Hislop denies Wales exists

A copyright infringement if I ever saw one

Now I know that Ian Hislop; the most English of educated gents, denies he is in fact welsh, although he is really...though we the welsh are happy he denies it......

But as editor of Private Eye he is taking it a bit far by denying the very existence of Wales.

As in the lack of Wylfa B in the above article, unless that is he thinks it acceptable to dump on Wales....oh hold on by his very denial you could say he's done that already.

I don't want to be foreboding...but....

Centrica have had cold feet over UK nuclear power, another firm that's decided  nuclear is too expensive to develop - do you think they maybe have a point? - See Centrica pulls out of new UK nuclear projects

And as we know Cumbria have had cold feet over burial of nuclear waste, and it seems we could have a bit of a problem...if we don't find somewhere we can keep the radioactive waste safe for a very long time. See: No nuclear storage = no Wylfa B?

So I think there's a possibility that Wylfa B might not be built, you know the thing that was going to transform the island...put us on a firmer footing, all them jobs etc etc

I hope therefore someone is actually thinking of a Plan B.. C.. D ....E just in case Wylfa B never happens... if Hitachi cant find the investors, or anyone in fact to run Horizon after they have built the power station - 'cause they've already said they don't want to run it in the long term.

 You know if Wylfa B doesn't get built what happens then?

No nuclear storage = no Wylfa B?

Has a decision by Cumbria County Council to pull out of feasibility study into underground storage of radioactive waste scuppered plans for Wylfa B?

See Nuclear expansion plan thwarted after Cumbria no vote to underground store

As reported in 2007 "Britain must not go ahead with a new generation of nuclear power stations until it has a "clear and robust" plan in place for dealing with the twin problems of decommissioning and waste treatment, the world's leading energy body warned yesterday. The International Energy Agency also said that any new nuclear programme must be funded entirely from the private sector, without any government subsidy or market intervention."

So it's not looking good at the moment then....as the it will - will not happen saga continues....

See also: BREAKING NEWS: Cumbria County Council says no to nuclear repository plan

To pylon, or not to pylon....that is the question..

The winner: T-Pylon by Danish company Bystrup Architecture

A report in the Daily Post - 'Pylon plan will damage tourism on Anglesey, say council on Thursday says National Grid plans to erect towering electricity pylons across Anglesey will damage tourism, warn council chiefs.

As we know the National Grid is consulting on proposals for new grid connections for the Wylfa B and the offshore wind farm array, and there is an ongoing debate as to whether the new connections should be subsea and underground. Not unsurprisingly the preferred option is new overhead lines, which got me thinking whether they will be the new T-Pylon design, shown above. You can follow the progress of the new design at the National Grid T-talk blog.

And if you want to read about the options considered for the new connection, costs and other factors: National Grid - North Wales Connections Strategic Options Report. (pdf file) - You will find that the subsea option is at least twice as expensive than overhead lines.

For at the end of the day it will be mostly down to cost, irrespective how desirable the more expensive option may be to all of us.

Section 9, Electricity Act 1989 says:

9 General duties of licence holders.

(1)It shall be the duty of an electricity distributor—
(a)to develop and maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economical system of electricity distribution;
b)to facilitate competition in the supply and generation of electricity.

(2)It shall be the duty of the holder of a licence authorising him to transmit electricity—
a)to develop and maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economical system of electricity transmission; and
b). . ., to facilitate competition in the supply and generation of electricity.

And in Schedule 9:

1(1)In formulating any relevant proposals, a licence holder or a person authorised by exemption to generate, transmit, distribute or supply electricity—
a)shall have regard to the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest and of protecting sites, buildings and objects of architectural, historic or archeological interest; and

(b)shall do what he reasonably can to mitigate any effect which the proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features, sites, buildings or objects.

The National Grid’s commitments when undertaking work in the UK is set out in their stakeholder, community and amenity policy - to download

And if your thinking what does 'have regard to the desirability of preserving natural beauty etc' mean, the following is an extract from the Court of Sessions -Judicial Review of a decision of the Scottish Ministers made on 22 December 2011 granting detailed consent under the Electricity Act 1989, section 36 for an application by Dorenell Limited (UK) for the construction of a wind farm on the Glenfiddich Estate, Morayshire, which was dismissed on all grounds:

....[4]In the summary of the report of the inquiry, the reporter explains that the wind farm would be around 8km to the south of Dufftown, and 2km from the northern edge of the Cairngorms National Park. The application proposes 59 turbines on a site extending to 21.5 square kilometres. The wind farm would be operational for 25 years. The reporter proceeded upon the basis that the determining issues in relation to the section 36 application were (i) the need for the wind farm and national energy policy and guidance, (ii) its environmental and other impacts, including tourism and recreation, and economic benefits and impacts, and aviation safety, and (iii) the development plan, other planning policies, guidance and advice, the Cairngorms National Park plan, and the requirements of schedule 9. The determining issues in relation to the decision on whether to direct that planning permission should be deemed to be granted were the same, under exception of the reference to schedule 9. 

[5] Overall the reporter concluded that the proposals would make a significant contribution towards meeting and surpassing national renewable energy targets. The site benefited from a good wind resource. The proposals would result in landscape and visual effects of substantial adverse significance, but these would be localised and limited in extent. In his judgment, the landscape in the area has the capacity to absorb the proposals. The landscape and visual effects, including the cumulative effects and the effects on the National Park, were acceptable. He was satisfied that an appropriate layout had been achieved. There would be adverse effects on recreation, most notably on walkers and hillwalkers in the local area. However these did not justify rejection of the proposals. The effects on the key industries of tourism, food and drink, and their brand images, would not justify rejection. The economic benefit arising would be small.

 [6] With regard to the proposed mitigation measures, the reporter was satisfied that the effects on birds and other wildlife inhabitats would not be sufficiently adverse to justify refusal. He was satisfied that the integrity of the River Spey Special Area of Conservation and the interests of the two European protected species on site (otters and bats) would not be adversely affected.

 You can read the full judgement at  the Scotland Courts website.

So if those opposed to the pylons want National Grid to consider the alternative subsea and underground options they need to show that the National Grid is not following it's own community and amenity policy and/or the Halford Rules. Also that the proposals will be worse than what exists currently, in that....there is already a connection to the grid across the island, which I assume will be taken away when Wylfa A is finally closed. And a reasonable question is what evidence is there that the existing pylons put off visitors from visiting Anglesey - and how much worse would the new pylons make the situation?

Of course there will be an adverse effect, especially locally near to the pylons, but will this in monetary terms be more than the additional cost of the alternative subsea and underground options?

The National Policy Statement for Electricity Networks Infrastructure (EN-5) says.."The Planning Inspectorate should, however, only refuse consent for overhead line proposals in favour of an underground or subsea line if it is satisfied that the benefits from the non-overhead line alternative will clearly outweigh any extra economic, social and environmental impacts and the technical difficulties are surmountable."

See also National Policy Statements for Energy Infrastructure.

And there you have it, the crux of the matter, that until national policy is changed we will be having pylons.

Wylfa B - a cash bonanza?

If in the long term Wylfa B gets built, quite rightly there should be some planning gain for the benefit of the community as a whole. But what can we expect in this regard. Well, a good pointer would be the S106 agreement between the developers of Hinkley C and Somerset councils.

Below is an extract from Somerset County Council website:

Somerset councils and EDF Energy have signed a landmark agreement which will deliver nearly £100 million for local communities to mitigate the impact of the proposed new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point C.....

[...which will] pay for a range of measures for communities most affected by the development, including:

• Up to £8.5 million for a housing fund to mitigate potential impacts on the local housing market, including the refurbishment of local properties
• £12.8 million as the balance of a £20 million community fund for measures to enhance the quality of life in local communities. The £12.8 million will be independently administered by the Somerset Community Foundation, with council, community and EDF Energy representation on the awarding panel
• Nearly £16 million on a variety of highway improvement schemes, particularly in and around Bridgwater, to ease traffic and enhance road safety
• Over £7.1 million to improve local skills and training, including a final £2 million instalment for the Energy Skills Centre at Bridgwater College
• Up to £4.6 million towards community safety measures
• Almost £5.5 million to support economic development and tourism initiatives
• More than £3 million to support local education provision and provide extra school places, if necessary
• Almost £1 million to support local health services
• £300,000 to be spent on local heritage
• £350,000 to pay for landscape and visual improvements
• More than £440,000 to support improvements to public rights of way
• Over £865,000 on environmental measures, including contributions towards flood defence measures in Cannington (£500,000), Bridgwater (£220,000) and Stolford (£80,000)
• More than £3.6 million to provide additional resources to the local authorities so that they can monitor and ensure the successful implementation of the development and continue to work closely with local communities

Of course for both Hinkley C and Wylfa B to be built there will have to be some form of public subsidy. An article in the Telegraph says "Subsidies for new nuclear power could add £70 to annual household energy bills, Ian Marchant, the chief executive of SSE warns.

If we carry out a very simple exercise you would say that on Anglesey in 2011 there was 30,600 households, which would need to find £70 more to pay for their electricity annually, that's a total of £2,142,000 - over £2 million. And if we apply that over the likely lifetime of Wylfa B, 20 years that's a grand total of £42,840,000 or nearly £43 million. Or on the same basis for the number of households in Wales a grand total of £1,823,780,000 nearly £2 billion.

As I said a simple exercise, but it rather puts the £20 million community fund at Hinkley C into some sort of context at least, and makes you ask whether this current UK government energy policy is the best way foward to secure a safe and affordable energy supply for the future. 

Wylfa B and the welsh language

Listening to BBC Wales news last night about  the visit by Hitachi to Wylfa, was struck by a closing disclaimer made by hobnobbing politicians and directors from Hitachi...that there was no guarantees that the 'new' jobs would be local.

Which I think most of us knew anyway, especially during the construction phase. Building a nuclear power station requires a skilled workforce and they tend to travel round the world from job to job. And with fewer countries now building new nuclear plants there's not likely to be a shortage.

Of course there will be some jobs for locals, well someone has to make the tea, and clean the construction offices etc..etc..

Then there are the permanent jobs, which somehow will dissuade the youngsters of the island from crossing the bridge in search of further education and a well paid career.

This assuming that they want to work in the nuclear industry in the first place, want to be engineers and technicians....and not forgetting the skilled workforce that already works at Wylfa, and those who worked at Trawsfynydd.

Whilst reading the Daily Post this morning and showing my age I had a 'I can't believe it' moment or as I said it 'what the fuck'.....

Apparently David Jones MP, Welsh Secretary said and I quote "This is also very important for the Welsh Language, I remember the saying "Heb waith dim gwaith" and am delighted that the young people from the island will not have to leave if they want to live here, work here and raise a family"

Which on one level is true, without jobs you won't have a community no matter what the native language is.....but really as we know during the construction phase the majority of the workers will be from elsewhere, some traveling daily, some renting accommodation during the week etc...so not sure how such an influx of migrant workers will help the welsh language.

Especially as rental cost are likely to go up, as to house prices, most probably pricing many young local families out of the market completely, forcing them to move off the island to find a home.

As Tatsuro Issizuka, Vice-president of Hitachi said he expected the majority of the workers to be from the UK.....so no guarantees about local jobs and only an expectation that the majority of the jobs will be from the UK.

To try to link Wylfa B and the welsh language, in some rather pathetic attempt I think to discredit Leanne Wood and Plaid Cymru and their anti nuclear policy is in my opinion rather stupid. Simple message for David Jones MP 'shut the fuck up' and stop treating us like morons.  

Wylfa B - we been here before

So Hitachi have won the bidding to buy Horizon Nuclear and the rights to build two nuclear facilities...predictably politicians are jumping up and down with joy.

The Daily Post also today got a bit carried away....green light to build Wylfa B, up to 6000 jobs will be created during construction..a further 1000 permanent jobs....could be built by 2020...etc etc..

Of course had New Labour not delayed making a decision about nuclear power, then most probably construction work might have already started.

Now not wishing to piss on anybody's parade, there a lot hurdles to jump even before the first brick is laid. Hitachi will need approval of their reactor design, and prove that it meets new standards following the nuclear disaster at Fukushima Daiichi, a process that Hitachi said could take three to four years. Then planning permission will be required, and that ain't going to be easy nor quick even with the Infrastructure Planning Commission.

And then there is what Hitachi have said themselves, as reported by  Reuters yesterday. Hitachi said it expected to have the first 1,300 megawatt (MW) nuclear power plant in the UK operational by the mid-2020s.

In other words by 2025 Hitachi hope to have one nuclear plant operational, and at the moment as far as we know that could be at Oldbury.

Or this from Dawn.com: Advanced boiling water reactors will be installed at the plants on the Isle of Anglesey in Wales and at Oldbury in Gloucestershire, Hitachi said, adding that about 1,000 workers are expected to be employed at each site. Hitachi’s nuclear power systems chief executive Masaharu Hanyu told Japanese media that his company may sell Horizon shares to investors in the future.

“As it is deemed difficult for Hitachi alone to prepare funds for constructing the power stations, we want to solicit investors,” he said, according to the online version of the Nikkei newspaper.

“It will depend on whether Hitachi can develop it into an attractive company,” he said, adding his company would not itself get involved in power generation.

I think there's also a growing realisation that nuclear power might not be the answer we need, especially if we want to cut cost of electricity to consumers. Yes on Anglesey it will bring some local jobs and make the GDP figures look good, but if as a result electricity prices continue to raise and make us uncompetitive is it really a price worth paying?

Not forgetting that on the top of the island we may have a nuclear plant built by the company whose name is for ever associated with Fukushima Daiichi, and whilst they have a track record of delivering safe projects on time and on budget....you wonder whether tourist will take the same view, especially with a long snake of pylons cutting and hissing through the countryside.

And we should remember with  RWE and E.ON, and the confidence expressed then....we have been here before.

A new grid connection across the island.

The National Grid is consulting about proposed routes for a new grid connection to serve Wylfa B (if built) and the offshore Celtic Array.  The consultation can be seen on their website.  The preferred option is a  overhead line along one the following corridors:

There was a subsea HVDC option, but that would have cost more. I'm always surprised when those who support the construction of Wylfa B and associated infrastructure, then turn round and oppose wind turbines on land, normally on the grounds it may keep the tourist away. Or those who oppose wind turbines on land but think that the more expensive off shore wind farms are better, forgetting that a grid connection would also be needed for them.

As for Wylfa B, whilst I have no problems with nuclear power, it seems it's now too expensive as a viable option if we want to keep the cost of electricity down, and not forgetting the line of new pylons buzzing away as they cross the landscape.

Prospects for Wylfa B get even gloomier.

Yesterday, there was only two companies left to bid for Horizon Nuclear and build Wylfa B.

Today,  if the report in 'The Times' is correct, this in the near future could go down to one. It seems that Toshiba and owner of Westinghouse; seen as a front-runner and heavyweight player in the nuclear sector, according to 'The Times' "wants to quit the nuclear industry altogether and is struggling to raise finance for the join venture."

It would appear that the days of nuclear energy are coming to an end, with Germany and Japan already committed to phase out their own nuclear plants, and investors very reluctant to invest in new builds due to ever growing costs.

The Chinese walk away from Wylfa B?

The talk was, especially amongst local politicians,  there would be at least 3 strong bids to take over Horizon and build Wylfa B.

And according to this weeks Holyhead and Anglesey Mail that would indeed seem to be the case. "Plans for Wylfa B have taken a major step forward as bids have been submitted for Horizon....bids have been received by three consortiums" they say.

However, according to the Financial Times this Wednesday (in an article by Guy Chazan, Anousha Sakoui and Jim Pickard) "A Franco-Chinese consortium has walked away from the race to build Britain’s new generation of reactors in a setback to the government’s hopes of ushering in a revival of nuclear power."

Also the Westinghouse consortium had failed to secure Chinese state backing and the Finacial Times says "Some industry experts believe only Chinese companies have the financial firepower to shoulder the immense cost of building new reactors."

So it seems on Friday that only two bids were received from Westinghouse and Hitachi, and we may know who is the preferred bidder in about three weeks,  but even then there is still uncertainty as to whether Wylfa B will ever be built.  

Anglesey without Wylfa B?

In my humble opinion nuclear power does have a role to play as part of a mix of electricity supply. However, it seems that nuclear power does not make commercial sense, something I have  posted about before.

Direct subsidy from the UK Government for nuclear power would be against EU laws, which means you have to find a back-door way of providing nuclear subsidy - which is by getting the consumer to pay more, estimates vary as to how much.

But then again what are the alternatives? - especially if we are to meet our legal requirement for reducing carbon emissions.

Putting the above to one side, another argument for Wylfa B has been the number of jobs it would retain and create, especially in one of the poorer regions of the UK. It has been seen by many local politicians as a 'golden cow' that would somehow deliver great prosperity to the island. And doubtless in many respects it would, but with the world heading for recession and a period of stagnation (worse case scenario a depression), what realistic hopes are there of investors coming forward to fund a project knowing that other similar schemes have not been completed on time and are well over budget.

In other words do we have a 'Plan B' should Wylfa B not go ahead? - after all Wylfa B forms a fundamental part of the Energy Island concept.

The protest group PAWB does have such a plan, and they have published a  Manifesto for Môn.

They claim the Manifesto outlines how 2,500-3,000 jobs could be created on the island if a realistic strategy was adopted.

And it has strong support from Sir Roger Jones, the former chairman of the Welsh Development Authority whom said to PAWB “Congratulations on the Manifesto document. I strongly support your vision. Thank you for putting so much thought in to what we can do.”

I haven't read the PAWB manifesto and will do so soon. Their website says the manifesto acknowledges the other important industries based on the island, notably tourism and agriculture, and recognises the importance of safeguarding a clean and unpolluted environment for their further development and promotion -  which I think most of us would agree with.

Britannia Bridge and active traffic managment.

On Monday I crossed Britannia Bridge on my annual trip into the heart of Gwynedd.  Now, we are told that  Britannia Bridge cannot cope with peak traffic flows and that a second crossing is needed,  which some claim was to be  funded by 'Wylfa B'. You know that magical funding pot that politicians on Anglesey have been praying was the answer for all the islands problems.

Take the A5025 which is slowly falling to bits, don't worry was the answer  - 'Wylfa B' will pay for all the improvements. My advice take care, as many lengths of the A5025 are in desperate need of resurfacing, due to low skid resistance -  you will notice far more 'slippery road' warning signs up these days.

Or when schools need to cut back on staff as there was not enough children coming to the school, some Councillors suggested we should wait as Wylfa B would bring many families into the island and their children would need to be educated.

A stock answer it seems - don't worry 'Wylfa B' will pay for it.

But 'Wylfa B' will not now happen for many years, and if there is no 'public subsidy' to guarantee electricity  prices to make investors money may never happen.

Therefore, with poor odds of 'Wylfa B'  ever being built, you might as well as forget about a second crossing. I wouldn't think it carries enough traffic to attract other private investors, and we have no public money, so we are told.

Which brings me back to my trip to Gwynedd this morning.  Williams Hughes Civil Engineering were carrying out essential works on the approach to the bridge, and for the safety of its workers had a 30 mph speed limit in place -  the result when I went past no queues.

Which supports my view that what we require on both of the approaches to Britannia Bridge are variable speed limits and active traffic management as trialled on the  M42. This together with enforced average speed limits would in my opinion significantly reduce occurrences of peak hour queuing on the bridge.

UK to subsidize nuclear power via EU?

In August 2010, Chris Huhne the then Energy Secretary told BBC News

"My position and my party's position was always one of scepticism about the economics of nuclear power, but what we did in the coalition agreement is recognise the differences between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.

"We responded with an agreement which will say very clearly there will be no public subsidy for nuclear because it is an old technology... But at the same time, if investors come forward with proposals it is absolutely clear they will go through. "We believe that will happen. We believe there are investors who will be investing in new nuclear,"

But since then, there has been the nuclear disaster at Japan, the decision of Germany to close all of their nuclear plants by 2022, a world wide slow down and jittery investors as shown by E.ON UK and RWE npower decision to abandon their plans to build nuclear plants at Wylfa and Olbury.

All of this begs the question - will nuclear power ever be viable without subsidy from the public purse?

A post in the blog Zerohedge "Suddenly A Nasty Fight over Subsidies for Nukes in Europe" brought to my attention allegations that the UK was trying to get a subsidy for nuclear power from the EU.

The French newspaper lexpress.fr also ran this story.

According to the German press, four countries among which France and Britain have demanded that nuclear power is subsidized by the European Union, as well as renewable energy. The France denies such an initiative....

...An article in the Süddeutsche Zeitung on Friday, France, Britain, Poland and the Czech Republic have sent letters to Brussels in order to subsidize the EU nuclear energy such as wind or Solar, in preparation for a meeting of energy ministers next week.

Meanwhile on Friday Reuters had the headline "EU states say renewable goal not fair on other fuels"

"Renewable energy does not have more right to an EU target than other fuels, according to pro-nuclear states and coal-intensive Poland, as debate heats up over updating a 2020 goal to have a 20 percent share of green fuel in the energy mix.

The comments from Britain and France, as well as Poland, have been made as part of consultations on the Energy 2050 Roadmap....

The British government in a position paper said "any targets set should be neutral with respect to different low carbon technologies."

All of which is based on leaked documents, but what seems clear is that there are moves afoot lead by the UK, France and Poland to include nuclear power and other 'neutral technology' as green fuel in the energy mix.

Whether this would lead to the EU funding nuclear power in the UK is unlikely, as Germany which pays 20% of the EU bill is most likely to veto such move.

All of which means that if the Conservatives cannot get the Liberal Democrats to change the coalition agreement to allow subsidy of the nuclear sector, then it seems there is little chance of investors coming forward.

Improvements to A5025 between Valley and Amlwch

This week residents whom may be affected by proposed improvements to the A5025, as part of Wylfa B have been written to by Alan Smith, Head of Site Development at Horizon. The text of the letter is self explanatory and is as below:

"Dear Sir/Madam

Potential route improvements to the A5025 between Valley and the proposed site for a new nuclear power station at Wylfa

In November 2011 we wrote to landowners along the route of the A5025 between Valley and Amlwch to outline our approach to considering what road improvements may be needed to support the construction and operation of a new nuclear power station at Wylfa.

I am now writing to all residents living between Valley and our proposed development site to provide our early thoughts on where we believe route improvements may be needed in these areas, ahead of us presenting more detailed options formally to you as part of our first phase of community consultation in the next few months.

Through our work with the Isle of Anglesey County Council Highways Authority and our environmental consultants. Mott MacDonald we're looking at the following areas for possible route improvements:

• The Valley crossroad - where the crossroads may need to be bypassed
• Llanfachraeth - where a bypass to the east of the village is being considered
• Llanfaethlu - where the bends at the Black Lion Inn and Llanfaethlu may need to be straightened
• Cefn Coch - where the existing route between Bod-Hedd and Cefn Coch may need to be straightened
• Tregele - where modifications to the site access at Tregele as well as potential changes to the access to Cemlyn may need to be considered.

We have started talking privately to landowners that may be directly affected by any potential changes to the A5025 in those areas prior to developing our options further. These are early stage discussions and we have not developed any firm proposals at this stage.

Its our intention to talk to everyone who we believe may be directly affected by any potential road improvements as part of our project and, in the coming months, will present draft proposals to the public as part of our first phase of formal consultation. We will hold public exhibitions across Anglesey and North Wales where you will be able to view our proposals and give us your feedback. Additionally, we may hold mini consultations specifically on proposals relating to the A5025 as we want to give local people every opportunity to have a say on our proposals.

While dates and locations of our consultation events have yet to be announced, but we will advertise them widely in the media, through our newsletter to every home on the island, and via the Isle of Anglesey County Council.

You can also register for updates on our consultation process at consultation.horizonnuclearpower.com

While we tried to ensure this letter is sent to all residents along the route of the A5025 from Valley to the proposed construction site, if you are aware of anyone that has not received this letter, please let us know.

You can contact us via our freephone hotline on 0800 954 9516 or email address at wylfaenquiries@horizonnuclearpower.com

The next stage of our work will be to consider what road improvements may be needed along the A5025 from the proposed construction site to Amlwch and we will keep residents in those areas up to date on our early proposals."

Further information about Horizon Nuclear Power can be found on their website horizonnuclearpower.com/wylfa

(Note: letter from Horizon scanned using text recognition software, and may not reflect the layout of the original letter. Any spelling mistakes most likely to be mine and my typing skills. A letter in welsh was also sent by Horizon.)

Topographical survey of A5025 well advanced.

A question regularly asked by many on the island is how much of the A5025 will Horizon improve as part of the Wylfa B development.

For those of you who regularly travel on the A5025 between Valley and Wylfa may have recently noticed  luminous orange tape at regular intervals, say on hedges or on gateposts. They are there to quickly identify the locations of survey stations.

It seems Horizon are carrying out a topographical survey of the A5205, or key sections at least. And how do I know it's Horizon, because one of the vans assisting the survey firm has a sign saying they are from Horizon -'simples'.

No doubt any major improvements proposed for the A5025; as part of Wylfa B, will form part of  a detailed planning application when submitted.

Onshore wind turbines - most are good some are wrong

This Wednesday the action group Anglesey against wind turbines are holding a demonstration against onshore wind turbines outside the Council Offices at Llangefni.

According to their website their mission is:

'Anglesey Against Wind Turbines is dedicated to preserving our island landscape. We exist to oppose any further erection of commercial on shore wind turbines on the grounds that they are unsightly,damaging to our fragile economy, uneconomic, noisy and damaging to our wildlife.'

Sadly such a broad brush; that seems to rule out any onshore wind turbines irrespective of their individual merits, dilutes the case against specific sites where the erection of wind turbines should be refused.

Are wind turbines unsightly? - well that is a matter of opinion. Of course a large number of wind turbines in an area of outstanding natural beauty could be damaging to the landscape for many reasons. Then there is a case that wind turbines should be a safe distance from properties, with adequate planning conditions to limit noise pollution.

But to rule out all wind turbines onshore is plainly wrong.

I find it ironic that some people claim to be against wind turbines on the island because they say it would be damaging to tourism, but on the other hand fully support Wylfa B -  you've got to laugh haven't you?

Talking of tourism I found the following appeal decision from last August quite interesting reading.  Its an appeal against the decision of the Isle of Wight to refuse planning permission for the erection of wind turbines on land at Cheverton Down, Cheverton Shute, Shorwell, Newport, Isle of Wight.  You can read the appeal decision at the Isle of Wight website.

The planning appeal  was dismissed for specific reasons as set out by the Inspector. However, on the subject of tourism this is what the Inspector had to say:

94. ThWART and many others in written submissions and evidence to the Inquiry, consider that the proposal would adversely affect tourism, which is so important to the economy of the island. Various surveys, studies and questionnaires were submitted in this regard. Those studies which are prospective are easily criticised on the grounds that there is no guarantee that opinions would equate to actual responses to any change. In retrospective studies, it is not usually possible to say what would have happened had the change not occurred. Methods to try to quantify the effects of turbines on tourism in monetary terms are particularly fraught with difficulty. None of the studies presented to the Inquiry provide useful insight into the likely effects of the proposed turbines on tourism. The harm I have identified to landscape character and the AONB might detract from the recreational experience of those who come to the area to enjoy these attributes, but there is nothing to demonstrate that this would deter them from coming in numbers that would significantly impact upon the tourist economy.

95. I appreciate concerns about the effects on specific local enterprises. Uncertainty about the likely implications of change to this landscape is understandably a matter of some anxiety for those making investment decisions about tourism infrastructure and local businesses. However, for this to weigh significantly against allowing the proposal there would need to be some evidential basis for finding that the turbines would materially affect tourism, and the evidence presented to the Inquiry falls short of doing so.

96. Limerstone Down is a favoured location for hang gliding and paragliding. It is a good take-off point for cross-country flying, allowing for a wide range of wind directions, with lower fields for landing if required. However, I am not convinced that the proposed turbines would necessarily mean that flying from this site ceased. No doubt such high and moving structures would add to the safety risk. But experienced flyers use Chillerton Down, notwithstanding the existing television mast. Those who considered the risk to be too high would be forced to use other, perhaps less desirable, locations, but it seems to me that the financial effects of doing so would be unlikely to have a significant impact on the island’s tourist economy. This is not a consideration which weighs heavily against allowing the appeal.

97. The effect of the turbines on equestrians was raised. The nearest bridleway that is a public right of way would be some 250 m from the turbines. This would exceed the 200 m exclusion zone advocated by the British Horse Society, and cited in PPS22CG. The permissive bridleway would run close to T2 and T3. But these could be closed, albeit at a cost to the landowner.90 Whilst this might necessitate the use of other routes, it is not a consideration of much significance in determining this appeal. The scheme would not be likely to pose a significant risk to those nearby by reason of ice throw or blade failure. I do not consider that the likely effects of the proposed wind farm on equestrians would weigh significantly against the proposal.

Now whilst this appeal decision alone does not set a precedent, I think its an useful reminder that for objections to stand up against any planning application they must be based on some rational argument that you can  justify and back up when challenged.

And finally returning to AAWT mission statement, landscapes are a living entity, that over generations  reflected the growth of humanity. Even in the last hundred years, the landscape of Anglesey has changed due to i.e larger farms, growing towns. You cannot preserve a landscape, for without allowing it to change to reflect the needs at any one moment in time, you will only eventually succeed in destroying the very thing you are trying to protect.

Concerns about Wylfa B following the serious incidents the Fukushima Daiichi power station?

Schematic UK EPR

The serious incidents at the Fukushima Daiichi power station is of serious concern to the whole world. If like me, you find the news bulletins not providing sufficient information; about what has happened at the nuclear plant, you might find the following blog useful Symmetry Factor.

For latest updates see Nuclear Energy Insitute website (includes schematic of BWR at Fukushima)
For latest press release from Fukushima plant operators see TEPCO English Website
Or see NISA - Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency of Japan

It is reactor 4 that is causing the greatest concern. It seems fuel rods stored in cooling ponds (during the shutdown period) may have been exposed to air. It is these cooling ponds that the helicopters and fire appliances are trying to refill and/or keep cool.

If this is not achieved in the worst case senario harmful radiation could be released into the atmosphere as the ponds are not within the containment building of the reactor, other than within the second containment building which was damaged by the explosions.

For the proposed European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) one of the designs being considered for Wylfa B, according to a Nuclear Directorate report – Step 3 Reactor Chemistry assessment of the EDF and AREVA UK Division 6 assessment report No AR09/036:

"2.3.5.2 Refuelling

303

Refuelling requires the removal of used fuel elements from the reactor core and replacement with new (or partially used) fuel assemblies via transfers between the refuelling cavity and the spent fuel ponds. The UK EPR refuelling process is very conventional in this sense, following the same principles as all previous generations of PWRs.

304

The principle difference of the UK EPR refuelling procedure to previous generations of PWRs is the use of the In-Containment Refuelling Water Storage Tank (IRWST). The IRWST is part of the reactor building and is a large volume, stainless-steel lined tank located inside the containment."

For more information about the UK EPR see Areva EDF website.

The other reactor design being considered for Wylfa B is the Westinghouse AP1000, this design also has a In-Containment Refuelling Water Storage Tank. See HSE Report Step 2 Fault Analysis Assessment of the Westinghouse Submission for the AP1000:

"The AP1000 provides for in-vessel retention with features that promote external cooling of the reactor vessel:

• The reliable multi-stage reactor coolant system depressurization system results in low stresses on the vessel wall after the pressure is reduced.
• The vessel lower head has no vessel penetrations to provide a failure mode for the vessel other than creep failure of the wall itself.
• The floodable reactor cavity can submerge the vessel above the coolant loop elevation with water intentionally drained from the in-containment refuelling water storage tank. "
  

For more information about the AP1000 see Westignhouse UK website.

Udpated 21:40 Additional information added.

The importance of 'pawb'

The residents of the island are not in favour of Wylfa B, is I think the message that PAWB, the anti nuclear campaign group were saying when they published the results of a survey of 500 they had commissioned. No surprise there then some would say, but I’m sure the survey carried out by Bangor University was all very scientific and correct.

One of PAWB’s concerns is nuclear waste, and how would future generations dispose of it safely. The thing though for me, at this moment in time, when you think of future generations; I suspect they would say nuclear waste is the least of their worries.

We are consuming and wasting far too much, whilst rushing blindly torwards the future ignoring most warnings about the problems we are causing. Call it what you may, but lets be clear we are not talking about saving the planet; her destiny is already mapped out in the stars. What we should be talking about is saving our civilisation, whether as pointed out by some you can call it ‘civil’ is a moot point. You need only study nature to realise what happens to a species that out grows its own food supply.

And of nuclear waste and what to do with it, 'store it safe for a very long time' is maybe the only answer we have at the moment, but we are rather good at storing things safely for a long time. True there are bad examples from the early days of nuclear development of how not to store nuclear waste, some of which is still a cause of concern at Sellafield. Maybe one day we will develop a means of making the waste safe quicker, than having to wait a very long time as it degrades to a safe level.

It's really down to a judgment call as to whether you think nuclear power today will burden or ease the plight of future generations. I think it is a finely balanced argument, but I believe that nuclear power is one of the best options available to us, which although will burden future generation, it will also in other ways lessen the destruction we leave behind.

Otherwise, we need to drastically reduce our reliance on electricity. In example, goodbye to gadgets like i-phones and i-pads, flat screen TV’s etc, not just because of the electricity they consume, but mainly due to the electricity used to produce them, to keep the networks running, and lets not forget the rare metals used in their production. We would need to embrace a mass transport system and say goodbye to individual electric cars, which are not as green as they are made out to be. But lets be honest, can you really say you could sell that message today?

Nuclear power is a proven technology, but still it’s important that the likes of PAWB keep on asking difficult questions and demand reasonable answers, for it’s an industry that needs proper scrutiny for our well being as well as those of future generations.

In welsh pawb means everyone.