...

I'm opposed unless it unlocks other improvements, such as a river crossing. Why should we give our assets away to the country for no return, especially as the country has been so mean in tolling our esturial crossings.

.....

The crown estate owns the river down that way. I don't believe it's Peel.

Anyway, if we are really serious about becoming a green energy centre then these are the kind of projects we have to get behind.

Its also the type of project we should be seeing some return and benefit for the city, a percentage of any profits going towards projects within the city perhaps? obviously never happen but would be nice.

....

....

....

I'm having difficulty visualising a barrage that stretches from Dingle to Garston. Surely that is a promenade?

....

What are the chances of a new cross-river road or even light rail system on the top of this barrage?

If this became a barrage with a tolled road on the top of it, it could compete with the Mersey tunnels, hopefully uncutting them and forcing tolls down....or at the very least offering an alternative choice of route. The very worst that could happen is an identical toll, which could help offset some of the capital costs of building the barrage.

(before anyone accuses me of hypocracy, I am against public bodies funded by tax payers charging to use what should be, in my opinion, a completely free road....a private company building a tolled road on it's own infastructure, with money from it's own coffers is a completely different thing and I would welcome MT having some competition).

....

Would a barrage from New Brighton to Bootle not work?

Ideally, we need a walkable bridge between the Pier Head and Birkenhead to link the two commercial centres into one and fully integrate Birkenhead and Wallasey into the city.

My understanding is it needs to be either at New Ferry, or at the north at New Brighton.

Anywhere in between is apparently not feasible due to the way the river runs (something to do with it being shallower and therefore more energy being channelled through at those two particular points.

If the barrage was at the north of the river it would of course interfere considerably with shipping.

http://www.severnestuary.net/sep/pdfs/ecsa/36dwaston.pdf has some information.

What are the chances of a new cross-river road or even light rail system on the top of this barrage?
If this became a barrage with a tolled road on the top of it, it could compete with ....
I believe that is not practical. The costs of enhancing a barrage to accommodate an all-weather highway compromises the design of both and ends up more expensive than building each separately. It might, just might, be feasible for a very broad and shallow crossing such as Chesapeake Bay or Ijsselmeer but not for the Mersey.

On the other hand a fair-weather, lightly-travelled crossing, closed whenever shipping needs to pass and used primarily as a leisure or tourist attraction is entirely feasible. Just don't hope for 365/24/7 operation.

... or at the north at New Brighton.
... If the barrage was at the north of the river it would of course interfere considerably with shipping.
Yes, huge locks would be needed.

However,
(1) New huge locks are entirely feasible, comparable with those at Panama canal.
(2) A New Brighton to Langton alignment need not affect shipping using the container port river entrance.
(3) A Northern barrage would improve, rather than damage, flood defenses.
(4) A Northern barrage would provide an opportunity to intelligently manage upstream water levels and salinity to the benefit of both commerce and wildlife.

The Dingle - New Ferry alignment is probably cheaper and more profitable if one ignores benefits to the public as contrasted with profits to the owner. Which is of course the modern political fashion.

In New Brighton there is a very vocal and determined NIMBY brigade who have, rightly or wrongly, managed to scupper many a potential project. Neptune have taken over a decade to get permission and acceptance for a massively compromised (from their point of view) scheme.

The people in North Wallasey were prepared to knock back 75 million pounds worth of investment.

This scheme would never be accepted in North Wallasey due to the huge changes it would make to what is a beautiful environment, the noise and the fact that it would ruin the view.

I don't believe that residents of Wirrals "rust belt", should have to suffer noise and compromised views either, but if there is to be a barrage, due to the already industrial nature of that part of the Wirral you would expect that it will be placed there....and I suspect Peel know this and that's why they aren't pushing for it to be further up river.

In New Brighton there is a very vocal and determined NIMBY brigade who have, rightly or wrongly, managed to scupper many a potential project. Neptune have taken over a decade to get permission and acceptance for a massively compromised (from their point of view) scheme.

The people in North Wallasey were prepared to knock back 75 million pounds worth of investment.

This scheme would never be accepted in North Wallasey due to the huge changes it would make to what is a beautiful environment, the noise and the fact that it would ruin the view.

I don't believe that residents of Wirrals "rust belt", should have to suffer noise and compromised views either, but if there is to be a barrage, due to the already industrial nature of that part of the Wirral you would expect that it will be placed there....and I suspect Peel know this and that's why they aren't pushing for it to be further up river.

You don't half like artificial geographies. You affiliate to a fantasy "Wirral" identity (when it's a collection of discrete suburbs like Hoylake, Heswall, Tranmere, Wallasey) and now you seem to be merging NB with Egremont and God Knows Where Else.......bits of Liscard and Wallasey Village..........!!!?!!!?!!!!?!!!!! into an artificial "North Wallasey" construct. "North Wallasey" indeed! Where did you get that from? Is it a new zone imposed by "Wirral" Council to denigrate the constituent towns of their artificial and unpopular composite "borough"?

.....

....

....

....

....

This is all very interesting and that,but you do realise that this will never happen dont you! The new Panama canal extension is costing in the region of $5 billion ,that kind of money spent here,outside of London,no chance.

Yes, huge locks would be needed.

However,
(1) New huge locks are entirely feasible, comparable with those at Panama canal.
(2) A New Brighton to Langton alignment need not affect shipping using the container port river entrance.
(3) A Northern barrage would improve, rather than damage, flood defenses.
(4) A Northern barrage would provide an opportunity to intelligently manage upstream water levels and salinity to the benefit of both commerce and wildlife.

The Dingle - New Ferry alignment is probably cheaper and more profitable if one ignores benefits to the public as contrasted with profits to the owner. Which is of course the modern political fashion.

(1) I guess new locks are 'feasible', in the sense that they could be constructed but we are talking about something on a massive scale - large enough to accommodate every cruise ship likely to use the landing stage (including the QM2) and every oil tanker to use Tranmere. That would not be cheap.

(2) Whilst a New Brighton to Langton river alignment should not affect shipping accessing the Seaforth Docks, or the proposed post-panamax terminal, it would affect practically everything else including the landing stage, Birkenhead Docks, Tranmere Oil Terminal, Twelve Quays and Cammell Laird, whereas the Dingle - New Ferry alignment would only affect the Port of Garston and the Manchester Ship Canal.

(3) The issue of flood defences needs more explanation. From the peelenergy site, it appears that power generation would only be on the ebb tide and so it would work by artificially impounding water upstream of the barrier. However, the Mersey is tidal downstream of Warrington and so the maximum water height will be determined by the highest tide, as it is at present (in fact, upstream of the barrier that maximum height should be lower because of the constricting effect of the barrier). The maximum height will also be affected by river water from the Mersey and its tributaries but that is spread over the vast area of the Mersey Estuary. In any event, a build up of water behind the barrier could surely be alleviated by spillways (the whole crest of the barrier could become a spillway as with some dams).

Obviously, downstream there would be no flood defence effect but that would be no worse than at present. In the event of a very high tide, the use of spillways would act to prevent a build up of water downstream of the barrier.

(4) Looking at the peelenergy site, they are claiming that the tidal mudflats upstream of the barrier would be above water level for 85% of the time that they are at present. I don't know the impact that would have on wildlife and I guess that it would be negative. However, I don't see why one further downstream would affect that figure either way.

I accept that the barrier could be used to control water levels upstream to make them more beneficial to shipping but surely that runs counter to the benefits to wildlife? Remember that the advantage would be reduced by the need to lock in and out of the Mersey.

It is not clear why an upstream barrier would be cheaper (apart from the need for massive locks) but it is also not clear why that would be more beneficial to the public.

The difference is that here there is no obvious benefit for the community, only loss. And for such a paltry energy gain!

I don't think that there would be any obvious local benefit apart from construction, operating and maintenance jobs. I guess that all of the electricity generated would be fed into the national grid and so the benefits would be spread over a much wider 'community'.

700MW may be 'paltry' when compared to say Fidders Ferry, which generates around 1,900MW but the 'community benefit' is that all that is done with no release of C02 (apart from during construction).

The first tidal power generator was at Rance in France and that generates only 240MW but generating costs are now less than that of nuclear. (It also carries a road over its crest - so there is the local community benefit).

I suppose that it all comes down to how serious we are about renewable energy. We continually talk about reducing C02 emissions but every attempt at doing that meets a barrage of criticism. Wind power is noisy, intermittent and visually intrusive and the proposed biomass generating station at Alexandra Dock would (according to some people) cause clouds of poisonous gas to be released across the city. That is why the nuclear option is so attractive but it is the most controversial of energy sources.

The point surely is that Liverpool Bay has one of the highest tidal ranges anywhere in the world and, if tidal power stations are to be built anywhere, then this is surely one of the best locations (the unusual shape of the Mersey Estuary is probably also a factor). The scheme will obviously require a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment and all of the issues regarding flooding, wildlife impact etc can be studied at length.

Such schemes need to be put within a masterplan, which considers not only energy generation but wider issues of transport, connectivity, economic development and environmental sustainability.

It is sadly typical of the NWDA to fund work (with Peel) that looks at this in isolation. I am very much with Jane on this, and in particular I don't think it's reasonable to simply plonk something in our River without considering not only the costs and benefits but also wider opportunities for community and economic benefit.

Such schemes need to be put within a masterplan, which considers not only energy generation but wider issues of transport, connectivity, economic development and environmental sustainability.

It is sadly typical of the NWDA to fund work (with Peel) that looks at this in isolation. I am very much with Jane on this, and in particular I don't think it's reasonable to simply plonk something in our River without considering not only the costs and benefits but also wider opportunities for community and economic benefit.

DM.

I can't believe that a major investment such as this would be just 'simply plonked in the river'. We do have planning processes, public inquiries, environmental impact assessments, hydrogeological studies etc etc.

As Peel own the Manchester Ship Canal and the Port of Liverpool, any intervention in the river that would be likely to affect these assets would impact on them directly.

....

...
(3) The issue of flood defences needs more explanation. From the peelenergy site, it appears that power generation would only be on the ebb tide and so it would work by artificially impounding water upstream of the barrier. ...
Presently large areas of Liverpool and Birkenhead are saved from storm surge flooding only by using the ship canal as an overflow to dump the brief excess.

Any barrier reduces flood risk upstream of it, and provided it is downstream of the ship canal entrance it increases flooding downstream by impeding the flow tide into the canal.

Given the coming global rise in sea level it is crucial that the Mersey gets improved sea defences. A barrage near New Ferry wastes the opportunity and does the opposite.

As to tidal power in Liverpool bay, lagoons are the way to go primarily because:
(1) The real estate available is suitable (high tidal range, moderate depth) and huge. Huge real estate means that a successful project can be replicated many times over.
(2) Lagoons do not impede principal shipping lanes.
There are other reasons, those are the most important ones.

DM.

I can't believe that a major investment such as this would be just 'simply plonked in the river'. We do have planning processes, public inquiries, environmental impact assessments, hydrogeological studies etc etc.

As Peel own the Manchester Ship Canal and the Port of Liverpool, any intervention in the river that would be likely to affect these assets would impact on them directly.

You carefully ignore the point I have made, so as to disagree. A masterplan is a multi-perspective plan that incorporates many dimensions and issues. The problem with the NWDA/Peel approach is that it does not.

Such major infrastructural investments need to be conceived within and developed within a wider masterplan. In that way the city region can reap the highest possible economic and environmental benefits from the investment.

We have an absence of strategic planning for the city regional level, which is why such itty-bitty schemes can be pursued. (No doubt you will reply: DM i cannot believe that this can be called "itty bitty,,,,,it would involve xm tonnes of concrete etc etc).......

You carefully ignore the point I have made, so as to disagree. A masterplan is a multi-perspective plan that incorporates many dimensions and issues. The problem with the NWDA/Peel approach is that it does not.

Such major infrastructural investments need to be conceived within and developed within a wider masterplan. In that way the city region can reap the highest possible economic and environmental benefits from the investment.

We have an absence of strategic planning for the city regional level, which is why such itty-bitty schemes can be pursued. (No doubt you will reply: DM i cannot believe that this can be called "itty bitty,,,,,it would involve xm tonnes of concrete etc etc).......

DM i cannot believe that this can be called 'itty bitty,,,,,it would involve xm tonnes of concrete etc etc.....

DM i cannot believe that this can be called 'itty bitty,,,,,it would involve xm tonnes of concrete etc etc.....

:lol:

Presently large areas of Liverpool and Birkenhead are saved from storm surge flooding only by using the ship canal as an overflow to dump the brief excess.

Any barrier reduces flood risk upstream of it, and provided it is downstream of the ship canal entrance it increases flooding downstream by impeding the flow tide into the canal.

Given the coming global rise in sea level it is crucial that the Mersey gets improved sea defences. A barrage near New Ferry wastes the opportunity and does the opposite.

As to tidal power in Liverpool bay, lagoons are the way to go primarily because:
(1) The real estate available is suitable (high tidal range, moderate depth) and huge. Huge real estate means that a successful project can be replicated many times over.
(2) Lagoons do not impede principal shipping lanes.
There are other reasons, those are the most important ones.

I'm going into uncharted territory with this one Holly but I would question some of these assertions of yours.

For one, I understand that there would be an extension of the MSC to the downstream side of the barrier. That may be for the storm surge reasons you suggest but mainly I would imagine because Peel do not want to obstruct their major inland artery.

Secondly, I find it hard to believe that the capacity of the MSC (considering that it is practically full of water at all times) would add much to that of the estuary when you consider how huge the estuary is in comparison.

Storm surges are not the same threat to Liverpool as they are to London due to the fact that the expanse of sea over which the wind can pile up the water is that much less (consider the size of the Irish Sea in comparison to the North Sea).

Given the MSC extension, only the Port of Garston shipping lane would be affected.

....

You are talking of the river as merely a resource - in capitalistic and utilitarian terms. The river, downstream, is a thing of beauty and inspiration; a haven for birds; a sea-side experience for urban children; a wonderful asset for our city and its people.

Jane, I'm not oblivious to those issues and I was one of those 'urban children' who used to enjoy trips down to Otterspool. Come to think of it, the river was much more polluted in those days and, where the Garden Festival site is now we had the old Dingle Oil Terminal. It has been the work of engineers and other technologists (backed up by money of course) that has delivered us the haven for birds and other wildlife that we now enjoy.

I could throw this accusation back at you and say that you are the one looking at this in simply capitalistic terms. There seems to be revulsion at the idea that Peel would be making money out of generating electricity, as if making money in Liverpool was a criminal offence (fortunately, this is a crime that is pretty well under control).

We all use electricity and, if we are concerned about man made global warming, then it makes perfect sense to me that we investigate renewable sources of energy. The Mersey has a very high tidal range and so it is a clear contender for a tidal power station. If that can help stimulate the economy of the region as well, then all well and good.

(3) The issue of flood defences needs more explanation. From the peelenergy site, it appears that power generation would only be on the ebb tide and so it would work by artificially impounding water upstream of the barrier. However, the Mersey is tidal downstream of Warrington and so the maximum water height will be determined by the highest tide, as it is at present (in fact, upstream of the barrier that maximum height should be lower because of the constricting effect of the barrier). The maximum height will also be affected by river water from the Mersey and its tributaries but that is spread over the vast area of the Mersey Estuary. In any event, a build up of water behind the barrier could surely be alleviated by spillways (the whole crest of the barrier could become a spillway as with some dams).

Obviously, downstream there would be no flood defence effect but that would be no worse than at present. In the event of a very high tide, the use of spillways would act to prevent a build up of water downstream of the barrier.

Historically (well before Wallasey pool was turned into the docks), there was talk of filtering flood waters into specific channels to create a cross Wirral canal link, linking the Dee straight to the Mersey.

Obviously thats north of the proposed site, but I wonder if there would be scope (or even a real need) to create water channels to extend the Manchester Ship Canal from Eastham....linking this Northwards to Wirral Waters, as part of Peel's overall stra lockstegy to create a water based entertainments fascility?

http://www.2eimages.co.uk/places/wirral/eastham.jpg

I'm taking this with a massive pinch of salt. How many tidal schemes are on the go in the UK at the moment? None. Any recently knocked back? Yeh-ah: the Severn one.

How many schemes have there been for developments in the river? Too many. How many have been realised to date? None.

Of course, change has to occur sometime but unless this scheme improves connectivity between both sides of the water and offers more than just electricity I can't see it happening.

If we want cheap, reliable electricity we should invest in nuclear power stations.

engageliverpool.com say there are 2 public exhibitions for this project.
Thu 16 Dec 12-6 Bluecoats
Sat 15 Jan 10-2 Britannia Inn

Study finds £3.5bn Mersey barrage 'too costly'
22 June 2011

http://renews.biz/images/news_images/Mersey%20Ports%20Aerial.jpg

A 700MW tidal barrage scheme in the Mersey Estuary would be feasible but the high £3.5bn construction costs mean it is unlikely to go ahead, a new study shows.

Following months of investigations a preferred scheme has been identified by Peel Energy and the Northwest Development Agency.

The tidal barrage would stretch from New Ferry on the Wirral to Dingle in Liverpool and is designed to generate power from a range of different water levels, with an annual output of 920GWh. The chosen location benefits from a narrow span and exploits about 80% of the estuary’s energy resource.

Anthony Hatton, Peel Energy’s Development Director, said that in the long term, after the initial capital costs have been paid off, the price of electricity for its 120 year life would be very competitive, “but the preferred scheme is unlikely to attract the necessary investment while the emphasis in the financial sector and renewable energy incentives is on technologies that provide short to medium term returns”.

Hatton added: “Peel Energy will not be progressing the development work until it has confidence in the financial and regulatory framework for tidal power.”

Source: reNews Europe (http://renews.biz/story.php?page_id=71&news_id=391)

http://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/assets/_files/cached/img/402x289.44/jan_10/pnw__1263832132_Wirral_Coast.jpg

Peel shelves plans for river electricity generator
23 Jun 2011, 09:37

Proposals for a £3.5bn Mersey Tidal Power project aimed at generating enough electricity from the river estuary for over 200,000 homes have been put on hold.

A feasibility study led jointly by a consulting team comprising Scott Wilson, Drivers Jonas and EDF, on behalf of Peel Energy and the North West Development Agency, was carried out on proposals for a barrage across the River Mersey, between New Ferry in Wirral and Dingle in Liverpool.

The scheme was designed so that the turbines within the barrage would generate power in two ways, from ebb tides only as well as from ebb and flood tides, and from a range of water level differences across the barrage.

Peel said the choice of scheme allowed for flexible, managed operations that would minimise effects on the Mersey's protected intertidal habitats.

Peel said multiple navigation locks would need to be included to accommodate large commercial ships and small leisure craft. Other facilities that could be included in the scheme included a visitor centre, a pedestrian and cycle path, a light public transport link and a tidal turbine research centre.

However, Peel said studies have found that the estimated £3.5bn upfront construction costs result in a cost of electricity that is not competitive in the current energy and capital markets.

Anthony Hatton, Peel Energy's development director, said: "In the longer term, once the upfront capital costs have been paid off and for the rest of its 120 year life, the cost of electricity would be very competitive. But the preferred scheme is unlikely to attract the necessary investment while the emphasis in the financial sector and renewable energy incentives is on technologies that provide short to medium term returns. We need to identify an appropriate funding structure that recognises the long term low cost of electricity, security of supply and wider economic benefits that investments such as this provide for future generations."

Peel Energy said it will not be progressing the development work until it has confidence in the financial and regulatory framework for tidal power.

Hatton added: "We are grateful for all the valuable contributions made by many organisations and individuals to the feasibility study. We welcome feedback on the reports and look forward to progressing the project in the future."

Mark Atherton, head of energy and environment at the NWDA, said: "The feasibility work has provided a valuable insight into how tidal energy schemes could be operated in the future to deliver wider economic impact, whilst minimising the potential environmental impact. Some of the lessons learnt from the work undertaken are applicable not just to the Mersey Estuary, but to other estuaries in the North West and UK."

Source: Place North West (http://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/news/archive/9359-peel-shelves-plans-for-river-electricity-generator.html)

A barrage from Dingle to Rock Ferry is rather silly. Bootle to New Brighton? Yes.

A barrage from Dingle to Rock Ferry is rather silly. Bootle to New Brighton? Yes.

Sorry that may be obvious to you but could you explain your thinking for the less well informed. Thanks

Sorry that may be obvious to you but could you explain your thinking for the less well informed. Thanks

It locks in the river. Expensive river locks can be done away with. Berths can be anywhere in the river. Ships can come and go anytime. The river can be used more for leisure craft. The barrage ca be a also a rail/road bridge.

.....

Based on energy considerations alone the preferred Mersey Barrage makes poor economic sense at today's oil prices and today's long term interest rates.

A Mersey Barrage only makes sense when other benefits, such as flood and environmental control, are factored in. Unlike downstream, or for that matter, upstream options a New Ferry to Dingle alignment offers few or no other benefits and would be an eyesore. For those reasons it is good that it is not going ahead.