The Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon is oven ready – it’s time Labour acted

Sam Bennett, Welsh Liberal Democrat Councillor for Waterfront in Swansea & Senedd Candidate for Gŵyr Abertawe
In 2018, the Conservative government pulled the plug on the Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon. With the stroke of a pen, Conservative ministers cancelled what would have been the world’s first purpose-built tidal lagoon power station; an oven-ready project with planning consent, local backing, and international significance.
Seven years later, the verdict is in: that decision was a monumental mistake.
The newly published Severn Estuary Commission report confirms what the Welsh Liberal Democrats have argued all along. Tidal lagoon power in the Severn Estuary is feasible, valuable, and strategically important. Crucially, it concludes that tidal lagoons, not mega-barrages, are the right way to unlock that potential. In other words, the very model Swansea Bay pioneered was the correct one.
Yet instead of leading the world, the UK is still talking. And Swansea is still waiting.
When the Conservatives cancelled the project, they claimed it was “too expensive” and “poor value for money”. What they failed to account for was value in the round: long-term energy security, industrial regeneration, grid stability, and the chance to build a global export industry in Wales. The Severn Commission now makes clear that tidal lagoons offer predictable, low-carbon power with system benefits wind and solar alone cannot provide. Had Swansea Bay been built, it would already be generating clean electricity today, while providing exactly the kind of firm power South Wales now desperately needs.

The lost time is staggering. Swansea Bay was not just a power station; it was a pathfinder. As the Hendry Review recognised, it was designed to prove the technology, build supply chains, and pave the way for future lagoons across Wales, from Cardiff Bay to the North Wales coast. Instead, Britain ceded first-mover advantage. Manufacturing capability identified for Swansea has withered. Expertise has drifted overseas. And a technology Wales could have led is now being explored elsewhere.
The Conservatives must own that failure. Their decision in 2018 did not save money; it squandered opportunity. It denied Swansea thousands of construction jobs, long-term skilled employment, and billions in economic value. At a time when Swansea Bay needed investment and confidence, Westminster slammed the door shut.
But it is not only the Conservatives who must answer questions. Welsh Labour was vocal in opposing the cancellation. They rightly criticised the decision and spoke passionately about the damage it would do to Swansea and to Wales’s green ambitions. Yet now Labour is in government at UK level, they have refused to revive a project that is effectively ready to go. As often with Welsh Labour, warm rhetoric isn’t backed up by concrete action.
That contradiction cannot be ignored. If Labour believed Swansea Bay was the right project in opposition, why is it still off the table in government? The Severn Estuary Commission explicitly calls for a commercially viable tidal lagoon as a demonstration project. Swansea Bay already fits that description. The planning work has been done. The public support is proven. The case is clearer now than it was in 2018.

Meanwhile, South Wales faces a new challenge: powering the industries of the future. Data centres, electrified steelmaking, battery manufacturing, and green hydrogen all demand reliable, low-carbon electricity at scale. Wind and solar are essential, but they are not enough on their own. Tidal lagoons generate power every day, in winter as well as summer, independent of weather systems. That predictability is exactly what energy-hungry industries need if Wales is to compete.
Rebuilding Swansea Bay Lagoon would send a powerful signal: that Wales is open for green investment, serious about energy security, and ready to lead again. It would provide a major economic boost to Swansea and the wider Bay region; creating jobs, anchoring skills, and restoring confidence after years of drift.
The Welsh Liberal Democrats are proud to have championed the Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon in government and out of it. We believed then, and we believe now, that it represented the best of Welsh ambition: innovative, sustainable, and rooted in local benefit. The Severn Estuary Commission has vindicated that view. The question is whether today’s governments have the courage to act on it.
We will continue to call on the UK Labour government to do what the Conservatives would not: revive the Swansea Bay Tidal Lagoon as an oven-ready project, backed by a modern financing model and national policy support. And we call on the Welsh Government to press relentlessly for its delivery, not just in principle but in practice.
Wales had a chance to lead the world once. We cannot afford to miss it again.
Support our Nation today
For the price of a cup of coffee a month you can help us create an independent, not-for-profit, national news service for the people of Wales, by the people of Wales.


I,first came across tidal power for the UK in 1977. That was the the La Rance tidal power station had been generating power for eleven years. Forty nine years later La Rance is still generating electricity.
Swansea tidal lagoon is decades overdue.
La Rance ruined the local ecology. Never properly studied.
If it was never properly studied how can you know it ruined the local ecology?
Well said! A hit, a palpable hit!
Play nicely
I said “properly” studied in the way that environmental impact studies are required these days. There’s plenbty of evidence of environmental harm. Look at Wikipedia for a start.
This is all wikipedia has to say on the Rance tidal barrage: “The barrage has caused progressive silting of the Rance ecosystem. Sand-eels and plaice have disappeared, though sea bass and cuttlefish have returned to the river. By definition, tides still flow in the estuary and the operator, EDF, endeavours to adjust their level to minimize the biological impact.” I wouldn’t call that “plenty of evidence of environmental harm”; the silting referred to would be a natural process in many river estuaries anyway, that is why Carmarthen is no longer a port. I would also point out that the Swansea scheme is a lagoon, not a barrage; an important… Read more »
This concept is back on the agenda elsewhere too: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/dec/27/london-eye-architect-proposes-14-mile-tidal-power-station-off-somerset-coast
The original proposal was undoubtedly expensive for consumers given the level of subsidy demanded; but what happened to the latest version of this project led by an outfit called DST or was it just empty PR by the Council?
It looks cheap by today’s wholesale prices.
The latest project was supposed to consist of incremental developments: various solar projects; battery production and storage; hydrogen production and use; etc. A tidal lagoon would have been an optional extra at the end. All talk, of course, by developers looking for massive public subsidies. Expect it to be revived at election time…
Several factual errors in that article:
1. Tory Gov didn’t “cancel” the project. They granted development consent but declined to subsidise it to the extent demanded by the developer (because it didnt make economic sense – and trickle of intermittent and variable electricity at huge expense).
2. Welsh Gov might be in favour of tidal power in principle but it didnt approve (via NRW) the Marine Licence required by the project – mainly on grounds of likely fisheries impacts.
Extracting energy from the tides should be a no brainer. If you don’t like the proposed financials, propose a better model. Only those profiting from oil and gas could have any objection to that.
Point you are missing is that the subsidy ends up on your utility bill and mine. Hardly likely to be welcomed by those struggling with energy costs. It’s all academic in all probability because Welsh government will never grant the marine licence (captured by environmental lobby) and government is too risk averse to grip it all.
Point you are missing is there should be a model without subsidy. Think about all the efforts to locate, extract, transport, store and distribute gas before it can generate power. None of that’s needed in a lagoon that’s nothing more than a sea wall and turbines.
“nothing more than a sea wall and turbines”, which is hugely expensive to construct in a location with a high tidal range, and which causes significant environmental harm to generate an insignificant amount of electricity.
A tidal lagoon of this size does not cause “significant environmental harm”, and 300+ Mw. of electricity is not insignificant.
The evidence is against you. If there was a model without subsidy it would have been built by now.
The problem with all this expensive green subsidy isn’t the engineering or the willingness for private sector to invest, it’s the way Whitehall manages risk. They force the private sector to take huge risks for which the expected rewards must be very high. Whitehall could instead choose to develop projects like this itself, putting the construction out to tender, sorting out the planning and connecting it to the grid. Once generating power and the numbers are known the finished asset can be sold to the highest bidder so it doesn’t add to public debt. The private sector can then operate… Read more »
You are correct; but alas, that isn’t how Whitehall operates. The culture is one of keeping all risk at “arms length”. The only possibility is a project in England anyway as Welsh Government/NRW will never grant a licence.
We need to completely rethink how we fund and run critical national infrastructure.
I agree. Such projects, like housing, trains, buses etc., should be both built and run on a non-profit basis (like Dwr Cymru) by the state , for the benefit of the whole population, not for a few shareholders.
So you are advocating building at the public expense, then handing it over to the private sector to reap the profits? Isn’t that what Thatcher did, and look at the results of that.
It’s the lesser of two evils. What happens today is we commit to buy power from privately funded projects at sufficiently inflated prices to encourage these projects to happen. That means we all pay over the odds for the energy for the life of the scheme which might be decades. The alternative is government borrows short term to build it them pays off that borrowing by selling it to a private owner who then sells us the power for decades at whatever the market rate is. You could make an argument to keep the assets on the books but we… Read more »
You need to distinguish between tidal range and tidal stream. The latter appears to be viable. The former (lagoons) is not a “no brainer”. It’s a non-starter. It doesn’t make sense on any level and the current proposals (West Somerset, etc) will come to nothing.
The tide goes up, the tide goes down. Tapping into that to generate power shouldn’t be difficult. This proposal was described as a pathfinder to lead to much larger projects once it had satisfied the sceptics.
Simplistic. I know quite a bit about the Swansea Bay proposal and you haven’t got a clue about the issues involved.
Your assumption that only easy and cheap projects should be supported is lazy and dangerous.
The reason we are in this energy nightmare is because we overdosed on gas generation because it was easy and cheap. Until it wasn’t.
We need energy independence and a diversity of sources.
Tidal probably is viable, but why should Wales fund the development costs? The UK has an obsession with being first, mature economies like France are doing their equivalents of Crossrail ((£3bn over budget) and Nuclear New Build (Sizewell C in 2025 was rebudgeted https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cev03wer0p2o.amp) after England has delivered; plus French companies such as EDF, Vinci and Alstom are using French speaking staff to deliver UK projects and then they can return to France with experience. Is Swansea University involved, or will all the well-paid professional services jobs be in England? The attached article shows tidal power schemes have not been… Read more »
Tidal stream might be viable. Tidal range is not. Too expensive and too harmful for the small amount of electricity produced.
The article you quote shows the opposite of what you claim , and is very positive on the future of tidal power.
Labour action is an oxymoron