Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption
 


       Downsizer Forum Index -> Energy Efficiency and Construction/Major Projects
Ty Gwyn

Tidal Lagoons.

This is the big news today,the Tidal Lagoon at Swansea is getting closer,the company has plans also for Cardiff,Newport and Colwyn Bay,Somerset and West Cumbria in future years.

The environmental impact study is now being processed,

The one thing that caught my ear was a quarry has already been purchased by the company to supply stone,in Cornwall,anyone know where?

There are very mixed thoughts on this scheme.
tahir

I'd rather that than an expansion of nuclear
Ty Gwyn

Funny you should mention Nuclear,
It was mentioned that when Hinkley Point and the other Nuclear power station is built,they are estimated to use all the cement in the UK,with nothing left for other building projects.
Nick

Given that the UK output of cement annually, would make around 50,000,000 cubic metres of concrete, It doesn't seem especially likely. Even a fag packet calculation seems to dispel that.
vegplot

Funny you should mention Nuclear,
It was mentioned that when Hinkley Point and the other Nuclear power station is built,they are estimated to use all the cement in the UK,with nothing left for other building projects.


Pub statistics.
Falstaff

That's interesting.

With Uk domestic cement production running at around 8.5 million tonnes, that's around 13,500,000 tonnes of CO2 a year Surprised

That's "fossil CO2" of course.
Ty Gwyn

So on balance,how much CO2 will be emitted for the construction of these barrages,ie.quarrying,cement and steel production?
Nick

Ask at The Miners Arms. They'll tell you what you want to know. Wink
Ty Gwyn

Ask at The Miners Arms. They'll tell you what you want to know. Wink


NO, i want to know what people Here think,that is ,if they know.
tahir

So on balance,how much CO2 will be emitted for the construction of these barrages,ie.quarrying,cement and steel production?

In isolation that won't mean much. You'll need to know how that compares with (say) a nuclear power plant of equivalent output, in the case of nuclear this would I'm guessing mean decomissioning and replacement, whereas the barrage should have a much longer life span. Comparing to gas or coal would mean the total CO2 output over the operating life.

I don't know if that data is freely available but it must exist for the government to be looking at this as a viable proposition
Nick

More fag packet maths. If Falstaff is right, and if uses the entire UK cement output, it'll create 13.5m tons of fossil CO2 (whatever fossil CO2 is). It claims to save around a quarter of a million tons each year, and have a life span of 120 years.

But, no idea what it'll actually take to build. All the plans are online. Must be straightforward to calculate.

Edit.
Quote:
What carbon emissions are created in the development of a lagoon?
The exact carbon footprint of creating the lagoon can only be identified once final designs and quantities of materials are confirmed. We estimate that the construction and installation of the lagoon will produce at least 642,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions during construction. Once operating, we estimate that the lagoon will save at least 236,000 tonnes of CO2 every year, which is roughly the same as the emissions produced by 81,000 cars. This means the lagoon will balance out the CO2 emissions produced during its construction to become carbon neutral within four years of its 120 year lifespan. After this the lagoon will be saving CO2 emissions.
Detailed information on the work carried out regarding carbon footprint and the sustainable aspects of the lagoon is provided in Volume 3 of the Environmental Statement, Appendix 5.1 Sustainability: carbon Balance, available here


http://tidallagoon.opendebate.co.uk/files/TidalLagoon/DCO_Application/6.4_5.1.PDF
tahir

This is from the lagoon website:

http://tidallagoon.opendebate.co.uk/files/TidalLagoon/DCO_Application/6.4_5.1.PDF
tahir

8.0
Carbon balance and hydroelectric schemes

8.0.0.1
If the estimated equivalent tonnage of carbon emitted during the construction of the Project is divided by the annual output 400GWh) an d the operational life of the plant (120years), then the gross normalised footprint (excluding credits for recycled material
at the end of life) of the Project’s generated electricity will be 14gCO2 e/kWh. This accords with the range given in the sources described above for run-of-river facilities.

The fact that it is slightly higher than the run-of-river figures is due to the larger volume of civil works required for the seawall, but unlike reservoir hydro projects with large impoundments there will not be any CO2 emissions from vegetation for a tidal lagoon plant.

8.0.0.2
Using the most comparable grid footprint factor of 445.48g CO2 e/kWh (see paragraph 6.0.0.1), the Project saves 431gCO2 e per kWh generated. This means that, after 1487GWh is generated, the Project will have saved the carbon that was emitted during, and
as a result of, its own manufacture and construction and will be emitted throughout its life-cycle, i.e. after adding operation. This generation will be achieved after approximately 3.1 per cent of its operational lifetime, or around 4 years.

8.0.0.3
After approximately 4 years therefore, the facility is likely to be ‘carbon neutral’, in that it will have saved the emissions that were created in its inception. The Project is a hydroelectric scheme generating energy derived from flowing water. The total
hydroelectric installed capacity in the UK at the end of 2011 was approximately 1676 megawatts, which is around 1.9% of the current total UK generating capacity and 14% of renewable electricity generation capacity. The UK currently (2011) generates about 1.5% (5,700 GWh) of its electricity from hydroelect
ric schemes. Hydroelectric energy uses proven and efficient technology; the most modern plants have energy conversion
efficiencies of 90% and above. Hydro has a typical load factor of 35 to 40% (Department of Energy and Climate Change website: https://www.gov.uk/harnessing-hydroelectric-power, accessed 14 January 2014: Harnessing Hydroelectric Power). In the remainder
of its life, it will therefore be an efficient formof energy generation continuing to saveemissions relative to the UK grid mix.
Nick

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn_383-carbon-footprint-electricity-generation.pdf compares a range of footprints. The tidal barrage/lagoon is mentioned, but figures are very woolly.

It also sounds like the nuclear figures tend not to include dealing with waste and decommissioning.
Nick

But, this is why it gets my vote.

http://tidallagoon.opendebate.co.uk/files/TidalLagoon/Project_introduction_to_Tidal_Lagoon_Swansea_Bay.pdf

Page 20.
tahir

What? Are you the man standing on the wall? Nick

I think anyone who uses Family Guy in a public consultation or PR document deserves a prize. I imagine they show Homer running Hinkley C in other brochures. tahir

Ah, don't watch peurile stuff like that, I'm mature and sensible; Yogi Bear, TopCat, stuff like that... dpack

if the lagoon system becomes carbon 0 compared to lower input ,higher output during its useable life span tis better than burning fossil stuff .

decommissioning issues are always hidden by mr burns(the ponds ,tanks and assorted "oozes"at sellafield ,hanford etc etc are still providing surprises for instance)dont even think about the former soviet union .
ps the beach at dounray still has quite a few metal particles and the many tons of plutonium have been hidden away from reprocessing and the fast breeder experiments is ,at a guess, enough to keep a death star in bombs for ever(500 tons is a educated lower end estimate)a 5 meg bomb needs maybe 20 kg if you have a few other exotic substances .

compared to fukashima or tank b37 a few minced fish and some changes of river/estuary hydrology/ecology is fine by me

extracting energy from moving water is very green compared to everything else
vegplot

Ah, don't watch peurile stuff like that, I'm mature and sensible; Yogi Bear, TopCat, stuff like that...

Top Cat certainly.
Ty Gwyn

Interesting info there on the Swansea project,which is the small child in this lagoon family,the Bridgewater project is a whopper.

As i mentioned earlier the report on Radio Wales[not the Miner`s Arms]lol.stated that this company had acquired a quarry in Cornwall for its stone,which the above info said would be delivered by sea,
Whether the other projects would also be acquiring the stone from this quarry as well is not clear,but the amount of stone needed for the Swansea project alone was estimated at near on 200,000,000 by an engineer who had previously worked on a local break water ,that is some big chunk out of Cornwall without the other projects .
dpack

200 mil t is a moderate sized mountain

like this one

tis quite a nice ex industrial area but i can see the advantages of the location and the geology is ideal.

if it was for swimming pool curbstones for california or fancy facings for portcullis house from a scheduled ancient monument i might disapprove but this big hole could be made nice by the time they finish perhaps even becoming a feature that brings a long term benefit to the area
dpack

a primary driving force behind the national infrastructure plan is foundation x as mentioned in hansard .the probable identity of fx is chas windsor which sort of fits with the quarry location Rolling Eyes

i can get the references for that Wink column 1536 onwards

here

the possible identities of F x is a very short list if these characteristics extracted from hansard are true;
it has historical longevity
it is very well resourced in terms of transferable assets
it is very private
it takes a long term view as to britain’s best interests

imho the most plausible candidate is the royals , especially if the “firm”was under the influence of chas.
dpack

that might also explain the considerable effort being put into undermining chas as mr burns and the fracking sisters would have good reason to try to avoid a major switch to tidal schemes. Nick

Interesting info there on the Swansea project,which is the small child in this lagoon family,the Bridgewater project is a whopper.

As i mentioned earlier the report on Radio Wales[not the Miner`s Arms]lol.stated that this company had acquired a quarry in Cornwall for its stone,which the above info said would be delivered by sea,
Whether the other projects would also be acquiring the stone from this quarry as well is not clear,but the amount of stone needed for the Swansea project alone was estimated at near on 200,000,000 by an engineer who had previously worked on a local break water ,that is some big chunk out of Cornwall without the other projects .

The Bridgwater bay one is bigger, to the tune of about ten times, in terms of production, but I'm not sure how much more structure is needed, because the Swansea one is essentially a five mile long loop, but the Bridgwater one links two corners of land, perhaps 12-15 miles apart. So, yes, much more stone, but much, much more electricity. And it'll stop Bridgwater flooding. Still,can't have everything.
tahir

Still,can't have everything.

Why not?
vegplot

200 mil t is a moderate sized mountain

like this one

tis quite a nice ex industrial area but i can see the advantages of the location and the geology is ideal.

if it was for swimming pool curbstones for california or fancy facings for portcullis house from a scheduled ancient monument i might disapprove but this big hole could be made nice by the time they finish perhaps even becoming a feature that brings a long term benefit to the area

Let us not forget Stonehenge.

Return of the stone plus backdated interest.
john of wessex

Will they find Terry Walsh's body? dpack

more info and links

about the quarry for the stone

the locals have some points and a fair bit of understandable nimby concerns,it is a nice but if they had drax in the petcoke days or sellafield on their doorstep they would be even less happy

they seem to have missed several interesting field marks that are worth running geophys over and perhaps digging while they can be dug

if it was not for the greater good i might give em a hand objecting but i approve of tidal and it is basically a few fields and a wood,nice fields and wood but not unique afai can tell.

once the job is done and a few decades have passed they will have a nice lagoon and some interesting cliffs,short term it will be messy .

maybe if they got free leccy for ever or a good price for their home they might cheer up a bit about the idea .i recon there is scope to pay the locals quite well out of 200 mil tons which is a possible yield from inside the big red line .

i do know me quarries and some need stopping Wink,
some are the least awful solution to a problem .

i spose the alternative is to fetch a scottish or scandinavian island but the same sort of things apply and it is a longer journey.

the anti campaign will have to find a more compelling set of reasons than they have before i change my mind about this quarry .

i would prefer if the barrages were
owned by the citizens but i spose we could nationalise em once they are built Laughing
dpack

it would seem that quite a few objections are from holiday home owners but the locals might be disappointed as that sort of quarry needs few unskilled workers or even skilled ones as they do use really huge machines .
there will probably be a couple of hundred on site jobs ranging from manager to grease boy and most of those will be specialists in using big quarry equipment and technical ones like bang men and geologists.i estimate about 50 non specialist admin and service jobs that might employ some locals.
       Downsizer Forum Index -> Energy Efficiency and Construction/Major Projects
Page 1 of 1
Home Home Home Home Home