People For Wylfa B

by Paul Smith

There are often need for compromises and I think that on balance Wylfa B should go ahead.

Nuclear technology is now much safer than it used to be and disposal is also safer.

Given the climate change problem partly caused by burning fossil fuels, nuclear must be one of the several clean energy solutions.

I would only say that nuclear must be able to compete economically with other sources of clean fuel.

Frankly I am tired of seeing stickers saying No to Wylfa B. Why does someone not produce some stickers saying Yes to Wylfa B?

Editor: Thanks for your contribution Paul. While there is a role for alternative energy sources, I think it is widely acknowledged that these, principally wind, solar, tidal and biomass, can only ever make an addition at the margins.

We must also remember that much of the renewable source has the problem of intermediation, so turbines don't turn on flat calm days, and solar is only effective for half a day at best. Unlike coal, gas and nuclear, the renewables don't provide the essential baseload, which we take for granted in our lives.

I forgot to mention hydroelectric which also makes a contribution for the peaks, and we have a local source at Llanberis.

For more local articles and stories, subscribe to our free Anglesey Newsletter here. It's as easy as 1-2-3!

Comments for People For Wylfa B

Click here to add your own comments

Aug 11, 2015
by: Anonymous

It is useful and getting a lot of new information here write my college assignment so many thing and get the full of chance for it.

Mar 10, 2015
Reply : People For Wylfa B
by: Danny

This post on the advancements in nuclear technology was much informative and useless. I would like to know more on People For Wylfa. I have never heard of the term Wyfla before. Please explain more so that I can understand.

Jan 25, 2012
Wylfa B questions
by: Phil Steele

Hi Paul, how are you? I for one will be keeping my No to Wylfa B stickers!

Re disposal: I don’t think it a wise decison to store spent fuel on site for the next 160 years, as proposed for Wylfa B.

This will be twice as radioactive as current legacy waste. Who can predict economic, political or technological security over such a long period?

Re safety: no decsion has yet been made as to which type of reactors would be built. The Toshiba Westinghouse design, much criticised at planning stage, has yet to be built anyhwere in the world.

The two EPRs being built in Finland and in Normandy have been disastrous in terms of cost, delay and design flaws.

Re ‘clean’ nuclear, the full nucler cycle includes uranoum mining, transport, construction and decommissioning, hardly low carbon activites.

Re the editorial points: renewables already can meet the gap, they just need the investment. Watch China coming up on the outside with cheap solar.

Re reliability, how often are the reactors turned off at Wylfa? A large amount of the time!

Jan 19, 2012
we need wind energy
by: Jeff

I dont want nuclear on our island. let's have free energy with wind, we have no worries about waste and rector probs.

look at the jobs we can have building the tuirbines!!

Click here to add your own comments

Return to Wylfa B Yes or No?.

footer for Anglesey page