Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station

The views expressed in this page do not represent those of the Planning Inspectorate. This page consists of content submitted to the Planning Inspectorate by the public and other interested parties, giving their views of this proposal.

Wylfa Newydd Nuclear Power Station

Received 13 August 2018
From Greenpeace


EN-6 does not apply to this development. Whilst some of EN-1 is not outdated, its nuclear policy read with EN-6 cannot apply to new nuclear operational after 2025. In context EN-1 does not apply to this application.

The policy objectives for new nuclear have not been met and the changes which have occurred since 2008 show that there is no justification for this development.

The 2008 policy was:

(a) new nuclear may be part of the future energy mix should the private sector build it without public subsidy. No new nuclear has been built on that basis. Hinkley has been given state aid, including top-up subsidy payments that may reach £50bn. This demonstrates Government policy is outdated and the harm caused by new nuclear vastly outweighs any benefit.

(b) new nuclear was needed urgently, and before 2025. This objective has not been met. No new nuclear power will be operational by 2025. Only Hinkley has obtained development consent but it is unbuilt and there remains uncertainty about whether it can be built. Nuclear power cannot be relied upon to provide the low carbon energy needed to tackle climate change. This evidence, which has emerged since 2008, must be considered.

Renewable energy, particularly offshore wind which is a comparable large-scale, low-carbon technology, can produce electricity at a lower price and sooner meaning lower cost for the consumer and public purse. Between 2012-2017, the cost of offshore wind fell by 50% to a price significantly less than nuclear. In a modern energy system, with a flexible grid, renewable generation plus more interconnectors and storage will deliver all the electricity the nation requires.

The harm caused would far outweigh any benefit because

(a) It cannot provide low carbon electricity in time or for value for money and
(b) Its operation relies on transporting and using hazardous materials and creating exceptionally hazardous and indestructible waste for which there is no solution.

Due to technical difficulties experienced by many new nuclear stations across the developed world, and the high price of nuclear electricity, the Committee on Climate Change’s June 2018 Progress Report stated that nuclear power carried a delivery risk, and that ‘if new nuclear projects were not to come forward, it is likely that renewables would be able to be deployed on shorter timescales and at lower cost.’ In July 2018, the NIC’s first report stated: ‘a quiet revolution in renewable costs means government should prioritise wind and solar.’

The proposal would never be privately financed and/or built/operated and the benefits will never be realised. The granting of development consent would cause harm by diverting resources away from renewable energy projects that are less risky, more quickly delivered and more cost-effective.

More harm: no solution to waste.

The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in 1976 said that new reactors shouldn’t be built until the waste problem has been solved. The government still haven’t solved it, and the proposal would add to the problem. For decades the government has failed to find a community willing to host this growing stockpile of high-level radioactive waste. Making the problem bigger makes it both more urgent, and more difficult to solve.

More harm: the transport of hazardous materials poses additional obstacles.

There is no clarity on the security of movement of highly hazardous materials in Europe, or the basic logistics of how the industry will work following Brexit. This raises not only the inherent problem and dangers of transporting radioactive materials but also makes investment improbable.