In reply to lyn David Thomas, Wales already has two brilliant energy strategies but they ultimately mean little because everything over 50mw (and the subsidy regime needed to operate most kinds of power plants whether they’re renewable or conventional) is not devolved! It’s a travesty of democracy and the unelected IPC which has no panel member from Wales will be able to rule on our energy future.

Within the next fifty years, even allowing for prenergy not to go ahead, Wales will produce more than twice as much energy as it needs.

Expect independence to be well and truly back on the agenda!

This is one of the instances I gave to an earlier question about local devolution and got accused of being NIMBY. However, Betahn Jenkins is absolutely right. She has laid out the issues brilliantly. The case against Prenergy is substantial. The site is in close proximity to residential housing. This is dangerous. The recent explosion in Middleton, Conn. USA illustrates the point. The power plant was three miles from the nearest housing. Had it been as close as Prenergy to houses there would have been fatalities.

The visual aspect is unacceptable and it is likely to be the case that the value of the houses on Mariners Point will fall as much as 50% without any compesnation to the householders. In addition the fire risk to the whole of Port Talbot is very high. The prevailing wind crosses over Prenergy over the town. A large scale fire that cannot be put out will cause heavy smoke pollution and in all proababiltiy fire sparks that may have the same effect as incendaries. It could result in widespread fire and the burning of the town. A domesday scenario? Considering the amount and volume of the stored material It is one that has to be considered.

I questioned the former MD of Prenergy on wood chip source and got an evasive answer. Sources included Latvia and Chile and British Columbia (and|Oregon) – imported via the Panama Canal.
I took up the issue with people in British Columbia who laughed at the concept of shipping pine chip to Wales. The maximum amount available would not last more than three years. The concept is flawed and the appeal needs to be rejected.

Congratulations to Bethan on her informed and clear explanation as to why.

Daran…
This is the 667th comment…the devil is in the detail. If Prenergy goes ahead and things go wrong, there’ll be *ell of a fire.

This is exactly the sort of carbon neutral small scale generation that we need. I have grave doubts about any massive energy schemes. The Port Talbot one seems to have many question marks over it. We need a proper energy strategy that refocuses on local solutions and re prioritises energy conservation measures.

Secondly, I am not aware of detailed plans for carbon capture and storage for this proposed plant. Thirdly, the apparent imposition of this plant should not be an excuse for WAG to rack up false brownie points on the green agenda bandwagon.

WAG needs to look seriously at the natural advantages given to Wales as sources of truly renewable energy, e.g. tidal (both rise and fall as well as ebb and flow) as well as offshore wind and small scale hydro and to piggy-back of the technology that has been developed and proven by other countries.

Smaller plants than this which rely on more local supplies and can prove that particulates are minimised if not eradicated are, in my opnion, a genuine renewable option. If CO2 is all that is produced, then this is not a local pollution as it immediately enters the atmosphere with no affect on the local environment.