A curious plan for a body charged with maintaining sea defences.

Environment Agency Plan For Tendring Coastline By 2105

Different colours are drawn on different sections of the coast.  The table to the right of the map lists what they all mean.

Basically anything which is not green is not guaranteed to be defended.

The purple intrigues me – it represents

Hold the line/managed realignment

Managed realignment means knocking down the sea walls.

Hold the line means maintaining the sea walls.

It is entirely unclear to me how you can have both “Hold the line” and “Managed Realignment”

Either the plan is

We haven’t decided yet (not much of plan is it)

or

We don’t want to tell you yet

Tendring District Council has been announcing they have nearly secured £22million from EA to fund rebuilding the sea wall and groynes at Clacton and Holland-on-Sea.

This may well be true.

Yet I have a big problem accepting that EA will fund upgrading sea defences at Clacton and Holland, whilst paying for knocking them down immediately to north and south.

I can see the coastline stretching from Brightlingsea to Manningtree whilst Clacton/Holland and Frinton/Walton become (sinking) islands.

The yellow and blue drawn around the Naze and Quay lane in Kirby le Soken means it is now GOVERNMENT policy to either let these areas be flooded, or to actively knock down the sea wall to ensure they are.

And just in case anyone has forgotten this is all based on DEFRA projections which are in turned based on IPCC predictions of global warming.

And if global warming isn’t happening there is no basis for Environment Agency’s shoreline management plan other than wanton destruction.

It would be nice if local councillors and members of parliament were actively fighting this plan instead of just accepting it as a done deal.

How does this show CO2 does not change temperature.

The green line shows temperature

Then red line shows CO2

The rises and falls in the green line (temperature) COME BEFORE the rises and falls in the red line (CO2).

So changes in CO2 FOLLOW changes in temperature.  One might almost think changes in CO2 are caused by changes in temperature.

The best thing about the graph is it was drawn at WoodForTrees.org so you can draw it yourself. Here’s the processing steps.

And just to make it a bit clearer

And if you really can’t face setting the parameters yourself just put this in your browser

www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.25/plot/hadcrut3vgl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958

or even simpler click on the link!

Climate sensitivity is something like how much temperature changes with a doubling of CO2 concentration.

The implication is changes in CO2 concentration changes temperature.

But if CO2 concentration FOLLOWS changes in temperature climate sensitivity is meaningless, one might as well look at how CO2 concentrations change with change in FTSE100 or length of skirts.

You can watch Piers explain his ideas in more detail

And download the slides of Piers talk.  On pages 12 to 16 of the slides Piers discusses a cycle of about 60 years in climate data.

The 2 Bob’s talk about a strong correlation in the NINO3.4 sea surface temperature record when comparing 1883 to 1899 v 2004 to 2013.

The periods being compared are 121 years apart,  nearly 2 x 60.

Here is Bob Tisdales chart

In a different post Bob gives a link to the source of data

www.cdc.noaa.gov/Pressure/Timeseries/Data/nino34.long.data

So I downloaded the data to see if I could reproduce the chart. Here are the tools I used, and here is my version of Bob’s graph.  I found a correlation of 0.83.

I’m not quite sure why Bob plotted from 1883 to 1990, 17 years, as there are only 9 years from Jan 2004 to Dec 2012.

I also wondered if there was a correlation with somewhere around 1944, which would fit in with Piers approximate 60 year cycle.  I found a correlation of 0.57 when comparing Jan 1943 to Dec 1951, not so strong as with 1883-1891 but still significant.  If you doubt this download the data and try different periods, you’ll find the correlation soon drops away if you move one of the comparison periods just a few months.

Finding a 60 year cycle (approx) in climate data is nothing new.  Hockeyschtick reported on a paper last year which found a 60 year cycle in sea levels, and Piers’ slides I mentioned earlier discuss various 60 year cycles.

As 60 year cycles can be explained in terms of the Sun and Moon it is nice to see there are indeed observed 60 year effects in temperature data.

Using correlations is not the usual way of looking for cycles, but it is something which is much more accessible to people with out a science/maths/engineering background.  And the graphs of cycles can be understood by just about anyone.

My mum is nearly 90 and if I were to waffle on about fourier analysis she’d probably say something like

“Yes dear what would you like for tea? I’m  just going out now so you’ll have to get your own“

But I  reckon if I showed her the graphs and talked about repeating patterns caused by the movement of Sun and Moon she’d understand and might even be interested.

If you have a story to tell, surely it’s best to tell it in ways which mean as many people as possible can grasp?

And I nearly forgot to say.

With all this  global warming and climate change going on it’s kind of hard to see how you would get nearly the same pattern in sea surface temperatures 121 years after 1883.  Especially with the exponentially increasing world temperatures caused by the huge increase in human emissions of CO2.

You’d almost think that things are muddling along pretty much like they were over a century ago.

In 2011 I posted photographs of beaches and groynes at Frinton, Walton, Holland and Clacton, to show there were good beaches where there were good groynes and bad beaches where the groynes had been left to decay (at Holland and Clacton north of the pier).

Here are photographs of 2 locations at Holland, taken at in October 2011 and April 2013.

It seems to be the level of sand has risen at least 6 inches, maybe a foot.  What do you think?

location 1 October 2011

April 2013

location 2 October 2011

location 2 April 2013

Despite the local paper carrying a story of falling sand level in Walton, the sand at Fisherman’s point near Frinton is extremely high.

Bear in mind this is the wall that Environment Agency want to knock down!

There are no groynes to be seen in the above photograph.  As the Environment Agency are responsible for the coast between Frinton and Holland-on-Sea, I guess they must have destroyed them.  No doubt they didn’t want to spend money maintaining groynes where they plan to knock down the sea wall.

In any case EA believe groynes don’t work.  Which makes it kind of hard to believe EA will fund building groynes at Holland and Clacton, especially if they have to stump up £22million.

Groynes do work.

Here is a photograph at the southern end of the whalings, looking north.  This is a stretch of coast maintained by Tendring District Council.  The level of sand is clearly several feet higher to the north of the groyne compared to the south (in EA bit).

They say if you tell people something often enough, then people will belief it.

Personally I prefer to believe the evidence of my own eyes.

You can clearly see the sand is level by the groyne.

But in this picture taken on 2 January 2013, there is a pool on either side of the groyne where there are missing boards.

Conclusion – not maintaining groynes leads to the sea washing sand way.

In the January photo you can see the bottom of the rails are several steps from the sand (4 I think). But in this photo taken on 20 April 2013,  the bottom of the rail is only on step from the sand. So either

• Someone has altered the rail
• The level of the sand has risen

It would be curious if the level of sand has risen as the local press recently ran a story about residents in Walton contacting the council to ask where their sand had gone.

Perhaps the increase in sand (assuming no one has altered the rail) is due to repairing the groyne.

The level of sand has fallen in Walton as you can clearly see by comparing photos I took in 2012 and last week.

In 2012 by the coastguard station sand was almost up to the top of the groynes and sea wall.

April 2013 and the level of sand has clearly dropped by the sea wall, although a few feet from the wall the sand is as high as it was last year.

A bit further south, by Standley Road

2012 looking north

2012 looking south

April 2013 looking north

The level of the sand has clearly fallen.

And guess what there’s an unrepaired groyne.  I wonder if there is a connection.

By groyne 84 at EastCliff the level of sand doesn’t seem to have changed.  In fact there is still grass growing by the steps.

I wonder if this is because groyne 84 is a much

• higher
• longer
• and better maintained groyne

 Holland and Clacton

Tendring District Council stopped maintaining the groynes from Holland Haven to Clacton Pier in 2009 and don’t plan to do anything until 2015 at the earliest.

I wonder if there will be any sand left there at all by 2015.

Colwyn Bay

As I wrote this, Sky News had a story of £6million being spent on beach recharge at Colwyn Bay in north Wales.  There are plenty of articles about this scheme, here is one.

Why?

Why are TDC prepared to repair groynes in Frinton but not Walton, Holland or Clacton?

Why can Colwyn Bay get a £6million beach recharge and Holland gets nothing?

If you know please let me know.

A transcript is on carbonbrief.org and just in case the link stops working here’s a copy of the transcript.

At one point Caroline Lucas said it doesn’t matter if wind is not blowing over UK as we can get electricity from continental Europe via interconnectors, let’s have a look

Did you spot it?

Caroline Lucas, live on television, stated that there will be times when wind farms don’t work and we have to get our electricity from elsewhere.

Caroline also states that the cost of interconnectors are a lot less than nuclear power stations.

I wonder how she knows?

And I’ve got news for you Caroline

After you’ve built an interconnector it is exactly no use unless you also build some thing to generate electricity to shove down the interconnector – how about a nice French nuclear power station!

The Logic of Caroline Lucas’ Arguement

is that not only do we have to build enough windmills to generate electricity for the UK

but we also have to have enough to supply the rest of Europe when the wind’s not blowing there.

Fairs fair – if we expect them to supply us with electricity when the wind is not blowing here we have to return the favour when then wind isn’t blowing there.

Time for some numbers

gridwatch.templar.co.uk is an absolutely spiffing website which shows

• current and historical UK electricity demand
• how much electricity is generated by coal, nuclear, wind, and gas
• how much electricity is passing over interconnectors.

Peak UK demand is about 60GW with demand usually around 40 GW but this varies during the day and  during the week (ie less at weekends).  Wind can supply about 4GW but less when the wind isn’t blowing.  At the time of writing (12:30pm on Monday 1 April 2013 wind is supplying 2.71GW but at 7:10 on Saturday 31 March 2013 wind was only supplying 0.6GW – don’t know why two of dials went missing)

Here we can see there are currently 4 interconnectors capable of supplying about 4GW of power

• French Interconnector. This is a 2GW bidirectional connector.
• Dutch Interconnector. This is a 1GW bidirectional connector.
• Moyle Interconnector. This is a 500MW bidirectional connector from Scotland to N Ireland.
• East-West Interconnector. This is a 500MW bidirectional connector from Wales to the Irish Republic.

But only 3GW of capacity is linked to Europe, the other 1GW being linked to Northern Ireland and Eire.

So in order to supply peak UK demand someone would need to build 15 times more interconnectors than there currently are AND to make sure there is enough spare generating capacity at the other end of the interconnector.

Even to cope with 40 GW of demand over an easter weekend would require 10 times more capacity than there is at the moment. And that assumes there is a spare 40GW in Europe to send our way.

Coincidentally windmills can also supply 4GW of electricity, so to meet peak demand there would need to be 15 times more than there are currently, 10 times to meet weekend demand.

I wonder how much that will cost?

And if there’s too little wind, or too much, or if it’s too cold windmills don’t/can’t produce electricity.

So the solution is to have all the conventional generation capacity as well – just in case.

But There’s More

John Etherington has written a great book “The WindFarm Scam”
..

He reveals one dirty little secret about wind power,

windmills needs to be synchronised with the electricity grid
and with each other

The UK electricity grid supplies alternating current at 50hz
This means 50 times a second the voltage switches between positive and negative something like this

If 2 windmills which are not synchronised the worst case is they will be in exactly opposite stages in their cycles like this

If you attempt to connect  windmills that are not exactly in phase there would be a “spark” on connection  – a surge of current which at best would trip-out connected equipment or, at worst, cause such serious overload that damage would be done either to the electrical or mechanical part of the generating transmission system.

Why Are We Doing This Anyway?

Well we need to decarbonise to avoid the dangers of climate change.

And the dangers of climate change are?

Rising temperatures caused by increasing levels of  CO2 in the atmosphere.

There’s just one thing, temperatures haven’t been rising for at least the last 17 years despite the increasing levels of CO2.

So why don’t we just burn coal, which the UK has in abundance?

Basically the way forward was not to maintain the flood defences!

Sarah’s policy paper was agreed with EA (Environment Agency) and incorporated into EA’s Shoreline Management Plan2 (SMP2) which details how EA plans to defend the coast for the next 100 years. Curiously EA plans to defend the coastline by knocking down sea walls, which they call “managed realignment” presumably as the earlier name “managed retreat” sounded a bit negative.

Sarah’s paper focuses particularly upon Essex where

“the combination of rising sea levels and foreshore erosion threatens the sustainability of defences and gives rise to to loss of intertidal habitat, together with many uneconomic seawalls mean that action is urgently required”

9 years after Sarah’s paper things look a little different.

EA have published a saltmarsh survey which shows saltmarsh has been growing back (or more likely there was never as much lost as previously claimed – most likely due to inaccurate measurements).

DEFRA issued guidelines for future sea level rise in 2006, only to revise these rates downwards in 2009 by nearly 50%.  Even the 2009 rates are higher than observations as I have discussed at length here.

EA have repeatedly stated rates of sea level rise increased to 3mm/year since 1993 (curiously when satellites that measured sea level were launched).  If this was ever true it has not been true since 2002 as I discuss here.

Sarah’s paper is remarkable for many reasons some of which are

• There are no numbers in it, no costs
• There is no discussion or justification of what is uneconomic, we are not told the criteria for deciding.  Apparently the decision as at the sole discretion of DEFRA/EA.
• According to para 20 there is no legal requirement to provide flood defences.  Mighty convenient for EA whose role is, errrr, flood defence!

Tendring is the northeastern part of Essex and has a significant amount of the total Essex coastline.

Since 2001 DEFRA/EA have refused to fund renewal of the groynes and sea wall at Clacton and Holland-on-Sea.  As a result it is generally agreed if nothing is done within a few years the seawall, and then the cliffs and then the road and houses at the top of the cliffs will fall into the sea.  This is explicitly set out in March 2013 TDC report.

Despite refusing to fund renewal of sea wall and groynes at Clacton and Holland, EA/DEFRA have spent the best part of £10million on emergency repairs to the sea wall. This repesents about 1/2 the amount needed for a proper repair.  In addition EA spent the best part of £1million on a scheme to knock a hole in sea wall in Kirby-le-Soken only to abandon the scheme due to local opposition.

Apparently this scheme was to create saltmarsh, that’s the stuff EA’s own survey had found was growing back anyway.

I’m sure I don’t need to remind you EA are spending taxpayers money, your money.

There have been several reports in local press over TDC’s plan to renew groynes and seawall so they last for the next 100 years.

And the money, or most of it, will come from EA.

Really?

It is hard not to draw the conclusion EA/DEFRA have decided that the seawall at Clacton and Holland is “uneconomic” and so should not be repaired.

Perhaps all the sea walls around the UK are uneconomic which means no money need be spent on maintaining sea walls ever again. Especially once all UK has sunk beneath the waves.

So Sarah, how did you decided that many of the sea defences in Essex were uneconomic?

Oh by the way, the foreshore erosion you mentioned, that’s the result of not having properly designed, constructed and maintained groynes.  In other words, the erosion of the beaches are due to deliberate neglect by those agencies responsible for preventing it.

Around £35000/year doesn’t seem that much compared to the £27million which is being touted as the amount required to repair the sea wall and replace the groynes in order to safeguard the beach and indeed Clacton, for the next 100 years.

BUT

An earlier FOI request, which I described in this post Money Spent On Wooden Groynes At Holland Walton And Frinton Since 2004 showed £39,642.38 had been spent from 2004-5 to 2009-10.

In other words roughly 10 times the amount spent on repairing groynes had been spent on surveys.

The Cost Of Not Maintaining Breakwaters At Holland-on-Sea, tells how TDC have spent £9,341,237.89 in the 10 years to 2011 almost all of it on emergency repairs to the sea wall at Holland and Clacton.

The most recent survey, by Mott MacDonald, cost around £60,000.

Para  5.1.3 on page 4-39 of this Mott MacDonald report from 2009

5.1.3 Clacton
The timber groynes at Clacton have such a high maintenance cost and are nearing the end of their lifespan that the Tendring Council have stopped trying to maintain them leading to major beach erosion and knock on issues.

Apparently building work is not scheduled to start until at least 2015

and funding has not been definitely secured yet.

The next step, as far as I know, is another survey.

I find it hard to not to believe that some people would rather the problem persists as this leads to a continuing round of reports and meetings – all of which paid for by the taxpayer (i.e. us).

No Groynes Means No Beach

Unless there a properly designed, properly built and properly maintained groynes there will be not beach.

If there is not beach the sea will continue to erode the sea wall.

This means the £9,341,237.89 or whatever which has been spent in emergency repairs to the sea wall has largely been wasted – repairing the sea wall does not stop the sea eroding it.

Proper groynes ensure a bank of dry sand builds up in front of the sea wall which prevents the sea from reaching the wall, hence stopping the erosion.

You can see examples of this at

• Walton by the coast guard station
• Clacon south of the pier
• Seawick

Seawick is a good example to look at as most of the groynes are about 90 paces apart – and there is a good bank of dry sand in front of the wall. But at the location of Alan Underwood’s shop there is about 180 pace space.  Here there is very little sand in front of the wall and the sea is eroding the ramp which leads onto the beach.

You can download TDC reply which runs to 6 pages, or view images I have posted below.

Quick Thoughts

The PAR Is Not The PAR

The handout at Holland Road Exhibition was labelled

Project Appraisal Report (PAR)

but it can’t be the PAR as the PAR has not yet been finished (1.1 and 3.1b)

The Project Team Will Decide

Although TDC and Mott MacDonald have asked for residents views with a questionnaire, the decision of which option to develop will be chosen by the anonymous “Project Team”. (1.2b)

Given the dimensions of the groynes have yet to be decided and the next step is another study, is there any point in asking residents views now?

Worse TDC state (1.7) one of the options being consulted on is already out of date!!

TDC Wash Hands Of St Oysth And Naze

(1.4)  EA may well have responsibility for Naze and St Oysth, but the land is part of Tendring.  Surely TDC should at least have a view on whether these sites should be protected.  Surely they should be actively petitioning EA to ACT NOW.

Size Of Groynes Not Yet Decided

Answer to question 2.1.  How can Mott and TDC state with any credibility the groynes will protect sea wall for 100 years if they don’t know the size of the groynes?

Apart from that funding has not yet been secured or a contractor chosen and appointed.

The Next Step Is Another Study And Report

Answer to question 3.1b

Between now and February 2015 the project team will be finalising the PAR which will be submitted to the Environment Agency in May 2013 to obtain funding for the scheme. Following the approval of the scheme (likely to occur late summer/early autumn 2013) the numerical modelling of the scheme and detailed design of the scheme will commence along with the procurement (following the relevant EU procurement rules) of a Contractor to undertake the works.

Why N0 Sand For Holland Beach

No option provides for sand at Holland – why?

There is no discussion or justification of this decision at all – why?

Trevor’s Questions And TDC Answers

Have Your Say

If you have anything to say here are some of the key players at TDC

You can download a pdf version of Trevor’s questions and of the Appendix of the report produced by Mott MacDonald.

The Mott MacDonald appendix basically consists of the following 5 pictures.

10 months later, with yet  another report and it doesn’t seem we’re much further forward.

I’m not sure why Option A is considered at all as it involves the destruction of Clacton and Holland.  I’m not sure why option E is there as it means no beach for most of Holland-on-Sea.

A figure of £27million was mentioned in the Gazette.  Curious this is at least half what was mentioned last year.

Isn’t strange all options seem to have the same cost, but no costs or dimensions are given as far as I can see.

There Are More Urgent Problems Than Holland

I can not understand why Tendring District Council is focusing solely on Clacton and Holland, important though the problems there are.

At the very north east corner of the Naze there is an urgent problem.  Here as far as I can see all TDC have done is put up an fence!  The following photographs show the sea is now only a few feet from breaking through the sea wall. AND the land behind the sea wall is lower than the level  of the beach.

What will happen to the Anglian Water Sewage works if the sea does break through?

What will happen to Tendring’s blue flag beaches, especially if there are UFOs (unidentified floating objects) in the sea or washed up in the beach??

Wouldn’t the £58,000 spent on the latest report be better spent on building some sort of barrier in front of the cliffs.

 What Happens Now?

According to this news release, an exhibition was set up in Holland Public Hall in Frinton Road, Holland, on Monday January 28 and will remain there for two weeks with feedback forms for the public to give their comments.

Somewhat confusingly the press release says

The Clacton and Holland-on-Sea Flood and Erosion Strategy has been approved by the Environment Agency which is now waiting for a Project Appraisal Report (PAR) to be completed.

Bit funny that, it’s been approved but the appraisal report hasn’t been finished??

The statement goes on

“We are as confident as we possibly can be that we are getting to a position where a scheme can get the green light and that we will be able to get all the funding in place to make sure it goes ahead as quickly as possible.”

TDC has set aside £3million with the potential of a further £3million from Essex County Council.

The project will then require further financial backing from the Environment Agency and other sources.

Right, so this means

• You haven’t got the money
• You don’t know if you will be able to get the money
• Which option to build has yet to be chosen
• And although EA have approved the project it’s yet to get the green light???

May I remind you that DEFRA/EA have never funded new groynes at Clacton and Holland since 2001 when DEFRA was created.  They have funded emergency works to repair the sea wall which were a total waste of the best part of £10million as repairing the sea wall does

EXACTLY NOTHING TO STOP THE SEA ERODING THE WALL

Why would EA fund groynes and sea wall when they have been assisting in seminars in Suffolk explaining sea walls don’t work – Environment Agency Slides Show Sea Walls Don’t Work.

Moreover, as I’m sure you know, the next general election is scheduled for 2015. After that anything and everything could change.

Tendring District Council’s (TDC) Cabinet is to go on the road to six towns over the coming months to meet with communities and answer their burning issues. See announcements here and here.  The following dates have been set so far.

• FEBRUARY 14 – Holland Public Hall, Holland-on-Sea
• FEBRUARY 19 – Park Pavilion, Harwich
• MARCH 5 – St James Church Hall, Clacton
• MARCH 12 – Homelands Free Church Hall, Walton
• MAY 8 – Colne Community School, Brightlingsea
• MAY 29 – Venture Centre 2000, Lawford

All the sessions will run from 7pm until 9pm.

So if you have any concerns about the beach go and grill the cabinet!

In the mean time what’s the betting the next step is another report.