undertaken.
Peel Energy are hoping to have a preferred option by March 2011. They have said whichever option they choose, they will introduce measures to reduce the damage to the Mersey Estuary, but whatever they do, there may still be a significant reduction in the intertidal habitats, and the amount of time the remaining areas will be exposed for birds to feed on them.
Peel are asking for comments on their stage 2 report before 21 January 2011. The report can be found here
You can make your views known by commenting on their website or by email.
Peel Energy Ltd are also organising a series of community consultation events. If you can make any of these events, please do go along and ask them questions, such as:
1. Why have they discounted various options for technical and financial reasons, but have not discounted any for ecological reasons?
2. How will they assess the ecological impacts of each option?
3. Have they fully considered the impacts on flood risk as a similar barrage in the Netherlands seriously increased flood risk.
4. You could ask about the carbon budget, and if construction or carbon locked-up in estuarine sediments have been factored in.
5. Why they are not waiting for emerging technologies that may be able to harness energy without having a serious ecological impact? A technology known as SMEC (Spectral Mass Energy Converter) appears to have been dropped despite promising energy returns and reduced ecological impacts.
Dr. Janel Fone
Charlotte Harris
No comments:
Post a Comment