On Thursday night I attended the latest public consultation exercise on Wylfa B, held at Cemaes Bay Village Hall, where two representatives from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) were present to consult and answer questions.
The meeting was well attended with over 60 persons in the audience -- including a small but vocal contingent from PAWB (People Against Wylfa B) who made clear their ongoing opposition to the plans to construct a second nuclear plant in Anglesey. They questioned the safety of on-site storage for spent waste (DECC response: new innovative storage methods now mean that waste would only need to be held on site for decades, rather than previous estimates of around 160 years); the costs to Anglesey taxpayers of having to support enhanced emergency services (DECC response: Horizon will pay business rates which will cover these services -- the example was given of Sizewell B which pays around £25 million per annum in business rates); Where the uranium will come from (DECC response: Australia); and other questions relating to largely to terrorism and ecological concerns.
There were also a very large number of pro-Wylfa B supporters in the audience, and later statements in support of the new plant -- including one from Cllr Aled Morris Jones, the chairman of Wylfa SSG -- resulted in loud cheers and applause.
I am a strong supporter of Wylfa B (and C, D, E, etc.) -- however, I would like Ynys Môn to have its cake and eat it too. Therefore in order to preserve the natural beauty of the rest of the island and ensure we can continue to grow our tourism industry, it is essential that National Grid is pressed to transmit the electricity generated by Wylfa B via marine cable rather than via the cheaper option of building further pylons across the island. National Grid will need to carry out a seperate consultation and planning application when they announce their plans (date unknown) however in the meantime I will be contacting them to ascertain their plans and press them to consider using marine cables.
50 comments:
Never thought of that- I assumed they would only need one or two more pylons and connect it to the National Grid?
Getting these 400kV cables underground rather than overground is technically possible but not very often done (cost being the usual excuse).
What stops them re-using the existing connection?
Were Horizon represented on Thursday?
Wylfa B will produce three time more power than the current power station. They can use the existing super grid connection but it will not have enough capacity in and of itself, hence the necessity for new cabling arrangements to transmit the power to the mainland.
A representative from Horizon was present and answered questions from members of the public after the meeting ended.
And therein lies the exact reason why Wylva B will not go ahead .... it can produce up to 3 x more power than the station it replaces.
Each of the new power stations planned for build throughout the UK can produce vastly more power than the station it replaces. Simple maths would suggest that we therefore only need to replace half or perhaps a third of the current nuclear sites to meet existing electrical demand.
Of course some people forecast that our need for more electrical power will increase considerably over the coming years. But, in truth, I suspect not.
We are no longer a major manufacturer, our skills are increasingly in the service and value added economies and our purchasing power relative to the rest of the world is set to decrease (and consumer consumption levels will fall accordingly).
And, as I said at the outset, therein lies the dilemma. No energy company can afford to take a risk that its power is not needed unless the government provides some form of guarantee in terms of pricing .... and so here we go again!
Why should the taxpayer be expected to pay for substantial amounts of generated electricity that has no use.
The chances of a Wylva B look very slim to me ..... if only because the language and educational issues will make the other sites immediate favourites (as always!).
The concept of the Energy Island has manifested itself as being the whole of the Island of Great Britain being able to provide Energy or in this case Nuclear and electricity for export to Europe.
kp, before making comments like that again, you may wish to go read something like Prof Mackay's freely downloadable book, Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air, from www.withouthotair.com (he was an adviser to the Blair government but don't let that put you off).
You may or may not be right about the nation's total energy use decreasing because of the death of manufacturing. It doesn't really matter.
We will very soon need to replace fossil fuels (coal, gas, oil) in as many applications as possible, for cost and availability reasons, and in most cases the only credible replacement is electricity, be it nuclear or some other flavour.
So whether or not the UK plc's total energy use goes up or down, it is likely our electricity use will only go up.
Enjoy the book.
I support Wylfa B but not without some reservations to do with safety, waste etc.
Is the new grid that will be required likely to run overland on the same route as the existing network?
An an underground and/or marine network would be preferable but in reality not likely, but its still worth trying for Druid.
Were there any worthwhile indications of employment prospects (numbers and skills) and timescales?
Anon 16:07
Sorry, but Prof. Mackay simply replaces one problem with another.
And, whilst what he advocates is, at this time seemingly attractive, in a few years will be regarded as naive and nothing more than a interim, short-term solution.
I don't pretend to have a better way forward. I just know that an over abundance of taxpayer supported nuclear power stations spread throughout the UK is no real answer.
Wylfa B MUST go ahead or this Island will never be able to claw it's way out of dependance on handouts from Westminster/Europe. If we don't have the capacity to provide energy to businesses then what business in its right mind would ever wish to come (or stay) here?
We can't rely on the current renewables because they're just not reliable enough (I'm talking about our plethora of Wind Turbines) and the NIMBYs who shout loudly against the raft of various Biomass proposals on the Island can't (or won't) realise what a golden opportunity they are for the Island to generate jobs, generate revenue and to clean up its own mess in a responsible manner.
If we don't start dealing with our own refuse soon costs are likely to quadruple when the stuff has to be taken across the border to England to be dealt with ...and then the NIMBYs there will be quite right in their condemnation of us for exporting our rubbish.
Fossil Fuels ARE running out, stack emissions time on fossil fuel power stations IS running out so they'll close soon. Unless something is done NOW it will all be too late ...too late to prevent this country being held to ransom by European energy suppliers and Anglesey being left as a pretty place on the edge of the UK where tourists can come and see how the poor and wretched live.
Anon 17:01
That was the argument when the original Wylva was built .... and Rio Tinto too.
Has anything changed?
kp - I recommend you read the following article from the Economist:
http://www.economist.com/research/articlesbysubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=1065809&story_id=14177328
Despite your comments regarding manufacturing, as you can see peak demand for electricity is expected to continue to rise for the foreseeable future. Furthermore in the future there will be less nuclear power stations (indeed DECC have already ruled out 3 existing sites for further development) but they will each generate more power, e.g. Wylfa B will generate approx. 3.3GW -- or 4% of a peak demand of approx. 70GW. Still a drop in the ocean.
Paul, I was disappointed by this post. Whilst you may not agree with PAWB, at least some of their concerns, especially concerning the waste issue which everyone knows is an entirely unknown quantity, are valid and require more careful treatment than the rather patronising tone you've used here.
Being a politician means representing everyone fairly. I have to say I'm reconsidering my support for you.
Anon 17:53 - To be fair I have purely listed a number of the concerns raised by PAWB and the response from DECC without any editorial comment (or tone) by myself.
kp wrote "Prof. Mackay simply replaces one problem with another."
If ever I saw hot air, that's an example.
Anyone who wants to attempt to disagree with Mackay will need facts, logic, and (ideally) numbers. I'm sure it can be done.
kp, you ain't anywhere near there yet, mate.
@Paul re The Economist
Thank you for that. There are plenty of other sources inside and outside the industry that will confirm the UK has a generation capacity (or demand management) problem in the next few years. But try to keep it quiet, please, don't want any panic. [SmartMeters aren't about getting you the cheapest electricity, they're about easily disconnecting you when there's not enough electricity to meet demand]
It is clear to people with eyes and the will to use them that this generation gap is the inevitable and widely predicted (but ignored) result of utility privatisation and the incompetent regulation which inevitably followed. Sorry Paul, but that was your lot's doing. Blair could and should have done something about it but we know now that he was a closet Tory anyway.
All comments duly noted.
I will go away and read some more.
Don't worry needlessly about Anon 17.53 Paul and don't be suckered by it's false cameraderie. It wouldn't have voted for you anyway
Anon @ 18.16. It is an unfortunate fact that 13 years of Labour in-action has put nuclear back on the agenda. Nuclear was talked about, throughout Labour's years in Government, as being a necessary 'evil' to avoid the black-outs when Peak Oil began to hit us without the provision of some other reliable domestic UK power source. Yet the party that by and large had once supported CND still ignored this countries looming power shortage problem. Then the debate shifted to 'energy security' and Labour - the party that had taken us into a war in the Middle East - still ignored the problem. Give the Druid a break! He cannot yet be accused of inaction!
"Give the Druid a break! He cannot yet be accused of inaction!"
Anon 18:16 here. I happily give the Druid a well deserved break, but I hope you (and maybe even he) will understand if I do not do the same for his Westminster 'colleagues' (all parties) past and present.
"the party ... ignored this countries looming power shortage problem"
Both parties left security of energy supply in the hands of "the market", and as was predicted before privatisation, "the market" inevitably focused on this year's and maybe next year's profits and ignored the five year (let alone ten year) picture. No surprise there, but a complete disaster in terms of sensible resource usage.
The post-privatisation "dash for gas" power stations should never have been allowed; gas was far too valuable a resource to be burnt for electricity when other options are available and practical and even economical if you take a twenty year view (ha ha ha).
But our gas is now mostly gone and we already rely on gas imports from nice people like Russia and Libya to keep our central heating going and our lights on.
I'm not keen on nuclear. I'd rather we could manage without it. Realistically, I don't see how we can, but I also don't see how we can get (enough of) them built in time.
On balance, all things considered, I'm probably in favour of the principle of Wylfa B, but we better get a move on for Wylfa and the rest, otherwise "notice of insufficient margin" will become a well known expression (we had two of them last winter, it wouldn't be a surprise if there were more this time).
Doubtless to the great annoyance of many I have read and re-read and find little reason to change my original thinking.
We have a series of options and a series of choices. Nuclear power is but one of many options and represents but one of many alternative choices.
For sure it will not bring everlasting prosperity and happiness to this island (just as it did not do the last time!).
For how long are we destined to repeat the mistakes of the past?
"Wylfa B MUST go ahead or this Island will never be able to claw it's way out of dependance on handouts from Westminster/Europe."
But they still want handouts from Westminster/Europe, they can't cope with so called independance and go running everytime they need money for the so called energy island as on the news tonight. They'll carry on wasting money on stupid planes and printing everything twice because of the language but when something important comes along they go running cap in hand, and they want us to vote for them!!!!!!!!!!
Anon @ 22.28- Fair cop, I find I agree with a lot of what you say.
Oh mazzy, I do detect a certain exasperation in your posting ......
And such exasperation is much shared by me and many others!
The moment you start offering 'incentives' to business the business is finished.
Again, how many times must we repeat the mistakes of the past!
KP;
"The chances of a Wylva B look very slim to me ..... if only because the language and educational issues will make the other sites immediate favourites (as always!)."
Was the language and education issue raised in the consultation?
I know that Cymdeithas Yr Iaith have loosely allied themselves with PAWB on this issue.
I did try to raise the problem last year on this site but was called all sorts of names for daring to suggest that the LEA would have to provide (or would be wise to provide) English medium primary schools specifically for the children of people on short term contracts on Ynys Mon.
Without those schools we risk losing some of the economic benefit of Wylfa B.
In reality we want whole families to move to Ynys Mon not just a working father who goes home every weekend.
I rather agree. But it seems there is great resistance to the re-introduction of English medium teaching, no matter how appalling the consequences.
Can someone please explain why?
They're playing 'pass the parcel' again between Westminster and Cardiff :-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-12152082
I thought it was straightforward - energy is a strategic area and thus comes under the remit of Westminster and likewise ports (and international airports)
"Can someone please explain why?"
I don't want to be uncharitable but it seems likely that everyone recognises that the lack of English Medium education is a significant deterent to young families moving in and setting up business.
Some years ago Ynys Mon and Gwynedd council commissioned Bangor university to research why people moved away or failed to settle.
The Welsh language and Welsh medium education were given as reasons in a lot of cases.
Since the councils clearly know of this negative effect we have to conclude that they are against business coming to North West Wales and are secretly only at ease with local businesses or public sector employment which has strict Welsh Language policies.
Remember what happened to the Snow Dome project in Gwynedd? It was rejected because it would employ 700 people. There aren't 700 unemployed in the area therefore the Snow Dome would "Endanger the Language and Culture".
Xenophobia rules ok?
Xenophobia rules ok?
What utter rubbish. And I say that as an English born, non-Welsh speaking resident of over a decade
Wales should be proud of it's culture and it's history and the fact it is different to England, Ireland Scotland and Ulster and should promote more Welsh language use by legislation of necesary. Slowly but surely Irish is being used more in the Republic and also in the Catholic dominated parts of Northern Ireland. Catalan is now widely used in it's area of Spain along with Basque further north.
I work for a major multi-national and when vacancies become available in France, Germany, Spain and even Russia there are plenty of UK applicants - with families - willing to move despite the language barriers.
"What utter rubbish."
All the evidence is that it is anything but rubbish, as the study found.
You cannot argue that there is no such thing as compulsory "Language impact assessments" and "TAN 20" planning regulations.
Do these things exist in Russia and Spain?
Nor do you address the question that I'm asking;
If a man is working on a three year contract on the construction of Wylfa B will he really want his young children educated through the medium of a little used obscure minority language? I think that it will be a deterent and I don't see how anyone could seriously claim otherwise.
"They're playing 'pass the parcel' again between Westminster and Cardiff :"
And the amount of money they're arguing about investing (over a number of years) is less than one percent of the bankster's bonus pool for this year alone.
'Wales should be proud of it's (sic) culture and ............'
For sure, Wales should be proud. But Wales is a country and a country that is made up of a lot of people other than Welsh.
People going to work overseas are invariably going for international jobs that require English as a main language. And whilst overseas they may well take the opportunity to learn another language but they still insist that their kids are educated in English.
Yes, let's have more use of the Welsh language in Wales, but, remember, it has a cost, and the biggest cost is to the future of your own children!
"People going to work overseas are invariably going for international jobs that require English as a main language. And whilst overseas they may well take the opportunity to learn another language but they still insist that their kids are educated in English."
Let's also remember that when going abroad to work a european foreign language is a very useful thing to have.
Welsh is compulsory for all pupils in Wales, foreign languages are not.
Which country in the UK has the worst performance in Modern Foreign Languages at GCSE?
Wales of course!
Within Wales which group of schools has the worst uptake of Modern Foreign Languages?
Welsh Medium schools!
Why did Estyn think this was so?
Welsh speaking MFL teachers were scarce.
Parents of pupils in Welsh Medium schools thought that ability to speak Welsh guaranteed a local job and therefore MFLs were a waste of time.
but they still insist that their kids are educated in English.
Sorry but you're wrong. Our company makes no provision whatsoever for their children to go to English schools and on the salary levels they certainly won't be putting them private
I almost forgot - look at Belgium - two main languages and severasl minor ones dependent on district you live in. Switzerland - three languages. And the Scots are also starting to bring Gaelic back as well.
Only lazy people (like me) struggle with Welsh but I don't have a chip on my shoulder about it being used and the fact I am excluded from some jobs (which will increase) does not bother me - I fully support it.
When in Caeser's land....
"I almost forgot - look at Belgium"
Not a good example... on the brink of splitting in two....The main fault line?
Language.
"Only lazy people struggle with Welsh"
Not what the Welsh Language Board says... They warn employers who take on staff on the understanding that they will learn Welsh that some people never reach proficiency and that it usually takes seven years of dedicated application to attain fluency.
In reality almost all fluent Welsh speakers have learned Welsh in the home from parents. In Anglesey and Gwynedd non-fluent Welsh speakers would have to be in a hard to recruit sector to have a chance of public sector employment.
You still haven't answered the question though; What makes you think that someone on a three year contract at Wylfa B wouldn't be put off by the prospect of their child being educated through the medium of Welsh?
Why do you oppose the setting up of dedicated English Medium Schools to cater for contractors coming to Anglesey?
What makes you think that someone on a three year contract at Wylfa B wouldn't be put off by the prospect of their child being educated through the medium of Welsh?
There are several serious flaws in your argument. You assume that the contractors coming to Wylfa B will be from elsewhere in the UK. As has already been pointed out, most of them will come from the mediteranean area - particulalry Greece, the Balkans and North Africa. They will be brought in and accommodated on site exactly the same as is going at the gas storage sites and the refinary sites and what happened at the Olympic sites. Not only can they not speak welsh, they can't even speak english. Not that it matters - they work 8 weeks on (7 days, 12 hours a day), 2 weeks off (including transport home), unless from the suib-continent in which case it's 3 month straight through renewable contract.
The more senior engineer/site management type-people etc would almost certainly not re-locate for 3 years. They would - as on most major construction sites in the UK - commute on a Mon-Fri basis and either rent housing or be housed in local hotels. Their lifestyle dictates that they roll from one site to another anyway and they would not be of a mind to continually uproot every couple of years (in fact three years on one project would be a luxury to most of them).
Funnily enough though, as part of management career plot for Tesco's, Morrisons, the ferry companies etc, they are in certain sectors posted as part of their career plot and they have to accept it and send their children to the local schools.
Stop making a drama out of nothing and as for Belgium - if you are so convinced it will seperate nip to Ladbrokes and put your house and pension on it.
PS - My brother is a senior construction site enginer and builds motorways (and tube lines and one of the stadia for the Olympics). He finds your views on construction employees and Wylfa "woefully parochial. So last century. Does he really think that there will be more than a handful of UK residents building Wylfa? How bizarre in this day and age. UK citizens cost to much. We (major construction corporations)can get well-qualified and well-experienced operatives for less than 10K a year from overseas on contract. Anglesey's employment future won't be the building of a power station. They need to look elsewhere to something that's unique in this day and age or compete with southern europe costs-wise"
Anon 17:27
Your comments about the labour force are interesting, especially in view of the alleged local employment benefits this project is going to bring, but how applicable is your picture to the specifics of the nuclear industry?
Are you making some assumptions too? The big one that strikes me immediately is you you seem to be assuming that any old civils contractor can bid for a nuclear power station build, and the build process works the same way as any other random big civils project. Is that actually true?
In the nuclear industry, importing the cheapest labour from half way across the continent is a (very) high risk strategy; that approach might be ok for relatively low risk low tech stuff like the Olympics but different criteria (should) apply to nuclear projects.
Would you like to see what you can find out about the widely reported troubles at Olkiluoto in Finland ? Or see if there are any reports from Flamanville in France ? These are two nuclear stations currently under construction, one a little bit late, one very late and very much over budget? I'd be interested, and those thinking Wylfa might bring Anglesey jobs for Anglesey people might be interested too.
You suggest UK companies may rule out UK labour because of costs. I wonder if UK companies may already be ruled out for nuclear certification reasons. Note also that the bidders are not UK based, and the design is not a UK design. I would not be hugely surprised if the eventual UK content was minimal.
I know Olkiluoto have already had big trouble with the quality of their civils ("the wrong kind of concrete" being poured and stuff like that), but what I don't know is why.
"Anglesey's employment future won't be the building of a power station."
Amen to that.
you you seem to be assuming that any old civils contractor can bid for a nuclear power station build, and the build process works the same way as any other random big civils project. Is that actually true?
The French & Germans will put out to tender and sub-contract to major construction companies - the likes of Balfours etc. Different companies will be used for different phases (for instance the A5025 road from the A55 to Wylfa will require significant upgrading, the living area of the sites will need constructing, site access roads, storage areas, holding areas, water, mains electric etc etc) and very few people will be involved right from start to finish. Those bigger corporations will in turn sub-contract further down and source foreign labour via 'ganger' specialist recruitment companies.. The 'quality' of the work will ultimately rest with the HSE and other Government agencies. Most of the construction work is simply that - construction work. The highly complex stuff (such as the reactor core and it's immediate surroundings) is handled by specialist companies (funnily enough, French & German as rule, the same as EDF & Horizon, although Israel & Russia are getting in on the act)
your comments about the labour force are interesting, especially in view of the alleged local employment benefits this project is going to bring
I happen to agree with the other anon. I think - and I've stated this on here previously - that the only guarenteed jobs that Wylfa B will create are the Power Station workers once it's built. Most of the construction pahse jobs will be as said above - imported contract labour - a lot of it on low wages from overseas, it's the way things are now.
It will be interesting to see what happens to the Wylfa A staff. Obviously if A overlaps with B then they can't be moved from one to the other. Similarly if A closes too long before B is operational, will the staff hang around on the dole for a couple of years? Or will they take the money and run.
KP, I'm proud of being Welsh but I hear people like you talking all day long in Spain not even making an attempt to fit in. I regard them ignorant and thick as well.
"Similarly if A closes too long before B is operational, will the staff hang around on the dole for a couple of years? "
How long before Wylfa A comes to the end of its current licence? 2012 is the current plan, is it not? Some staff will still be needed to wind A down gently through decommissioning, but obviously not the generating side folk. Many others go too, so I'm not sure who (or how many) will be needed. Will those "let go" get statutory minimum redundancy or will there be some enhancements?
With the best will in the world, even if Wylfa B got the go ahead tomorrow (which it won't), I reckon it won't be fully operational and contributing to the Grid for the best part of ten years (this is why our current electricity supply plan isn't looking good).
Maybe operational staff will be recruited a year or two before that to allow for training etc.
So in the absence of another extension or two for A, maybe if we're very very very very optimistic, that's five years or more between A making today's operations people redundant and B starting to recruit new ones.
If I was a gambling man, I might bet a few quid on another short extension. And then maybe another. But I could be wrong, and it's no way to plan an economy.
Correction welcome of course, but that's the way it looks to me (as an outsider not an insider).
"the only guarenteed jobs that Wylfa B will create are the Power Station workers once it's built"
I think "guaranteed" might be a bit optimistic.
Inevitable conclusion: There needs to be something else in Anglesey's decent-jobs toolbox as well as (and long before) Wylfa B operations staff.
Inevitable conclusion: There needs to be something else in Anglesey's decent-jobs toolbox as well as (and long before) Wylfa B operations staff.
I quite agree. That is the point I was making (badly). If Wylfa A employs 'X' number of people and Wylfa B employs 'X' number of people then we've actually created no jobs at all - just stood still. The construction phase between A & B will produce few jobs for locals and even fewer that last the entire 3 years - just parts of it. It is a much needed resource from a UK energy requirements perspective, but it's most certainly not the employment and local economy Holy Grail that it's being touted as.
With regards to Belgium;
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,734735,00.html
Looks kind of familiar to me.
All assumptions about the origin of the labour force during the construction phase are based on no political intervention.
As soon as Wylfa B is confirmed our local MP and AM (who may well be the Druid by then) will be bending over backwards to maximise local labour force involvement.
At the same time, with a worsening unemployment situation in Britain and newly elected Conservative AM in Anglesey, the ConDem government will be looking to get guarantees from contractors of employment for UK nationals.
Trade Unions will have gained strength in the face of job cuts and worsening conditions of employment and will press for a UK labour force in Anglesey.
What happened in the recent past, with demand for labour high and unemployment relatively low, is not a good indicator of what will happen in the future.
I suspect all these "My Brother knows best" objections are raised by "PAWB" supporters.
I still tend to agree with the other anon.
I doubt very much that the Druid - nice though he is - will win this seat. If anything I expect the Labour and Plaid votes to increase and Plaid to hold the seat. I also expect a shift to Laboyur/Plaid likewise on the council.
All of a sudden 'Tory' is a four letter word again. People where I work who have never voted in a decade are incensed with the coalition and a lot of Lib Dem voters I know will never vote Lib Dem again, intending to vote Labour. They've had enough of 2 years on no pay rises while the bankers laugh in their faces, outright lies from the Lib Dems and family memebers losing jobs left right and centre.
As for Wylfa B I'm neutral about it because I don't believe it will make that much difference to the island's economy over all. We have a nuclear power station; in 10 years time we'll probably still have one. Employment will probably be around the same in B as in A. No (or very little) change.
All I ask is that they (as a pprivate enterprise)receive no tax payers money, they charge a proper unsubsidised market rate and that all the waste and by-products remains within the UK. That way people will now for real what the true cost of nuclear power is.
I agree with Red Flag.
Strapworld said...I agree with Red Flag.
So do I. Damn fine observation.
I have been thinking about this Wylfa thing, initially I thought it was what we need BUT thinking about the Cemaes meeting I am getting worried. There were questions about how the generated electricity would be conveyed from the island. There were suggestions about undersea and underground. It was stated that thetwo 'under' options were too expensive and what would be provided was more pylons, that being the cheapest option. So, OK. Then guess that as cheapness is so vitally important, what we will get is the cheapest option reactors, doesn't that sound encouraging. Probably also the cheapest maintenance etc etc etc.
Why doesn't Anglesey have the courage to say "if you want to generate power here, this is how you will convey your product"
Meggawhat!!!! I know it is meant to be spelt that way
According to the 'Wylfa' website the existing power station produces 40% of the electricity used in Wales. Any new nuclear power station will produce a great deal more than that. Is this time to demand more from those outside the island who benefit? Yes ??
@Anon 22:58
Wise words. I have a scientific background, and am not afraid of the fission process or its consequences, WHEN PROPERLY MANAGED.
Experience shows that any profit-driven industry is barely capable of proper management of safety risks. Some may like to quote the aircraft industry; I say come back in a few years and then see how the numbers look.
In both cases we're living on engineering heritage at the moment; the manufacturer and approver and operator penny pinching hasn't fully worked its way through to incidents with effects. It will.
Would it be true to say that a planning application can only be made once 'due process' has been completed?
Due process would include public debate such as the meeting in Cemaes?
Some oponents voiced concerns that no answers had been given to questions on earlier occasions. The official representative did say it was impossible to answer all questions.
So in reality, it does not matter what is said or what is asked, as long as the box for Public Consultation is ticked the process can continue.
Post a Comment