I also agree with this. Near us we have a huge reservoir in Llyn Brianne which should be capable of generating
sufficient hydro electric power for the entire S. West of Wales. Why is this not considered? I’m informed that the proposed windfarm on Betws mountain near Ammanford, would cost more to build and can only generate a fraction of the potential electricity. Apparantly, a wind turbine costs more to manufacture and install than it can generate in power in its entire 25yr life span even given a 3x premium for ‘green’ electricity. Please tell me I’m wrong!

I also agree with those commentators above that are suggesting that we would be more enthusiastic about granting planning for and getting local community support for, big new power generating plants, even nuclear, if the local needs/demands were satisfied first before feeding into the vast voracious bottomless UK national grid. We still remember what has happened (and is still happening) to our water! Llyn Tryweryn Mawr anyone?

I don’t consider myself to be a proponent or exponent of nuclear power, and believe that nuclear power plants are relatively safe. I would rather have energy by renewable and green sources though, and I am very interested in tidal power. In the mean time, nuclear power plants in Wales means high-paying dependable jobs, and that is something I respect.

I will need to research more into biomass and microgeneration. I certinly do not believe one size fits all and that energy should be produced closer to home to reduce dependence.

I do not believe that Wales needs a nuclear station, either currently or in the future. The UK may need Wales to have one, on the other hand.

The more sources and forms of renewable energy that exist in the Wales, then the larger base load that is created by them. I believe that biomass has an interesting potential here, along with microgeneration for more remote areas, to reduce the losses transmitting for small remore demands.

If Wales were independent, then Wales would be a net exporter of energy, lowering the costs for energy for the average Welsh household. In turn, excess energy could be sold on the international electric grid to other countries in Europe for profit. This is not a new suggestion. According to prize winning economist Dr. DJ Davies in many essays spanning the 30’s until his death in 19569, Wales should look towards the Tennessee Valley Authority for inspiration on how to develop a sustainable-and for profit- electric generation and economic development.

Today of coarse tidal power, wind power, and (to a degree on par with Germany) solar power, would compliment hydroelectric, coal, and nuclear power.

The recent granting of licences by the Crown Estate for the development of massive wind farms off the UK coast, including one off Anglesey as well as in the Bristol Channel, is great news, but this is not a substitute for a programme of new nuclear build.

New nuclear and renewables such as wind, tidal, anaerobic digestion, wave and solar are not mutually exclusive, but rather they are complimentary. Those who bang on about this choice should realise that one form of energy addresses the baseload requirement while the other helps meet the periods of peak demand.

Frankly, it is disingenuous to overlook the importance of the complimentary relationship between these two essential sources of energy.

I believe that Wales should grasp this opportunity for offshore wind. We already have nearby ports and harbours capable of managing the shipping and transportation required, available manufacturing bases and a skillbase capable of adapting. Now is the renewable industrial revolution and we should be leading, as Wales has led before in industrial technologies. What needs to be different this time, is in the people of Wales gaining from these developments.

I apologise; my mistake. It is not 5GW but 5.3GW, according to the Horizon Nuclear Power EIA Scoping Document for the Wylfa Head project. So I have underestimated the contribution, which will take it closer to 200% of electricity demand in Wales, on the basis of the same assumptions outlined earlier. The scoping document was produced in line with the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009, which came into force in October 2009.

* the storage of waste on the surface at Wylfa (and elsewhere) for 160 years,, as announced by the OND proliferates the number of sites capable of a terrorist attack. Despite Wales having devolved responsibility for waste management, this most important aspect of waste management is not devolved. It is not an area of “competency” we are allowed
* Wylfa is 1 minute flying time from RAF, Y Fali where pilots from around the world are trained. Who`s for taking bets there will be no incident within the 160 year time frame ?
*nuclear accidents can and do happen – some 350 farms in Eryri still have restricted sheep movements today some 24 years after the Chernobyl event. Remember that Wylfa has been fined £500k by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate for breaches of safety
* Buncefield was an appalling environmental disaster in the petro-chemical industry some 4 years ago. The inquiry showed it was “human and mechanical error” that was responsible. Murphy`s law says it will happen again in the nuclear industry in the course of time, but this time with potentially far more serious consequences
* The focus on Wylfa B has paralysed any serious attempts to create a balanced economic development strategy for this island. Today, the island with Wylfa A, has the lowest GVA in the UK and with the closure of Anglesey Aluminium, is down to approximately 50% of the UK average. This, in spite of north-west Wales presenting some of the best opportunities for alternative energy production.. The recent decision by DECC to establish wind turbines in the Irish Sea is to be welcomed. In Germany today there are some 250,000 people working in the alternative energy sector c.f. some 25,000 in the UK. . Not surprisingly that country is planning to phase out its 16 nuclear stations and does not propose to build any more – and this from Europe`s economic powerhouse !
* Employment, or the lack of it, has been the main imperative for supporting the Wylfa B proposal. The new developments in the Irish Sea together with other alternative energy proposals in the offing, will present many job opportunities to meet the challenges ahead. Also, decommissioning at Wylfa will secure many hundreds of jobs for a generation, witness Trawsfynydd. This gives us the opportunity to take full advantage of our resources
* The nuclear industry requires an adequate uranium supply. This is limited in nature and, with Kazakhstan now the world`s major supplier, hardly a secure source in the long term. The mining of uranium is highly polluting and injurious to the workers. Exporting the dangers of mining a resource borders on the racial
* The building of nuclear power stations is highly polluting and produces huge amounts of CO2 – not the carbon-friendly animal we are often told it is
* The nuclear industry will have to stand on its own two feet according to the Westminster Government with no subsidies. Not true, As the document “Nuclear Subsidies” published by the Nuclear Fair group explains, nuclear energy is already highly subsidised from the need for indemnity and security for the industry to the creation of a nuclear academy – http://www.nonukes.org.uk
* neither of the two nuclear prototypes from Westinghouse and Areva are yet proven in practice. Current EPR stations with Areva`s model in Olkiluoto, Finland and Flamanville, France are proving an embarassment both in terms of escalating cost and slippage of the timescale – Olkiluoto is already three years behind schedule and over 2billion dollars overspent
* A letter of October 2009, from the Sustainable Energy and Industry office in the Welsh Assembly Government indicated that Wales` current electricity consumption was 24TWhr per year but with the right innovation and investment and the right government framework and support, Wales could produce over 33TWhr per year – half of this from marine, a third from wind and the rest mainly from sustainable biomass
* All this and further opportunities from hydro, solar and photo-voltaics not to mention the imperative of energy conservation and reduced reliance on electricity whatever its source.

Finally, in 2005 Wales, together with the relevant Departments in Scotland, Northern Ireland and England signed a Concordat on “The Implementation of the Justification of the Practices involving Ionising Radiation Regulations”. As a consequence, the United Kingdom has four “justifying authorities” and the Environment Minister in WAG wrote to Lord Hunt, the Minister of State in DECC calling for a public inquiry prior to the justification of any new nuclear build. This has been rejected and one has to ask why this obstruction to a legitimate democratic request ?

It is time for serious and objective dialogue on energy policy and avoid the knee-jerk response as typified by the “lights are going off” and we must do something !

I do not profess to be an expert in all things devolutionary, but when it comes to energy generation, we have to maintain a healthy degree of centralism.

The immense investment required to construct the Wylfa B power station, mentioned in the comments above, could only be realistically met through international energy firms with the balance sheets to consider taking such a long position.

Otherwise, we end up back at the issue of subsidies for the nuke industry as a form of public funding, which central government has repeatedly denied exist, beyond the obvious multi-billion pound accident insurance.

Wylfa B may well generate enough power* to see Wales claim energy independence, but if built by the proceeds of international energy giants / rumoured subsidies on a UK-wide basis, there is no independence. Wylfa B may one day reside on Welsh land, it may have been built by Welsh hands. But was it funded by Welsh money?

In short, no public body can realistically afford to build a behmoth nuclear plant, without its citizens willfully paying via a sharp increase in their power bills. France may have done so, over the course of years; that was policy from the beginning, and so their citizens do not even notice the bill. Hence the curent trend – outside of states such as France, and now Finland – for leaving nuke construction in the private sector.

I can’t see the Welsh / UK parliament funding a nuke venture, for reasons of expense and voter consternation. Therefore centralisation remains the key. For now.

*Just a note: David Phillips, you mention Wylfa B as a 5GW plant, which would generate 175% Wales consumption? E.ON and RWE, the two firms that are building Wylfa B, are looking to build 6GW of capacity spread over a small number of plants across the UK. Europe’s first “3rd generation plant” is being built in Finland today, and will be 1.6GW. Wylfa B will fall within the same generation, so will likely be around 1.5GW-2GW, even given the 10-12 year lag. Mind you I could be wrong? Hook a few hamsters up to the wheel, and who knows where you end up?!