Whichever way you spin it, we are a long, long way away from seeing anything happen at Wylfa

Perhaps if the money for this is directed to public owned green options, we will be in afar better place even before the last bit of concrete may or may not be poured. Adding a foreign owner into the mix increases our costs, and then there is storage of waste that will need looking after for a very long time. how is hinkley doing?

The process to select new nuclear locations hasn’t yet been decided, and Wylfa has a lot stacked up against it The Electricity System Operator has yet to publish the national spatial plan. In 2019 the Planning Inspectorate recommended that the then proposed nuclear development be refused due to, amongst a long list of issues, unacceptable impact on biodiversity, local communities and the Welsh language. The newly revised National Policy Statement EN-1 suggests thermal power stations should be located where the waste heat (ca 60% of thermal output) can be usefully used for low carbon heating. Hitachi have already shown that this is not viable at Wylfa. The Holistic Network Design from the Electricity System Operator includes much reinforcement to accommodate offshore wind (now classed as a critical national priority) but includes no spare grid capacity for any new nuclear. It could be argued that Wylfa is one of the worst sites for nuclear development, and attention should focus on sites closer to major demand centres (eg Bradwell, Oldbury) where the grid issues will be less and the waste heat can provide an additional revenue stream.  The reason Hitachi pulled out in 2019 is because as a tech company (who sells nuclear technology) they could never own and operate a nuclear power station. This was made very clear in the public consultations. However they failed to find a buyer! The often repeated story is that they “failed to reach a financial agreement with the government”, which is simply glossing over the truth I suspect the recent news has more to do with the forthcoming election.

In the Engineer Ieuan Wiiliams writes: "Frankly, why are we putting ourselves through the constant misery of dealing with anti-nuclear zealots who seem to hate science?' " I wonder what the many Labour voters who have opposed the Wylfa B project for the last 36 years make of that. And the many first rate scientists who have supported the anti-nuclear movement in the best interests of the community. The economic case for renewables is overwhelming, renewables can now do the job without nuclear and without toxic waste, and they can provide exciting job opportunites for young people. Nuclear is yesterday's technology.

Something which could transform the economic situation on Ynys Môn, and which Westminster could act on RIGHT NOW, is offshore wind The Irish Sea off the north coast of Wales has the potential for four more wind farms the size of Mona (1.5 GW) which is currently in the planning process. This will have to happen one day or the U.K. will struggle to reach net zero, so rather than “one day” why not “right now” From the figures available from BP (the Mona and Morgan developer) this would create a greater number of permanent jobs than a new power station and require less temporary (non local) jobs during construction Holyhead port would be essential for the offshore supply vessels, Valley for the helicopters, and various business parks for the ops and maintenance bases. There is even an advantage of having a freeport (outside the 12 mile limit installation is classed as export) The latest thinking from Ofgem is offshore transmission for offshore wind is faster, cheaper and less disruptive to communities, so the lack of north Wales grid capacity is easily overcome by HVDC cables to Deeside and Pembroke from an offshore substation We could finesse this with a hydrogen plant at Amlwch and a peaking station, but let’s not go mad The thing that makes this really long term sustainable is the key things it needs are wind and the sea, things Ynys Môn has had in abundance since the beginning of time

Far from being the oft-misquoted 'best site' for new nuclear in the UK, let alone Europe (a statement penned only by Horizon's CEO with NO backing argument), significant concerns exist about a plant's potential impact on the environment, local communities, and the Welsh language, as highlighted by the government's own 2019 Planning Inspectorate's recommendation against the previous development proposal. The potential for radioactive accidents and long-term waste disposal are major concerns. The 2011 Fukushima disaster serves as a stark reminder of the risks associated with nuclear technology. The construction and operation of nuclear power plants can harm surrounding ecosystems and biodiversity, as highlighted by the Planning Inspectorate recommendation. Furthermore, the revised National Policy Statement emphasises using waste heat from thermal power stations for low-carbon heating, which isn't feasible at Wylfa. This raises concerns about its overall efficiency and potential contribution to decarbonization goals. Moreover, the grid infrastructure is ill-equipped for Wylfa. The Holistic Network Design prioritises offshore wind, a critical national priority, but lacks spare capacity for new nuclear plants. How anyone purporting to love Ynys Môn can stand in that "idyllic" field beside Wylfa and say it would be better with a nuclear power station built upon it, is beyond all comprehension. While Wylfa evidently has its supporters (not that anyone ever asks us), the site faces significant hurdles in terms of environmental impact, grid capacity, and regulatory limitations. As the debate on new nuclear development continues, a comprehensive assessment of alternative sites and their potential contributions to a cleaner energy future is crucial.

A quick “fag packet” energy balance shows that if new nuclear stations were built where the waste heat could be usefully used then we would only need half the number of them. A 2 GW (electric) nuclear station wastes 3 GW of heat in the cooling water (usually sea water) If 1 GW of that electricity were used in domestic heat pumps, for decarbonised heating, it would produce 3 GW of central heating … if we just used the 3 GW directly from the power station, we can use the whole 2 GW for charging EVs So build them where the waste heat can be used and we only need to build half the number In Wales the only places where district heating would be viable are the north east (Deeside/Wrexham) and the south west (Swansea to Newport) Taking things a step further, co-locate the nuclear stations with hydrogen production for industrial use eg green steel making (Port Talbot would be ideal) Given that the U.K. has a pretty poor track record for building infrastructure, and nuclear has a pretty poor track record for schedule adherence, getting the most out of those we do manage to build would surely be a winner

The reason the Hitachi project failed was because the stock exchange would severely punish a tech company had they decided to become a power utility Tech and utilities have entirely different P/E ratios, so Hitachi would NEVER have owned and operated Wylfa. They only bought the project to create a customer for their reactors. Sizewell on the other hand has always been owned by an operator (EDF)

A strange radioactive dream of the future. For anyone who understands the toxic legacy that a nuclear power station leaves behind - see The Guardian's series on Sellafield 2023 -and the innumerable serious life threatening problems that come with the nuclear industry, the idea of installing round 2 of Wylfa power station is horrifying. You have to have your head stuck very far into the ground to not see the negative sides of the Wylfa part 2 argument. This a technology that threatens our future. It does not pave the way for prosperity as the nuclear industry likes to believe. Look at the storms and severe weather conditions happening across the world look at the data for rising temperatures and sea levels, look at the track record of France' NP stations in heat waves and drought periods . You can't turn an NP power station on and off . The weather is volatile and unpredictable across the world from here on in. The list of negatives is so long i never know where to start. But if you read the glossy brochures by the industry there is no mention of the negatives - broaden your research. Be wise in what you say. This time period is very precious for the future of humanity. The decisions we make now matter so much. I hope you understand that.

What a navel-gazing, indulgent and sycophantic article. But what else can you expect from a pro-unionist establishment candidate.

Why don’t politicians move on from nuclear. Just because Anglesey had Wylfa doesn’t mean there has to be another one. If we kept the mindset of “but we’ve always done it that way” we wouldn’t have electric vehicles or mobile phones. Times change. Technology has moved on from nuclear. Hydro, solar, wind. That’s where the money should go. That’s where the jobs are and they are so much quicker to get up and running.

“… as is well documented, everything fell apart, and the Japanese wasted over £2 billion with absolutely nothing to show for it.” Actually, if you check the Hitachi share price (as I did), for the day the Wylfa cancellation was made public, their share capitalisation rose by £6 bn, so maybe not absolutely nothing. It also freed up cash to acquire ABB Powergrids (smart grids for renewables) which was what the FT were saying was their best move