News | Subscribe News

A super canal from Scotland to London could help solve water scarcity

 
Proposed Super-Canal from Scotland to London

Proposed super-canal from Scotland to London aims to help the dry south meet water demands and provide employment opportunities along the way. Photograph: Ian Dagnall/Alamy

 

Powered by Guardian.co.ukThis article titled “A super canal from Scotland to London could help solve water scarcity” was written by Mike Scott, for theguardian.com on Friday 13th December 2013 15.11 UTC

The Chancellor’s autumn statement earlier this month contained lots of proposals to boost spending on infrastructure but, not surprisingly, canals did not feature highly.

One man thinks it should have. David Weight, associate director at engineering consultants Aecom, has proposed a multi-purpose canal stretching from the Scottish border to the outskirts of London. The waterway could provide a number of sustainability services right along its length.

The main one would be transporting water from the north to the south. The south east of England is both one of the driest and the most populous region in the UK, while eastern England is even drier and its agriculture sector requires lots of water for irrigation. By 2030, the UK needs to produce 50% more food than it does today, according to the government, and we will need 30% more fresh water. In the longer term, the canal could be extended north of the border to give access to Scottish water as well.

“This is a concept that should be looked at seriously,” added Paul Hammett, national water specialist at the National Farmers Union. “In the long term, we have a real challenge in finding enough water to be able to continue to grow our food.”

The idea is not new – in 1942 JF Pownall proposed a Grand Contour Canal that would use gravity to transport water from one end of the country to the other, avoiding the need to use expensive and energy-intensive pumping equipment.

Transporting water without the need for pumping is one of the key features of Weight’s scheme, and he claims the canal would be more efficient and more resilient than smaller-scale, piecemeal water transfer projects..

Weight acknowledged “there could be major problems with obstruction, crossings and planning,” but pointed out that the canal could be used for a number of other purposes, ranging from flood relief to tourism. These include putting a high voltage cable underneath the canal to transport another of Scotland’s plentiful resources – renewable energy – to the south east’s centres of demand. As well as saving money by providing an alternative to undersea cables, it would also make the cables secure against metal thefts, allow them to be water-cooled, avoid having to put them in the corrosive marine environment and keep the cables out of sight while still having easy access to them, Weight asserted.

The canal could also carry data cables, which would allow data centres to be sited in Scotland where they could make use of the country’s wind and hydro-electric power, as well as having to spend less on power to keep their servers cool because of the lower temperatures at higher latitudes.

And with Drax, Britain’s largest power station, planning to convert three of its coal-fired generating units to run on biomass, the canal can help there, too. “It would be ideal for transporting biomass from northern Scotland, where there is a big afforestation programme, to Drax, Eggborough and Ratcliffe on Soar power stations, helping them to cut their emissions,” Weight said.

The waterway could also act as a conduit for district heating, using waste heat from those same power stations and it could even help to reduce flooding by acting as a run-off in times of heavy rainfall, said Christopher Cook, senior research fellow of the Institute for Security and Resilience at University College London.

The canal remains a proposal at the moment, and a number of further studies are needed to establish the various business cases. The scheme would certainly not be cheap – Aecom estimates that a 10m-15m-wide canal would cost somewhere between £12bn and £20bn. “Funding is a big challenge,” said Simon Bamford, head of water at the Canal and River Trust. “And of course, this is something that would cut through communities and the countryside.”

We have already seen the opposition to large-scale projects with the HS2 rail scheme, but Cook believes that a canal scheme could face less opposition. “People do not want to live next to HS2, Runway 3 (at Heathrow) or the M99, but they do want to live next to water.” The canal would provide tourism and recreation benefits as well as acting as a haven for wildlife and biodiversity. And while one of the reasons people oppose HS2 is the threat of a fall in house prices, a canal, by contrast, may lift land values, Weight said.

 

Pages: 1 2

Comments are closed.

Trending Posts

Jobs