Power To The Pool
All surfable waves are the final transaction in a transfer of energy. In the ocean, it begins with the sun heating the globe at different rates, which creates pressure differences that surface winds try to balance out. As they blow, those winds create friction on the ocean, which creates capillary waves, then chop, finally organising itself into swell which, when it reaches a shoreline, breaks as a wave. Though the relationship isn't always clear, it nevertheless exists: energy from the sun is the source of our ocean waves.
The relationship between energy and waves created in wavepools is far more obvious. In Kelly Slater Wave Company pools, a train is powered to run on rails while dragging a plow through the water, at American Wave Machine pools, a pneumatic system co-ordinates the fast flow of water through hollow caissons, while Wavegarden uses energy to move a series of modules that displace water in such a way as to create waves.
Since Kelly first launched his reveal video in 2016, there have been many questions around energy use at wavepools, and it's no surprise given they're using energy to create something that is otherwise free, and they're being birthed during a broadscale energy transition. To date, firm answers are hard to come by, however as competition between operators heats up more information is being made public.
Recently, Dan Lansell-Kenny used marketing information from Wavegarden to begin a comparative study on Melbourne's URBNSURF.
Surfable wave pools have been around since the 1980’s but it hasn’t been until the last five years that the various technologies have developed to the extent that commercial pools became viable. Subsequently, new projects have sprung up around the globe. Any new technology invariably invites skepticism and criticism, and the surfing community has never shied away from offering critique of anything vaguely within the surfing realm. Universal acclaim is rare in surfing, and this article certainly doesn’t attempt to settle the debate of whether wavepools are good or bad, instead this is an attempt to clarify some of the debated points.
Founded in the Basque Country in 2005, Wavegarden is the most mature of the current crop of commercial wave pool companies. Only two years away from their 20th anniversary, they’ve successfully licensed their technology to a number of operators around the world. Notably URBNSURF in Melbourne with planned pools in Sydney and Perth also making use of their 'Cove' technology. If Wavegarden were the developers of these projects themselves, instead of licensing their technology to developers/operators, then they might be more secretive about how exactly these pools work, and how much they cost to operate. Luckily for us, in their bid to attract business, they publish information about their pools to assist prospective licensees to formulate business plans. Broader wavepool economics is a topic for another day, but a recent post by Wavegarden detailing the amount of energy used, per wave type, for the South Korean pool gives us a unique insight into how much energy these pools actually use.
The powerhouse of the Wavegarden system is behind those black doors at the end of the walkway. There, a series of modules - 46 in the Melbourne pool - move back and forth to rythmically displace water on both sides, creating a left and a right (URBNSURF)
Wavepool critics have long drawn criticism on the topic of energy consumption, broadly arguing that using man-made energy to create something that Mother Nature provides for free is wasteful. Pre-emptively declining to decide on the validity of this argument, it’s difficult to appropriately interrogate it without knowing how much energy an artificial wave actually requires. Thankfully that unknown can now be known, hopefully allowing more meaningful conclusions to be drawn.
So then, how much is it?
The following figures are taken from Wavegarden's South Korean pool data, with the final column - the Melbourne pool's energy use - extrapolated from those.
Acknowledging potential limitations in this data, the approximate equivalent energy for Melbourne is a calculated uniform 82% of the South Korean energy figure, based on the Melbourne pool using 46 modules, instead of 56 used in the Korean pool. It’s unclear if different settings use less modules, so this approximation likely doesn’t hold for all settings, but we can assume it’s relatively robust for the more advanced ones. It also isn’t known how closely these settings align across pools, nevertheless these figures should be in the ballpark. A final note that typical sessions consist of multiple settings, e.g. in Melbourne we understand the 'Advanced' option comprises a period of a turns setting, then a barrel or beast setting, depending on the wind.
Technicalities aside, what do these figures actually represent?
Conservatively over-estimating and simplifying energy consumption, let’s assume a single wave uses 1kWh of energy, at least for higher settings, which readers of this site would presumably be more likely to partake in. Electricity in Victoria is roughly 30 cents per kWh. That’s 30 cents per wave, or $3 worth of energy for a 10 wave session. $3 worth of energy for a $99 gate price (advanced session) might seem low but bear in mind this is only a crude estimate, and it's just one of many overheads the facility would experience.
"All surfable waves are the final transaction in a transfer of energy"
Energy framed as cost, especially as a fraction of the total experience cost, makes it look low, but comparisons are in order: What does this figure represent compared to other energy usage in our lives? Continuing with the assumption of 10 waves per session, that equates to 10kWh of energy consumed, per surfer. Finder reports an average annual electricity usage of 4.6kWh per person per day in Melbourne, meaning that a single session in the pool likely more than triples your daily electricity consumption in a single hour. Incorporating natural gas usage into this equation muddies the conclusion, but it’s safe to say that a session in the pool is likely the most energy intensive activity you’ll do in any given week.
Looking at practical considerations, a common critique levelled at ‘the tub’ is why surfers don’t just drive to the coast and get waves for free? What then is the energy cost of such an activity? It’s easiest to answer this question by looking at kg of CO2 emitted (CO2-e). The Essential Services Commission estimate that in Victoria 1kWh of electricity results in 1.06kg of CO2-e. The Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries provides a figure of 150g CO2-e per km driven for a passenger car/ light SUV.
Taking a hypothetical surfer who starts their journey from the Melbourne CBD, from a CO2 perspective, how does a trip to the pool compare against, say, a trip to Bells Beach? A distance of 214km return to Bells gives 32.1kg CO2-e. Contrast this with a 41km return journey to URBNSURF, plus 10 waves, gives 6.15kg for the drive and 10.6kg for the pool for a total of 16.75kg CO2-e, or approximately half the CO2 from driving to the coast.
If carpooling, the numbers change significantly, with the below graph showing it’s pretty close with two people and better with three. These numbers will change depending on where you live, what car you drive, and how many sessions you do.
In response to the above, at least concerning the energy used within the facility, URBNSURF might argue that they source renewable energy in their operation, shifting the energy calculation slider further in their favour. When they launched, they stated the facility would be powered by 100% green energy, as well as reports of a power purchase agreement with a Tasmanian wind farm. At the time of writing, nothing can be found on the URBNSURF website on the percentage of renewable energy used in the Melbourne operation.
Information provided about the future Sydney facility, opening next year, states, “the facility will also feature sustainable design elements, renewable energy, and water saving systems…”. Curiously, no mention of the exact proportion of renewable energy to be used. Pre-launch it was also stated the Melbourne facility was to have a 330 panel 100kW solar system installed that could generate approximately 400kWh of energy per day in good conditions, or enough to offset a handful of sessions depending on the setting. A review of recent satellite imagery doesn’t show any solar panels at all, let alone the 330 shown in the pre-construction concept images. URBNSURF declined to comment when asked about their current proportion of renewable energy used and solar setup.
Concept Image, 1st Nov 2019
Satellite Image, Nearmap, 11th Jan 2023
Expanding the frame, how about people who fly to use the pool? Conveniently located near Melbourne airport, you’d almost be silly not to book in a session if you have a trip to Melbourne booked. One session on arrival and another on the way out to bookend your Melbourne visit. If the trip is already happening then we can ignore the carbon from the flight, but a dedicated trip solely for the purpose of using the pool, well that’s one heck of a commute. A flight from Sydney to Melbourne generates 230kg of CO2 one way, or 460kg return. Brisbane to Melbourne, 900kg return. Perth to Melbourne, 1,600kg return. The emissions from the pool become steak knives. Worth noting that the CO2 from a Perth return trip can be offset for around $35, if that eases your conscience.
Stepping back, and noting that this analysis is only for one specific type of wavepool technology in one location, with energy consumption expected to be moderately different for other technologies and different locations. Of significance, Wavegarden claim that their technology uses ten times less energy than other comparable pneumatic wave generation technologies. The claim of 10x efficiency gain over other technologies is difficult to parse. Acknowledging wavepool technology is relatively immature, they’ve likely cherry-picked a particularly inefficient competitor to come up with that multiple. Even if they are the most efficient of all wavepool technologies, going off the numbers they’ve published a session in the pool is definitely not insignificant from an energy consumption perspective, though it might not be as cut and dry when contrasted against a trip down the coast especially in surf-starved Melbourne.
If URBNSURF Melbourne ever decides to start heating their pool then this analysis deserves revisiting as heating the pool would likely blow the above numbers out of the water. Though a thirty minute drive to some warm water waves in the middle of a Melbourne winter would be very appealing indeed.
// DAN LANSELL-KENNY
URBNSURF were contacted for comment in this article but politiely declined.
Comments
The appeal of Urbnsurf isn't just the existence of decent waves, it's the prospect of getting ten decent waves in an hour with minimal hassling. It's not like the wavepool is in the city centre, so if it was so simple to get free good waves on the beaches and points then nobody would go to Urbnsurf, but they do.
Ahh decent, I beg to differ it really is awful compared to the ocean just lacks any push.
All depends on your skill level. Getting a couple of turns and a barrel on a three foot wave is decent for 90% of surfers, but would be lame for some
I wasn't having a go at you I am a painfully average surfer however the barrel although hollow basically stands still and has zero drive and I think the wall versions are more fun in many ways, and the take off is really strange, again no drive just plop. You don't find it weird compared to a similar sized beachie?
Yeah the biggest issue is that it goes fat too quickly, so unless you take off really deep and then hit it straight away you get nothing out of the first section. And the barrel section is hard to line up on beast mode because the bottom just drops out after the fat section. But the good guys still manage and I've had fun every time I've surfed it. Actually found it walls up better for turns in intermediate than advanced.
A well balanced article. Good to read about what it takes to make these waves. The pool is great fun. And fun doesn't come without energy use, as you pointed out with the comparison of a drive down the coast. If the article is ever revisited and revised please include the energy use/carbon footprint across other recreational sports, like waterskiing/wakeboarding, jet skiing, deep sea fishing etc. it would be great to know where surfing stands compared to all the other sports.
I've just moved a long way up the coast and have been looking to upgrade my boat given the lack of surf and i have been slightly shocked to find standard family/fishing boats come with a minimum 150L fuel tank. WTF. I spent my youth searching for waves with the fuel gauge on my HQ never getting filled above half way. Call me a tight ass but I cant fatham spending upward of $250 a day to take the family bottom bashing for sweet lip. Flat head it is.
Haha. I remember running low on fuel many times on my surfing adventures when I was younger.
The old C.B came in handy to let some truckie know you'd be drafting him and hanging in his slipstream for a while. Saved heaps of juice that way, especially in strong headwinds.
You'd only spend that if you were travelling way beyond the shelf. I highly doubt you would plan to bottom bash with your family way beyond the shelf..
Memories of my HT three on the tree handled like a bucket of porridge but it did the trick to Margaret River and the south coast a few times.
Only an engineer would understand waves of Earth as "trans[-]actions", no explanation why or how... similar to the economist or philosopher who understand relations between people as transactions.
Carbon credits are a fraud, corporations buying an authority to emit CO2 with the profits earned from emitting CO2.
“Transaction” was an engineers attempt at adding some flavour to the article I suspect. If he had of said “transfer”, he would have been criticised for being too technical.
Didn’t the whole first paragraph explain how waves form? He probably assumed that surfers feel and understand the energy of a breaking wave as that final release.
Technically, the rip current formed due to a breaking wave is the final result…. Or if the wave does a tiny bit to undermine a cliff or sand dune, it’s created a potential kinetic energy release that may happen in 5 minutes or 10 years later when that bit of earth falls. If it falls into the sea, it would create another wave… never lost, always transferred.
"“Transaction” was an engineers attempt at adding some flavour to the article I suspect. If he had of said “transfer”, he would have been criticised for being too technical."
Fascinating what people read into words and their use.
I wrote that.
Engineer, eh?
Transaction is a good word to use. From the Latin for 'drive through' and also means exchange or interaction. Transfer is from the Latin for "carry across". So both describe what's going on in different ways.
Yes it is I love this stuff.
An interesting listen re solar https://abclisten.page.link/aBowfVquJjVeqYzc9
Enjoyed the read dlk. Looks like URBNSURF have a PPA with momentum energy (Hydro Tasmania):
https://www.momentumenergy.com.au/blog/urbnsurf
Dan, why not do an article about your own carbon footprint?
I'd bet you've flown the globe or motored the coastline of Oz as much as any surfer. Maybe even done a boat trip or two in Indo. Pretending you're not using any fuel to do so...all with your quiver of surfboards, board bags, wetsuits , wax , ding repair. urethane leg ropes , rashies...each of these items constructed wholly from chemicals straight out of petro-chemical plants.
Personally, I have no problem with you or anyone else travelling to their hearts content whilst taking advantage of the material technology that allows average people to own the equipment to surf waves. Climate change hysteria is a cult and the perpetrators pushing it are making mega millions of dollars off a mostly clueless public. They own the media and their political allies are well payed to keep selling fear to the gullible.
You probably and hopefully mean well Dan , but basing your life around measuring energy use on a planet overflowing with abundant , cheap resources is a sad way to exist. If you can't even enjoy a session at a wave pool without thinking about "The Planet" then a joyless existence lies ahead.
At least Dan has put in the effort to hunt down some facts to base his comments on. What about you Haven? And please don't feed us with any info scraped of fanatics pages and dodgy media sources...
Anti-science hysteria is the cult, not climate change 'hysteria' whatever that is.
Facts are wasted on the likes of you and the dude who commented below... but here's one.
Track down an aerial photo of the palatial mega mansion of Al Gore...they're on the net.
Not a solar panel to be seen on an acre of roof. Same goes for Bill Gates , Warren Buffet....in fact, every multi billionaire who fly their private jets and sail their mega yachts to 'Climate conferences' to nut out how you can be taxed more and own less to save the planet.
You are the useful idiots that keep this BS going. Wake up.
Ha, classic. Nice one Haven...you've convinced me
I figure you either believe something is happening or you don't.
No more, no less.
And certainly no need to fabricate nonsense arguments; anyone with half a sense of history knows that even the most virtuous of movements has been exploited by some people for dollars. It's what humans do. Doesn't detract from the actual motivation, unless you're someone looking to muddy the waters.
Wow Haven, you're cool. I don't believe my decisions make any difference at all, I just choose to try to do things better. Making small life choices and agreeing to make effort in cleaner directions seems a good thing to do. I agree, zealotry and fear are poor motivators, whatever the cause. But renewables should be a goal whether there is abundance or not - humans are at their best when they try to do better.
"BP, Shell, Chevron and Exxon have made almost $2trillion in profits in the past three decades as their exploitation of oil, gas and coal reserves has driven the planet to the brink of climate breakdown, according to analysis for the Guardian."
Reference: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/feb/12/revealed-big-oil-profit...
Big Oil companies employ the best professionals; to support their long term profits, support favorable Governments (eg. fight wars for them) & lots of businesses benefit. Maybe.... these big businesses could afford a few PR firms with psychologists to confuse the media & masses...?
Took me abit to work this out....
Petroprofits for 30 years have been calculated as AU $3,008,140,000,000 or
$100,271,333,333 Australian per year of ' misinformation'
Reference: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-chan...
Hey, Tincan, I reckon Haven is talking bollocks.
Yeah! How’s these fn fraudsters!?
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
What world you living in? FFS.
Cranks and fear mongers! (I am joking)
Couldn’t agree more.
Sorry to get off topic a bit but I heard on a podcast this morning that the volcano currently (or recently) erupting in Greece emitted more co2 in 24 hours than humans have emitted in the history of mankind.
Is this factual or nonsense?
Probs nonsense. Plenty of “fact checks” out there. E,g.
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-volcanoes-co2-idUSL1N2XV1HA
Cheers blackers
Found it hard to believe but I’m just a humble tradesman who wouldn’t know shit
Hhahah
Hopefully not a plumber then. :)
Similarly I recall reading about a volcano that erupted back in the ‘90s and they estimated it did more climate damage (heat and carbon) than cause by mankind in the previous 40 years.
I will say I do feel smug driving around in my FBT free EV that will end up in land fill in 10 years, you really should see the positive side of the hysteria Haven, plenty of easy wealth transfer going on, you just need to be on the right side of it.
Electric cars will go the way of the Dodo... as they rightfully should. They are basically coal powered anyway because that's where Australia' electrical energy is produced. The only renewable energy that is truly economically viable and reliable is Hydro and that makes up a big slice of Australia's renewable power. Solar is unreliable and uneconomical and wind power is a farce if you do the sums... only viable with massive tax concessions. It costs more to build and run a turbine than it ever produces, and , big bonus, they're hideous , and they slice and dice every thing that flies near them.
Future vehicles will be hydrogen powered. Those Teslas that people fork out massive money for now will be like the Video Cassette Recorder that some people still have under their TV.
So you're correct Stuckinthe 80's... you are driving landfill. Wouldn't be feeling smug though if it were me.
Silence Haven!!
Don’t you know the “science is settled”?
Begone demon.
How dare you question our paradigm.
Nah I dunno
You got to stop getting your scientific information from Donald Trump.
Wind turbines will normally produce enough energy to cover what it took to produce them in 6 to 12 months of operation.
To save you wasting time on your next post - the noise from wind farms doesn't cause cancer. You're welcome.
I always thought Murdoch was a climate change denier
Absolutely is. Haven is only seeing things from the perspectives that support his world view.
Great article Dan. Good initiative finding that information and putting your sleuthing hat on. I sense that information such as what you found will increasingly become more available as new players enter the market. They'll have to sell their advantage(s). Despite what the commenter above me thinks, energy use is something a significant (and growing) part of the market is concerened with.
"Universal acclaim is rare in surfing"
An accurate and thought provoking statement.
- John John Florence
- Steph Gilmore
- Twin fins
What else?
Twin fins?
Que..?
Well we can put a line through that one!
Good to see JJF and SG can be agreed upon...
And so the list continues!
Pointbreaks.
Tubes.
Wax.
I think URBNsurf's marketing tag 'Surf More' kind of frames things.
Yes, you'll use more energy than heading to Bells from Melbourne, but it's all about extra and more. You'll be getting extra sessions in.
Also, concrete's got an insanely high amount of embodied energy and carbon in it, let alone the remainder of the park.
They can, and should make it green, but let's not kid ourselves, you'd be hard pressed to say it's more sustainable than surfing the ocean in pretty much every form.
Great work Dan; important to note that "URBNSURF declined to comment when asked about their current proportion of renewable energy used and solar setup." and "URBNSURF were contacted for comment in this article but politely declined." I wonder why? Nothing to hide, I'm sure.
Yeah. Good article, good sleuthing, an important topic. Well done.
. I supplied temp power to a stationary wave once and it ate 1000kva of power to run three small pumps @ 200ltr of diesel an hour. No farkn way these waves are being produced at 1kw whether it’s soft start or dol.
Stationary waves are a pretty different beast though right? A constant fast moving jetstream of water vs something which pumps intermittently and with 2 min breaks between sets.
100% and I don’t believe I know shit all about it but I find it hard to believe. An engineer can make anything look plausible on paper, 1kw per wave I call bullshit
This article aappears to be fundamentally at odds with a recent article which pointed out the fundamental problem with wave pools has always been the issue of the high cost of producing a decent wave, particularly the energy required to generate a wave no matter what system is used. Dan's article above is based on approx 1 Kwh of electricity required per wave, the cost of which is negligible compared to the price charged per wave by the wave pool company. There's probable a lot of commercial sensitivity (and environmental sensitivity) about the cost of a wave so I would be extremely careful about accepting data on energy usage directly from a wave pool company. Needs to be Independently verified which shouldn't be too hard.
I don't see the point of this article.
And there seems to be some misconceptions in the comments.
Climate change emissions is a separate issue to energy abundance, although by definition "renewables" have near infinite abundance? We could (and do) have very abundant fossil fuels but large climate change emissions?
And whether wealthy people have solar panels on their roofs or not isn't really the point because what's particularly important is the nature of the energy generators supplying the grid? (And this is also a consideration with e.g. EVs.)
Regarding the article, someone above already posted this link Helping big business go renewable: URBNSURF which says that urbnsurf has a PPA. And, from this August 2020 Surfer magazine article Are Wave Pools Sustainable? I recalled reading a while ago:
So has something changed at urbnsurf?
Also, if a company is sourcing all electricity from the grid, a proportion of it will be renewables/clean, but it's challenging to measure exactly what proportion that is since it depends on the time of energy usage, the load on the grid and hence price of electricity and which generators are in use at the time, and in general the mix of generators supplying the grid (which also changes over time).
From the 2023 Clean Energy Australia report:
So Australia is slowly making progress with its energy generation mix in terms of clean/renewable energy generation. Last year renewable energy contributes record 68.7% of power to Australia’s main grid for brief period.
Monitoring and reducing energy usage is always going to be a positive.
But one must keep in mind that looking at the energy usage of companies is only one side of the equation.
It's equally and probably more important for Australia to keep focusing on increasing the mix of renewable/clean energy generators supplying the grid, and to keep working on improving their efficiency of energy generation so they're typically the first to turn on and are supplying the base load?
"The Australian continent has the highest solar radiation per square metre of any continent and consequently some of the best solar energy resource in the world."
"Australia receives an average of 58 million PJ of solar radiation per year, approximately 10 000 times larger than its total energy consumption. However, Australia's current use of solar energy is low with solar energy accounting for only about 0.1 per cent of Australia's total primary energy consumption."
Reference: https://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/energy/resources/other-renewable...
Independent Study on Australian & NZ Energy Companies completed in 2015
"As nations, Australia and New Zealand stand at polar ends of the spectrum with regard to the
carbon intensity of their economies. The carbon intensity of energy supply is 35% above the
world average in Australia and 30% below in New Zealand. Globally, carbon intensity needs
to decline very significantly to hold global warming to the agreed 2° C threshold."
"It seems almost inevitable over the next decade that Australia will choose to reduce
significantly the overall carbon intensity of its economy. If, say, Australia chose to ‘be a
world average citizen’, it would need to reduce the carbon intensity of the energy supply
sector by 59% by 2035 on 2005 levels."
Reference: https://www.accr.org.au/downloads/ACCR_gen_cc_final-1.pdf
I think you would also need to take into consideration other things like the Power consumption of the Pool filters to get a more complete picture. My guess is the pool filters on the ubansurf pools are huge and would add a fair amount to the overall cost per wave. To be thorough in the facts, the power consumption needed to produce the chlorine/salt should also be factored in, along with every other thing that supports your "one wave" in the pool, {toilet systems, lights, etc}
They question about why they don’t drive down the coast, you spend the same on fuel as it would coast to do a hour in the pool, but your guaranteed your waves, you could get skunked down the coast and it’s always crowded,
Def cheaper to drive down the coast, especially if you've got a mate or two in the car with you. Should cost maybe $50 return in fuel on avg. Guess it then depends how big you go at the local bakery afterwards.
Exactly mate , When I lived in Melbourne it was a 1 hr 20 minimum drive in traffic to get to Urban surf then add the $80 cost for a 1 hr surf . To get to the East coast it was only 1 hr and the west coast abour 1 hr 50 and in both places I had the oppertunity for multiple sessions for free . I gave up on URBAN surf , it's just not worth it .
Awesome article, Dan.
Interesting read. I came away from a recent trip to urbs feeling conflicted about the energy use. Hopefully with continued pressure it will result in the utilisation of renewable sources. Perhaps the rise of energy costs and other overheads will force the issue.
I think it is helpful to see a break down of the cost per unit for the pool, both in terms of CO2 produced and energy consumption, alongside a comparison to the alternative. Even if the figures are a bit fuzzy (as acknowledged). It allows people to make decisions based on their own circumstances if they wish to. All part of looking at your own carbon footprint, again if you wish to.
I flew down there, just to go to the Tub.
Which makes me the worst of the worst, I guess.
You deserve a whipping with a German wurst fr
I drove from the coast to go to the tub. Cause the surf had been shit for months.
I think that makes me slightly better than the worst of the worst ;)
No, there's worse.
I know some lads who not only flew down but got a stretch Hummer from the airport. (mates 50th Bday).
Next time I go, I'm gunna get a stretch Hummer from here.
Dan , you have to ad driving costs to the URBAN SURF ledger too, I would think the majority of pool surfers would have to drive 1/2 hr to get there on average.
Dan; Good research on the wave pools.
Waves are wet dream for many. The demand is obviously greater than supply near the capitals.
Wish we surfers could organise & lobby like the fishos do for artifical reefs, breakwalls, dredging channels, marinas, jettys, boat ramps, marker bouys, wave bouys, etc.
Were fortunate there are reliable waves autumn and winter on the east coast of Oz.
There is alway uncrowded snorkling below the $como Covidfund crowded lineups.
It’s a nice ideal bbbird to dredge channels, drop in marinas etc. etc. We certainly have the knowhow and machinery to orchestrate and achieve such a task, and the results would be spectacular, but you know, there’s nothing more beautiful than an environment that is left in its natural state.
Yeah once you improve one area you stuff up another.
There are over 100 breakwalls in NSW. These man made channels will probably need sand dredging or pumping out for boaties, commercial shipping navigation & hopefully nourishment of the northern side coastal beaches, caravan parks & coastal houses ....etc
"The NSW Government is delivering on its $205 million maritime stimulus package" was announced in June 2022.
Some people are worried about planted pines and painted rocks... others worried about sealevel rise and /or their houses getting washed away in the next big storm....
The Pacific Ocean, the world's largest ocean, encompassing around one-third of the Earth's surface, approximately 64 million square miles - it is significantly larger than Earth's entire landmass....
Any Surfers want more "superbanks" nearby? .... or reliable South Stradbroke style wedges? maybe b'locals need to organise, socialise & be surprised when the surf is more consistent, better for most coastal communities ....& have a story to tell the next gen?
"However, even smaller projects where the competing stakeholders are all recreational generally favour other ocean users. It's no coincidence that fishermen and boaters have organised and paid up lobby groups to speak on behalf of their constituents. Surfing has no equivalent group and hence little sway at the negotiating table."
References;
https://www.swellnet.com/news/swellnet-analysis/2018/03/13/when-breakwat...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Ocean
.....or start your own Surf Gamblers Anon group
Hi bbird, you know everything is connected in our world right? As John above rightly commented, if we compromise something in one place the effects will be felt in some other place, and so on. Why do we see the need to alter the natural environment just because it suits us. Dredging comes at a huge environmental cost for the resident living organisms and animals that live on, around and within their submerged platforms. Dredging is a shocking thing you can do for the health of our oceans. Can you imagine the once pristine waters affected by the first scouring as the silt is released, plumes of infinite particles are continuously released and resettling, smothering vast areas of ocean grasses, corals etc. The dolphins, turtles, fish and fish spawning grounds, cormorant birds, shellfish, birds and more that rely on their local feeding grounds, would be displaced, and stressed out leading them to illness, despair and an early death. The disturbed sediment releases stored carbon and chemicals are released creating even further acidification to the local and planets ocean environments. All for the sake of our desire to want and want more!! Stuff the environment it’ll recover right? No it doesn’t, the sad reality is that the future effects will be ongoing for a very long time while we are stoked out of our minds surfing in cloudy contaminated waters!
I’m not as committed as you are bbird to get ‘The surfers’ more ‘Superbanks’ certainly not at the expense of an existing habitat for flora and fauna and and unspoiled terrain.
Natural environments are good for us. Its great therapy, its real food for our peace of mind and stability in an ever deteriorating and changing world. We must keep what's left of the natural world intact!
Be patient mate, wait around for the sea levels to rise and see what bonuses will be on offer. It'll surely happen and may not be too far away, the ice is melting!
I agree everything is interconnected Reform.
The planet will rebalance itself after shocks; meteors, Ice ages, Global warming, etc.
Some may go the way of the dinosaurs or evolve into birds, dolphins or fireflies, who knows....
In the meantime.... we have a consumer demand for wavepools, O/S surf boat tours & resorts, 4WDs ploughing dunes, jetskis in crowded line ups; all for a good wave.
The breakwalls block natural sand flow. I dread the dredge. I love the wedge.
Maybe pumping sand via pipes ....like the river does naturally is possible; to create a Superbank or wedges.
Some alternative methods currently used to protect the coastal land, maritime & recreational users include;
1. Trucking sand & rock onto the dunes which disrupts, usually reactive, expensive and can wash away in next big storm
2. Sea walls ( est $26k per metre at Colloroy )
3. Dredging
4. Extending breakwalls
5. Planned Coastal retreat ($$$)
Lobbying for want your community needs or the chaos continues & the biggest, smartest or loudest in the room gets......your taxes.
PS> I would prefer co-operative housing projects with large permaculture gardens in between for the next gen. but the subject was wavepools & energy consumption so I provided an alternative option and comparisons.
Apologies Mike Logan I was referring to your comment above not John, cant blame typo this time, Have a nice day! cheers!
Wish we surfers could organise & lobby like (other coastal user groups).
I look forward to the next energy consumption analysis of comparing going to the MCG to watch footy versus kicking the ball around in your backyard.
totally agree, hyett, or going-to-a-festival vs blowin-your-own-trumpet, etc, etc, maybe your suggestion could be for an AFL-focussed website to follow swellnet's lead: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/
Haha, a much better analogy than mine.
Just to amuse myself I looked into Freeride's idea of using a stretch hummer from Lennox. 16 hours each way @ $195 per hour for a 10 seater up to $245 per hour for the 18 seater. So between $6k and $8k for the return trip. Averaging somewhere between 6 and 8 mpg, that's 540 litres of fuel each way so expect a fuel surcharge. Ben must be paying you too much!
haha , then and at roughly 2.3 kg of CO2 created for every litre of fuel burnt, the round trip in a stretch hummer would produce about 2.5 tonnes of CO2.
According to the carbon calculator I used, an individuals carbon emissions for a return flight from Ballina to Melbourne is estimated at 0.5 tonnes.
On the other hand, if you had 10 people in that Hummer it would reduce the individuals fuel emission contribution to 0.25 tonnes per person, half that of flying.
Taking the Hummer with some mates might be more expensive but looks to be more carbon friendly than flying.
Imagine the stack on the roof racks. :)
It would be a great look at somewhere like Cactus. Hope the windows are bullet proof.
Depends on your travelling companions.
Harsh but fair.
Didnt those Cactus guys kick out some models for posing on a salt lake?
Hmm, I think the takeaway part of this article was this line:
"bear in mind this is only a crude estimate, and it's just one of many overheads the facility would experience. "
The fact that there is no data from URBNSURF on the cost of running the 'whole facility' per wave session means that energy per wave cannot be calculated from the pictured chart at roughly 1KW. Take into account the facilities heating, aircon, fridges, lights, computers, fuel (for vehicles/ supplies), supply chain etc. then I am sure it would look different.
No matter, everything can't be calculated to the minutiae, just go surfing folks.
And in the back of your mind just consider- golf courses are some of the most environmentally unfriendly recreational facilities on the planet. What's the difference?
No difference. Just be weird for Dan to have written a golf course article.
Quite frustrating to read criticism of wave pool sports complex's when I do not hear any problems with the community catching a plane to the snow fields to then get a hydrocarbon powered vehicle to the snow to then stay in a resort to then catch substantial chair lift facilities to be able to slide along some snow on a mountain that's had its trees bulldozed to make way for a snow field. Or a golf course that's had hundred of hectares of native forrest bulldozed and burnt so people can hit a small white plastic ball into a hole, or any of the abundance of yacht clubs that have a massive amount of moored boats that burn substantial amounts of fuels and with a toxic hull treatment to stop natural buildup on the hull along with private business's that operate out of them, no mention of the massive football sports complex's and their power use and cost of construction so the community can watch someone kick a small ball, the list goes on with no complaints, no protests, nothing, except when surfing reaches a point whereby it can construct a wave sports complex for the community such as Perth where there are no waves for at least 8 months of the year it ends up being completely unfairly complained about without any form of true comparison and balance, total hypocrisy. Every person who is against wave pool facilities for the community, have a good hard look around at every single social piece of infrastructure that exists.
@guysoceanharmonics.
Well said mate. The hypocrisy of the negative comments towards wave pools here are next level when you compare it to everything else us humans do.
This is a surf site, I'll leave critiques of the snow and golf courses to skiers and golfers. Plus, if you read it with an open mind, you'd see the pool came down favourably in some aspects.
The public should have no fear of assessing such facilities. Besides, if a facility trumpets their green credentials - which they do - then they shouldn't have any fear of someone's findings.
The old I'm not as bad as the next guy argument. Great way to never have to change your behavior or try to do better. I'm sure my wife's heard it many times.
Interesting how many people have read this article as criticism of the pool or surfers or.....
Mostly feels like a deeper dive thought piece trying to put some numbers to a question that comes up all the time.
Thanks for putting in the time Dan, I found it interesting.
Now I'm off with my engineering buddies to engage in some transactions.
@stunet - Then you would loose any CONTEXT to these figures. Only when comparing one thing to another can you have any sense of understanding how much the energy actually is.
"The pool uses this much energy" as an isolated statement is useless IMHO as it doesn't give anyone a sense of how much energy that is. It's only when we compare it to how much energy "other" things use, that we get any real understanding.
I guarantee every single person here that read it's approx 1 KW of energy per wave, [in their head] brought up something else they knew used 1KW of energy as a comparison. That's the only way our brains can make sense of things - By comparison to other things. Any info in pure isolation is impossible to understand
It's already there, mate. Average energy use per week. A comparison far better than yours as it takes in every surfer, golfer, skier, 4WDer, fisho, whatever, to find where a visit to the pool would sit on the community-wide spectrum.
eg. Data storage now accounts for more carbon emissions than the commercial airline industry – and a single data center uses the same amount of electricity that can power up to 50,000 homes.
At 200 terawatt hours (TWh) annually, data centers collectively devour more energy than some nation-states.
..... if you’re looking to completely emit your personal carbon footprint from the use of data storage services – an external hard drive or purchasing a device with more storage is the way to go.
P.S. Im not selling anything electric.... just a concept.... utilise free research
"@guysoceanharmonics.
Well said mate. The hypocrisy of the negative comments towards wave pools here are next level when you compare it to everything else us humans do."
@stunet - Not sure why you took my comments as directed at swellnet or the article's author?
Negative "Comments" I said. This refers to the generally negative "comments" from the peanut gallery here. If it was directed at the Author/swellnet, I would have specified that as "negative articles/stories.
...and yes, I unfortunately missed that link to the energy use comparisons in the article. I take responsibility for being a human and missing that part.
That was surprisingly in favour of the wave pool for city surfers in terms of CO2 emitted. Never thought it would be that way. And on top of that having hydro - even better. Good on them for having hydro agreement, that's a good move, they are good too.
Many large dams were good for 200yrs....based on historic weather patterns; until the oceans heated up & major storms events are above the design spillway capacity....
"Researchers found that ‘Probable Maximum Precipitation’ (PMP) estimates for 546 large dams across Australia are expected to increase between 14 and 38 per cent on average due to increasing atmospheric moisture."
Reference: Research from the University of New South Wales (UNSW) and the University of Melbourne Nov 2022
https://utilitymagazine.com.au/outdated-modelling-risks-dam-safety-resea...
Great article and thanks for doing the legwork to pull some numbers together and to cast a critical (in the pure sense, not the negative sense) eye over their claims. For those unaware, there is a building global crackdown on 'greenwashing' claims behind products and services. Thus far it's aimed at the big end of town, but typically regulation starts big and then cascades down/has consequence down the food chain. To illustrate the point, the ALP have proposed $4m in extra funding for ASIC to specifically go after egregious examples of greenwashing.
That all being said, I do agree with the broader point behind surf.rat's comments. Though to be fair a comparison is provided for context wrt to driving to Bells/interstate. I only know two people that have travelled interstate to Melbourne pool; one just went because he was already down there from the GC for a few weeks for some training (firey) and the other (from Sydney) specifically went down for the pool as the centrepiece of a long-weekend boys trip.
Perhaps (if it hasn't been done already), a similar analysis (i.e., "Part 2") of a week-long Bali and a week-long Ments trip (both starting in Sydney, as the most populous part of the country) could be done to give everyone a sense of how it all stacks up?
Plants and trees love lots of CO2.
Everything’s gonna be just fine ya dorks.
True. However they have a problem with utilising them if the median temps rise too much...
Like in a greenhouse?
Greenhouses are built to achieve the perfect growing temperature.
Trapping heat in cooler climates and shedding heat in hotter climates by using fans and misters.
What's your point?
Also, to create an environment with high CO2. It is often pumped in artificially to increase growth.
Interesting and thoughtful piece Dan. I’ve been to the pool several times (intermediate and advanced) and for me, the pool delivers what it can be reasonably expected to - consistent waves, no hassling, no duckdiving, guaranteed swell and at least rideable under all wind directions. Certainly better than driving 200 plus km for crowded slop on the coast. And you get a decent workout.